[Matt_Ward]

I've included below an article that will appear in the Spring Issue of Jersey Golfer in the next 7-10 days. Since many people who post / lurk on GCA do not live in the state I wanted to share what was said from the interview I had with the former USGA Technical Director.

I'm posting part one of the article now -- the rest will be posted later this afternoon. Enjoy ...

THE 'INSIDER' AS OUTSIDER / FRANK TALK FROM THOMAS
by Matthew J. Ward / Editor-in-Chief
The Jersey Golfer

A few years ago Russell Crowe starred in the title role in the movie "The Insider." The acclaimed film told the story of a high level corporate executive with critical information within the tobacco industry.

To understand Frank Thomas you have to comprehend the constantly evolving nature of technology, it's impact on golf, and the role he served for the United States Golf Association (USGA). For 26 years Thomas served as Technical Director. During the time frame of 1974-2000, Thomas was the central figure in recommending what was approved and disapproved regarding equipment used by all players in America. What many don't realize is that there were instances when Thomas recommended certain specific actions, but the USGA ultimately balked at carrying them out.

When one looks at the 26-year-period you see some of the most dramatic changes that have shaped and continue to shape the golf industry and its impact on the overall game. Now after leaving and starting his own consulting group, this former "insider" shares his views as an outsider today.

Born in South Africa, the 63-year-old lives in Chester (NJ) -- just a handful of miles from his former work place in Far Hills. Thomas personally witnessed the transformation of the USGA's technical department -- from an initial budget of $200,000 to $3 million when he left. "We only had some 22 people when I joined the USGA -- when I left I think there were 350 or so including the part timers," said Thomas. "The goal, and what I was asked to do when I joined the USGA was to set the overall distance standard for golf balls and assemble a research team to develop and monitor equipment standards." During his tenure Thomas made over 5,000 equipment decisions and only a handful were reversed during his time in Far Hills.

In speaking with Thomas you hear his continued respect for the USGA. "The USGA is a wonderful organization -- we need it. I still have 'USGA' tattooed on my backside," said Thomas. But the engineer describes how decision making within the walls at Far Hills often went beyond the application of good science. "I wish I had the ability to help some, otherwise intelligent people, have a clear view of the future and understand the consequences of their decision. I still cringe when I think about some of the very questionable decisions made by non-technical people on technical issues and these decisions seem to be ongoing. Many decisions were influenced more by the potential legal consequences than what was necessarily in the best interests of the game of golf. We are now realizing the consequences of some of those decisions." Thomas acknowledges, "I am not a politician."

For Thomas the focus of the USGA is a major concern. "The USGA has concentrated too much on the way the elite player plays the game. All the rules are written with them in mind," said Thomas. "I think the manufacturers, on the other hand, see this differently and concern themselves more about the average golfers and the size of the market, in order to make a buck. But I also think equipment companies respect the need for an organization to maintain some semblance of order. And in so doing (the USGA) should rigidly enforce the rules or change them, but not capriciously compromise them."

But the definition of order can be a rather tricky issue to define as each side spins the argument to suits its objectives. "If you keep moving the line the equipment companies will continue to get away with it until they eventually are the major force in the governance of equipment in the game," says Thomas.

Thomas does admit though even technology has its limits. "We've gotten to the maximum efficient size on club heads and the ball is about as close to aerodynamic perfection as it can get," said Thomas. "Still, you have to monitor what takes place because new developments may rob the game of its fundamental challenge."

But the melding of science and working through the internal bureaucracy of the USGA complicated the factors in working there. In talking with Thomas you get the impression of a man who embraces the roles of the USGA, yet is puzzled on how those who are there failed to see what really needs to be done. "The USGA is a voluntary non-profit organization -- it's not a corporation in the private sense," said Thomas. "I worked through 14 (USGA) presidents -- some of whom had their own agenda and each of the incoming committees had to be re-educated."

When Thomas started as Technical Director the shelf life of various products produced by the key equipment companies was several years -- not it's rare when new products aren't announced each and every year. Equipment manufacturers are constantly pushing the margins of the rules established by the USGA because the total number of players involved in golf has stagnated. Given this reality there is a never ending quest for increased market share among all the equipment manufacturers in order to boost the botton line and show profit to their many nervous investors.

But there were people Thomas greatly respected within the equipment industry. "I have a lot of respect for the industry because I understand them and that's where I got started. Unfortunately, they are caught between their heart and billfold," said Thomas. "I respected Karsten Solheim (founder of Ping) and his tenacity -- a guy who had a mission and stuck to it. He influenced the world as far as golf equipment was concerned. We clashed on the groove issue (a lawsuit eventually settled between Ping and the USGA) and after it was done we were back again as friends. I also respected Ely Callaway (former President & CEO of the leading equipment company in the world) for not only was he interested in becoming a major player in the game, but he also wanted to provide enjoyment to the average golfer in playing the game."

As Thomas can attest -- sometimes the role of the USGA -- to protect the best interests of the game, can run into a major obstacle with equipment companies who have often viewed the USGA as being a major impediment in achieving their aims. " There are some very influential and wise people heading the major golf companies today who understand, and are trying to protect the game and its future."

For Thomas improving golf's future rests squarely on the focus that's needed. "We have to recognize the game is still tough -- it's intimidating -- it costs a lot to play -- and we spend too much time doing it," says Thomas. "We need beginner type courses -- bunny slopes. I mean you don't learn to drive on the Autobahn."

Since leaving the USGA Thomas has entered a new phase of his life. His new venture includes not only golf consulting, but also an equipment company that designs and builds putters. The passion and love for golf still burns within him.

"I want to inform golfers of the facts about equipment, and, most of all, I want to help people realize their potential because this is such a marvelous game," said Thomas. "We must protect the challenge clearly, but with the game being so tough we really need to look at it with different glasses than we have in the past."

*At a Glance* Frank Thomas

-Born March 19, 1939 (Springs / Transvaal, South Africa)

-Resides Chester, NJ

-Introduced to golf at age 9 by his father. Major golf influencer -- Bobby Locke

-Sailed from the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic and on to the United States aboard a 25-foot sailboat.

-Professional: Chief Design Engineer, National Sales Manager / Golf, Shakespeare Sporting Goods Company 1966-73, invented the first graphite shaft.

-Technical Director, United States Golf Association, 1974-2000. In 1977 redesigned and introduced the "Stimpmeter" and in 1979 directed the development of the GHIN (handicap system).

-Assembled one of the most respected research teams in golf.

-Responsible for introducing and modifying the rules of golf governing equipment.

-Founder and principle of Frankly Consulting and Frankly Golf.

-Chief technical advisor to Golf Digest.

-Golf handicap - 5.3 / Club Affiliation - Somerset Hills, Bernardsville, NJ

MORE ON THOMAS TO FOLLOW ...

ESPECIALLY HIS COMMENTS ON ...

14 Club Maximum Rule
The Long Putter
Metal Clubs
Maximum Length of Drivers and Head Size
Springlike Effect
The Ball
The Future

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

I'm very happy to see Frank Thomas' comment about the need for beginners' courses. He is absolutely right.

By coincidence I just happened to visit one yesterday. I had about an hour free time, so I went down to "Little Met", a  nine hole course that is part of the Cleveland Metroparks system. The course is exactly what Thomas has in mind:

- 2,500 yards
- no forced carries
- no bunkers
- no water hazards
- a beautiful park setting
- deer frequently seen
- $6-9 green fee

I think the only problem with the course might be #1. At 395 yards, it is awfully long for people who play the course. Most don't hit tee shots more than 50-75 yards. Even the best players maybe hit 150 yards. So for an opening par four it is a monster. But, it is wide open and the chances of losing a ball are minimal.

Matt, it is difficult to spend an hour on the practice putting green - in full view of the first tee - and not come to the conclusion that the golf industry is making a big mistake ignoring the fact that most people can't break 100 on a decent golf course. Little Met is just a great reminder of how difficult golf really is for people taking up the game.

We need far more courses like Little Met.

[Norbert P]

-Sailed from the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic and on to the United States aboard a 25-foot sailboat.

  



[/quote]
MORE ON THOMAS TO FOLLOW ...

[/quote]

Great article Matt. One I think would do well in a national magazine as well.  Thanks for sharing with us.  When do we get more?

[Norbert P]

I'm very happy to see Frank Thomas' comment about the need for beginners' courses. He is absolutely right.

Tim, I glommed onto his statement as well.  Could the next golf boon be in beginner courses, or at least, mid-iron courses? Could be a niche for an archie. I think there is a market for them and would do well for the growth of the game.

[Lou_Duran]

Tim,

I agree with your comments, but can these type of courses survive on their own?  If not, who should subsidize them?  The USGA?  Various golf industry associations?  Local government?

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou,

I make no pretense about knowing the economics of building and maintaining courses for beginners. You are probably right to suggest some form of subsidy might be necessary.

Maybe a joint approach would make sense with local governments supplying land and the USGA providing support in the form of architectural fees.

In any case, it is time to recognize that the industry has been building too many courses that are too long, too hard and too expensive to play. We need more stuff at the other end of the spectrum for people of modest means to learn how to play the game.

[Matt_Ward]

Part II

NO 'DOUBTING' THOMAS HERE!

With equipment issues becoming more and more critical to the health of golf and those connected to it -- how would Frank Thomas have decided several key issues effecting the      today? There's no "doubting" Thomas here as the "judge" weighs in.

14 CLUB MAXIMUM RULE

"Limit the number of clubs to ten for the world class professionals, graduate to 12 for the best amateurs and leave in place the maximum of 14 for the average player. Although most people would likely do much better if they limited themselves to eight. The reality is that the challenge in shaping shots would be brought back to the elite levels. You could administer this quite easily as all that is needed is the ability to count and it would not hurt the manufacturers simply because the bulk of clubs is purchased by the average player."

THE LONG PUTTER

"There was discussion by the USGA not to approve it initially, but because the Senior champion at the time, Orville Moody, had already used it the feelings of certain people changed. From a technical point of view the long putter does allow you to putt the ball more efficiently. You can't allow equipment to substitute for skill."

METAL CLUBS

"The first generation of metal clubs really didn't do that much except to offer a bit more forgiveness. In fact, the first metal clubs probably helped the average player more so than the professional player in the same way as toe-heel weighting and cavity back designed clubs have done."

MAXIMUM LENGTH OF DRIVERS AND HEAD SIZE

"There was an initial proposal to limite the length of drivers to 47 inches and a head size no more than 385 cubic centimeters. This was proposed in the midst of the debate on the coefficient of restitution (COR) controversy. The USGA based their beliefs on a clause called "traditional and customary." Three weeks afterwards the proposal was changed from 385 to 460 cc for head sizes. It's shocking how quickly tradition changed!

Are bigger clubheads and longer shafts going to allow the elite player to hit it even further? Only the average golfer, if anyone, is likely to gain a few yards because of the length of the shaft and the larger head size, but will lose control."

SPRINGLIKE EFFECT

"In 1983 it was proposed, and it was adopted to include a provision in the rules not to permit springlike effect. We didn't define it (springlike effect) because it's like saying no smoking -- it's that clear. In 1995 club faces were made bigger to be more forgiving and it became apparent existing steel faces were collapsing. Manufacturers turned to titanium because of its strength and light weight. The faces were so thin they acted like a trampoline even though manufacturers didn't know this immediately. This phenomenon, having been brought to our attention in late 1996, I initiated a report to the USGA Executive Committee of the potential for increased distance, but in 1998 the committee backed down when the equipment companies rattled their swords (the USGA held a major press conference before the start of the U.S. Open Championship at The Olympic Club).

I believe these clubs could have been disapproved immediately for the pros and major amateur events. If necessary a grace period to phase them out could have been implemented -- say over 6-10 years for those of us who had them. You now see a 10-15 yard improvement at the elite level. Worse yet -- the gain really comes to the benefit of the better player who can achieve the maximum benefit of the spinglike effect with consistent ball striking. It was a key moment in time to get a handle on what was happening and was missed."

THE BALL

"There were some members of the Executive Committee who were concerned that manufacturers would eventually make two piece balls play like wound balls and that the pros on tour would thus be hitting the ball farther than when using the wound ball.

This eventually turned out to be the case, but this did not have any effect ont he standard (the Overall Distance Standard was adopted in 1976). A proposal in 1998 to modify the standard to take into account, and test each ball at its optimum launch conditions and also increase the ball velocity was considered and may still be adopted. This is the most sophisticated and most scientifically advanced standard regulating equipment in the world of sport."

THE FUTURE

"Objection from the manufacturers means potential litigation, and avoiding this influences many equipment related decisions. This in turn affects the integrity of the influence the USGA has in its role as guardian of the     , and certainly in its capacity to regulate equipment. This is unfortunate indeed."

*****

I'll post a few other comments that I gleaned from talking with Thomas after others weigh in with their thoughts. Please realize because of space limitations we could not also include the comments of others within the equipment industry -- it's something I would have liked to have done, but being a small regional publication didn't allow for it.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"I must say, that the governing bodies cannot allow themselves to be distracted and much less parlayzed by legal concerns.  I should also say that, for whatever my judgment may be worth, properly handled, dealing with this problem has zero legal exposure."

-- Sandy Tatum

[Matt_Ward]

One of the more interesting aspects in my interview with Frank Thomas was his statement that the wound balls from the late 50's all the way through the early 90's had resulted in approximately about 12 additional yards from the new technology. With the advent of new two piece balls you can add another 10-15 yards, but I also have to add that Thomas appeared to be quite resolute in saying that further advances with the ball appear to be difficult given all of the aerodynamic advances that have been previously made and with the forthcoming new USGA Overall Distance Standard ready to come forward.

The real push in the distance area came with the inability by the USGA to get a clear handle when springlike effect came forward in 1998. Remember the debacle of the press conference at Olympic Club when Buzz Taylor (former USGA President) was basically muzzled by others within the organization? Simply following its own definition that "there shall be no springlike effect" would have helped enormously before the floodgates opened.

The real question is does the USAG have the wherewithal to handle the position of "guardian of the game" or is it simply interested in collecting more $$ from its TV contract to feather its growing bank account.

I just have to wonder do lovers of the game hold Thomas responsible for the lack of aggressive efforts within the
USGA? In my discussion with him his only regret was not being a better politician because he cites numerous situations in which his alternatives were simply ignored.

[ForkaB]

Thanks Matt.  Great interview.

The only quarrel I have with Franks T's comments is regarding the ball.  I do not doubt his claim that the USGA's ODS procedures are state of the art, but I wonder how realistic are the premises whcih underly these procedures (e.g. 109 mph swing speeds, traditional launch angles, etc.).  Did Frank have anything to say about the ProV1x?  Do you?

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

The most important thing I gleaned from talking with Frank Thomas is his belief that the ball is really maxed out as far as how much distance can be gained. Part of the issue relating to the "spike" we've seen in distance on the PGA Tour and among the elite is because for so long they've played the old wound ball which really provided maximum control.

When the two piece ball came onto the scene and the degree of control was still included you saw the mass exodus away from wound balls to what you now see today. Think for how long Titleist always believed the wound balls were the panacea for those seeking to play their best.

Thomas doesn't see much more coming from the ball side because in his mind it's aerodynamically maxed. Clearly, the new protocol coming from the USGA in revising the Overall Distance Standard will more accurately reflect what is happening with today's balls given that the previous standard has been left in the lurch for too many years. Measuring clubhead speed at a more realistic figure and also testing the optimum launch angle of the balls will also "fence" in future advances of the sort we've seen in the last 10 years.

Nonetheless, the USGA dropped the ball in a number of ways.

Look at how the Long Putter became a part of the golfing scene!

Look at how springlike effect was allowed to venture into the game because the USGA failed to heed the points made by its former Technical Director. If there's one area where things really started to change it's when titanium heads came onto the scene. The 15-20 yard bump that came from this only served to widen the gulf between the elite and the masses.

Rich, regarding the new testing standards I think the USGA is f-i-n-a-l-l-y coming to the table with a protocol that will more accurately reflect how particular balls can be "maxed" by the world's best.

But, I have to take issue with this though that with the inclusion of the new ProV1x you now have people hitting 300 yard drives on command. Clearly, the strongest have gotten stronger but to think that Mike Weir (all 150 soaking pounds of him) is busting it 300 yards with each and every drive is utter nonsense.

If people really bothered to check the statistics -- not just the hype of "paid" endorsers hyping what they play -- you'd see that certain players have added some distance -- possibly 10 to 20 yards -- but plenty of that "added" distance came from prime playing conditions and from fairways that were giving plenty of roll -- but much of that came from having the kind of drivers we see today too. A number of the western stops on the PGA Tour were fortunate to have really dry weather and as a result you saw plenty of shots running out.

Part of the "fun" in having a new product come on board can be tied to what Thomas mentioned to me as the "placebo effect." Just the thought that something is "new" can have an effect on someone playing just a bit better than what he's done previously. This doesn't last forever because as one becomes used to playing the product the new-"ness" begins to have less of an effect.

What really should upset most golfers is how the USGA slept at the switch because the technical recommendations were there to be acted upon. As much as people talk about the ball -- here on GCA and elsewhere, it was the added element of larger size clubheads with titanium faces that really caused so much of what disturbs so many today.

[ForkaB]

Matt

I generally agree with all you are saying, but.....in my very limited experience (3 rounds) playing a ProV1x with a melon-headed Titanium driver, there is a significant difference in that ball, and, it's all carry/hang time, not roll.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I agree with your observation that the technology problem in golf is a combination of factors. Anyone can just get out their old persimmon drivers and they will realize how different they are, i.e., how much more precise you have to be swinging the club. Bombing away isn't so easy.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

I hear what you're saying but answer this if you can?

What type of ball did you play prior to the ProV1x? How much carry did you have on your former drives -- approximately to what you are getting now? Have you lost any element of "control" -- in simple terms -- has your short pattern become "tighter" or is there greater dispersion. Some people I know are hitting the ball longer but they are also putting themselves at-rick with less overall control because of the bigger size heads and longer shafts. Hitting one out of three is a great baseball average but not so good in golf as you well know.

Getting personalized feedback really helps put this whole discussion into some form of perspective. As an FYI I'll be glad to do the same if you think it helps. Thanks!

[GeoffreyC]

The additional boost we are seeing in the last year also comes from the scientific testing of individual golfers on a launch monitor. The combination of the ball, thin titanium head and a variety of shaft options (not to mention puring of the shafts) lets every professional or amateur with enough time and $$$$ teh opportunity to optimize distance with their swing characteristics. Why else would pros find one driver out of maybe 20 tested even with the same shaft (graphite isn't as uniform as steel) that's optiimum for them in terms of distance and accuracy? Hell, Nike even tweeked the ball for Tiger and Duval to optimize launch characteristics with their new equipment. Is it a wonder why the gap between pro and amateur abilities is growing?

[George Pazin]

Matt, I'm a little surprised you're against the long putter. Doesn't it help grow the game? Are that many tournaments being won by those using it that it's upsetting the balance?

Does anyone out there believe the ball is maxed out? Seems to me Mr. Thomas has been saying this for the last 2-3 years.

My background is 99% scientific & I sure don't believe it. Never discount what engineers can come up with next if properly motivated.

I'd be curious to know why the USGA & R&A have been so slow to adopt a new method of testing the ball that more accurately reflects the game today. Shouldn't this have been done, oh, say, 10-15 years ago?

The very fact that a standard exists for ball distance means that many think it is a potential problem. Why have things been allowed to spiral out of control?

[A.G._Crockett]

George,
He says the ball is maxed out because the current balls used on tour are still not the longest available at retail, and are well within the ODS.  Balls haven't gotten longer; long ball technology is now available in a tour-quality ball.  That's why the problems are so difficult to address!

[Jim_H]

Two thoughts--

  1)  Rich, I don't know what kind of golfer you are, but I understand from credible people that the increases in distance for the ProV1x only start at about 110 mph clubhead speed.  Below that the ball actually hurts distance, because it has too little spin.  Of course, this goes agaist the objective of helping the average player, but not the pro.  But there has been so much misinformation about true distances achieved, it's hard to know what to believe.

  2)  I've heard it said that the most important piece of equipment in the last several years has been the launch monitor.  Now, golfers can get the club, shaft and ball that fits their swing.  Of course, this is a one-time improvement, I guess.

  In any case, I don't know how much of the distance increase has come from equipment versus the better conditioning of the courses and the athletes.  I suspect that the truth is that all three matter.  And yet the average player is not really getting any better.  

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Good article, and thanks for it. Frank is an interesting man--I always enjoyed hearing him speak when he was with the USGA and many of the things he said in your article seem to confirm much of what has been said on this website in the past about the distance problem.

Sounds like Frank is saying he wishes the USGA Board would have listened to what he was telling them about certain technical danger areas with equipment and balls and I believe that's true because I sort of remember him saying it (in so many words) before it actually happened.

However, I'm with Rich Goodale on the 109MPH ball pass/fail test protocol. It's easy to solve problems that have happened in retrospect but I do wonder if that ball ODS conformance test protocol couldn't have been set up in a way to take into account better all those players who were consistently swinging at 109MPH plus. And obviously being around as long as he was as the USGA tech director Frank must have been responsible for setting up that distance test protocol.

The most interesting thing from Frank in your article, though, was his mention of foreseeing the time when the manufacturers would combine the long distance "rock" (two piece ball) that was probably always at the ODS limit with the softer ball that all the good players used for control around the greens that probably was never near the ODS limit. That to me was probably the most significant and primary reason for the recent distance spike. Frank appears to have seen that coming well in advance and seemed unable to get the USGA decision makers to address that potential problem until it got past them as it now has been for about the last 6-7 years.

To me that's when and where the USGA really got outfoxed by the manufacturers. But again, it does appear Frank saw it coming but alas the USGA Board didn't listen to him.

Obviously the fascination with all this is how with all this optimized equipment and optimized balls that are going so far in the hands of good players today---ALL OF IT IS STILL today conforming to the old USGA ODS distance rules and regulations and limits!!!

That right there tells any of us a ton about what's been going on with the USGA and the manufacturers for the last 26 years!

But the thing that Frank didn't address in your article and the thing that ultimately really worries me is when the manufacturers finally come to the complete realization that they don't need to conform to the USGA balls and impliments rules and regulations at all.

When the time comes when the manufacturers figure out that the public will buy equipment that's non-conforming to USGA B&I rules and regs, and the public begins to do that basically the USGA will be irrelevant in that part of golf. And who are we going to turn to for any semblance of control on balls and equipment then?

The USGA may have handled all this poorly in recent years but having them there in the B&I regulation world is still somewhat better than the total vacuum it would be without them there in the future.

[TEPaul]

Jim H said:

"1)  Rich, I don't know what kind of golfer you are, but I understand from credible people that the increases in distance for the ProV1x only start at about 110 mph clubhead speed."

Jim H:

If that's true--and a lot of us have been suspecting for a long time that it is true in one way or another--then the solution becomes a lot clearer. If it's true, the way to handle the solution logically would be to simply try to legislate the complete reversal back to the way things were with golf balls say around 1993 before the manufacturers FINALLY figured out how to roll into one ball the old soft three piece ball that almost ALL the good players used with the long distance "rock" (two piece ball) that none of the good players used.

Some call that new "two types of ball rolled into one ball" (all these new composite balls the pros are now using) the "Super ball". But I don't really think it is a "super ball". All it is is a synthesis of the two completely different types of golf balls that have been in existence for a long long time--and all conforming.

The whole thing probably boils down to the fact that the rules making bodies didn't foresee the manufacturers synthesizing those two balls or even if they did they didn't understand the differences of the two types of old balls well enough and how that related to swing speed or the 109mph pass/fail ball ODS test protocol. Again, Frank Thomas seems to have foreseen it coming but couldn't for some reason convince the USGA decision makers to understand exactly what it all meant.

But again the real rub here and fascination is all this equipment STILL conforms to the OLD USGA distance B&I rules and regs and ODS limits! And doesn't that just tell us all a ton about what's actually transpired here in the less than ten years?!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Paul:

I hear what you're saying but I don't buy this belief that people wil line up and buy non-conforming balls. People want to emulate what they see on the tube from the world's best. As long as the professionals are using it then Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass will follow.

Geoff mentions the very critical linkage between a number of factors and I do agree they all came together to give the "spike" in distance. But, I'll go back to what I said previously -- some people are gaining distance but at what risk to their overall shot dispersion? Tiger found out very quickly he can hit the ball a bit further with graphite shafts but his control suffered and he went back to steel shafts.

I have to say that all this talk about "everyone" on tour launching on command 300+ yard tee shots "on command" is a bit more of marketing and brand hype. I dont doubt there are those who can do it on tour, but when you look at the top 50 players in the world the number who can do it "on command" is far less than what many are claiming.

What I will acknowledge is that the younger generation of players is learning to play the game simply from a power approach. Will this mean lower scores -- I don't believe anyone can say for sure.

When tour professionals abandoned the old wound for the two piece and combined that with the larger sized titanium heads and took advantage in having longer shafts you had the recent "spike" you're seeing. Given the expertise of Frank Thomas I take him seriously that the kind of gains we have seen are likely not to continue at such "alarming rates" because physics and aerodynamics can only be stretched so far. The implementation of the new ODS and in concert with random club testing at major events should keep things within the context we have today. Clearly, one cannot "guarantee" this but I have not read anything that suggests a different scenario.

P.S. One last thing I have to mention from my conversation with Thomas is his comments on what Jack Nicklaus has said about the distance the ball travels. Thomas mentioned that Jack has often cited the 15th hole at ANGC in which Tiger played it with Driver and wedge several times in winning the Masters in '97 and how such a situation has turned the game on its head. The reality is that Jack reached the 15th back in the mid-60's routinely with driver / 8-iron combination and this was using a Tourney ball and a standard 8-iron club that wasn't tweaked for loft purposes. It appears that a few of the old time superstars complain about distance gained today, but for some reason lost their tongue when they were the long knockers a number of years ago.

[ForkaB]

Matt (and Jim_H)

I played Titleist or Maxfli balatas and Professionals until about a year ago, when I reluctantly switched to the ProV1, only really because I found it hard to find Professionals in the shops.  My best rounds over the past 2 years (at Cypress Point and Dornoch) were played with Professionals.  I don't know for sure how far I carry my driver (2-year old Ping ISI, 8.5 loft), but I would guess about 250 with the Professionals or ProV1's (I really didn't notice any difference between the two).  I'm not enormously long, but not bad for a short, fat 56-year old.  Those who have played with me can confirm or deny these guesstimates.  My equivalent HCP index is currently 4.6

I have VERY lmited experience with the ProV1x, but I hit several drives at Ballyliffin last week which had a pronounced "hang-time" differential over what I am used to.  It was probably only about a second or two but it seemed like an eternity that the ball stayed in the air.  I measured 2 of the drives at about 320, and they were hit high, with not huge amounts of roll.  They were slightly downwind and down hill, but I would still guess a carry of 270-280.  Maybe it was the Guinness........The ball also seems to go as straight as any other.  No increase in shot dispersion, assuming that you hit it near the middle of the club....

Hope this bit of anecdotal evidence helps.

[George Pazin]

I have to say that all this talk about "everyone" on tour launching on command 300+ yard tee shots "on command" is a bit more of marketing and brand hype. I dont doubt there are those who can do it on tour, but when you look at the top 50 players in the world the number who can do it "on command" is far less than what many are claiming.

One of the biggest problems I see is that this perception, right or wrong, is a major part of what's causing the leaders at many clubs to alter their wonderful courses.

[Jim_H]

I'm a long way from an expert in the technology of golf, and I'm probably getting way over my head, but I understand that there are two major differences in the new technique and technology to achieve distance--much lower spin in the ball off the club face and much higher launch angle.
As to spin, too much spin causes the ball to upshoot and too little causes it to fall out of the sky.  The modern balls have much less spin than the balata balls used a few years ago.  When was the last time anyone remembers an "upshoot" like we used to get all the time?  But too little spin (caused by a low-spin ball struck with too little clubhead speed) can still cause a ball to die.  That's why the new balls do not work with too little clubhead speed.
As to launch angle, it is amazing how the loft of the driver has changed in the last few years.  Very few drivers on the tour are lesss than 8 degrees now, compared to most all only a few years ago.  And many drivers are over 10 degrees.  Anyone one who has been fitted for a driver recently can recount how the fitter keeps pushing for a higher launch angle.
I understand (although I may be corrected by someone with much greater knowledge than I) that the ideal spin rate is 3,500 and the ideal launch angle is about 14.  Achieving these ideals is done with the launch monitor, which is what makes it the most important new piece of golf equipment.
One last thought--Rich, I don't doubt that you are seeing greater distance with your new ball (and driver?), but I would caution you to wait on your judgment.  So many things happen when you get new equipment--psychologically and in other ways--that you can't judge it too quickly.  Look at Ernie Els--everyone jumped to judgment after his first two tournaments.  He has come somewhat back to normal.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

I'm guessing it was the Guiness -- remember all the talk about blood-doping when Lasse Viren was winning all those races! Can there be such a thing as Guiness-doping?

In your case Rich I'd thinking that your gain has come about because you were playing the old wound style ball which the Titleist Professional is. The added gain came from the new ball is no less different than what others have also achieved from playing it.

But, like I said before all this talk of people gaining 40-50 yards is like the fish story that simply gets bigger and bigger with each time it's retold. Look, I hit the ball a decent ways and have tried to switch from Dynamic Gold X-100 shafts to something in the graphite family. I'm just not comfortable with the graphite because even though I add distance the element of control becomes a larger issue of concern for me.

George P:

Sorry, I didn't answer your question on the long putter sooner. I do agree with Thomas on that one. A player cannot wedge or prop a club to his / her body in order to achieve the "perfect" pendulum time after time. If someone has a problem with the "yips" it's time to get a new putter but not the kind of thing you're seeing today. Take Vijay Sungh -- without the long putter Vijay would not be near the top of the world rankings -- Vijay for too long was a very poor putter -- the long putter has given him added life and stature. To me the long putter is no different than the USGA ruling that Sam Snead's croquet style was not really within the spirit of the game.

Jim H:

I believe the optimum launch angle is about 12-13 degrees and the best spin rate is somewhere around 2500. I believe this is what Frank Thomas mentioned to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()