USGA and Equipment Innovations

[BC MIST]

A quote from the USGA - "Our task in 2006 is to continue to evaluate(recent technological advances) and to determine whether new regulations would be appropriate to require elite players in particular to retain some of the skills that were important in the past. We will remain vigilant to ensure that improvements in technology do not diminish the skill necesary to play the game." ...

Specifically, the USGA is looking at:
1. Limiting the Moment of Inertia on all golf clubs, except putters. The higher the MOI, the more forgiving the head will be on off center impacts.

2. Reducing the initial velocity of the golf ball. Two manufacturers have already submitted prototype golf balls that reduce overall distance by 15 to 25 yards, and as many as 7 more manufacturers are expected to honour the USGA's request for the same.

3. Altering the spin generation of the ball, from wedges in particular. Titleist, Taylor made and Callaway have done things to their wedges which increase the spin.

4. Deciding whether having adjustable weights on a driver dimish skill too much.

Most would agree that these more recent innovations DECREASE the skill necessary to hit the ball accurately, and increase the distance the ball can be hit. Are there any other things the USGA should look at to bring more skill back into the game, at either the Tour level or our amateur level, or is the USGA going too far in trying to control equipment?

[themob]

How can the ability of players to hit the ball 350yds not be attributed to superior physical conditioning and skill?

I know that it is making the USGA and others try to change existing courses to be longer, but it doesn't mean that they cant just thicken the rough to penalize those who can't hit fairways.

[LobWedge]

How can the ability of players to hit the ball 350yds not be attributed to superior physical conditioning and skill?

If that were true then we'd still be using persimmon woods and balata balls.

The need for increased strength and conditioning is a result of the lengthening of courses. Architects were responding to technology, and OEMs were countering the efforts of the course designers. A vicious cycle.

All technology has done is significantly decrease the amount of skill required to play the game, while significantly increasing the "luck" quotient.

However, that being said, I think that the USGA, et al, are overstepping their bounds by trying to control the "fun" of the game. I have said on this forum before that I am in favour of equipment controls to ensure, for the most part, that skill prevails in matters of competition. If you want to play with a 1000cc driver, carry 25 clubs in your bag, or use vaseline and microwaves on your golf balls, go for it. Whatever turns you on. Just keep them away from sanctioned competition, and don't expect to use that stuff to keep an official handicap index. This would keep both the manufacturers and governing bodies happy.

Let the powers that be set limits for competition, let skill prevail, and let the rest of us have fun at the same time. Sounds pretty simple to me.

[BC MIST]

However, that being said, I think that the USGA, et al, are overstepping their bounds by trying to control the "fun" of the game. I have said on this forum before that I am in favour of equipment controls to ensure, for the most part, that skill prevails in matters of competition. If you want to play with a 1000cc driver, carry 25 clubs in your bag, or use vaseline and microwaves on your golf balls, go for it. Whatever turns you on. Just keep them away from sanctioned competition, and don't expect to use that stuff to keep an official handicap index. This would keep both the manufacturers and governing bodies happy.Let the powers that be set limits for competition, let skill prevail, and let the rest of us have fun at the same time. Sounds pretty simple to me.

I cannot disagree with what you have said here, but would the manufacturers, particularly the OEM's, make non-conforming equipment, knowing that a huge number of golfers who keep handicaps and compete, would not buy it?

Callaway had their ERC's, Bang has their FU2, Golfsmith had a couple and interestingly, Tom Wishon has produced for 2006, a 500+cc driver with a COR of .90. I wonder how the sales of the latter will go and if the club will be around this time next year. Tom won't make left handed forged clubs because he says that there is an insufficient market for them, but he will make a non-conforming driver, because there is?

Would it not be interesting to find out EXACTLY where the huge distance gains have come from and deal with that? Let Max Headspeed hit ProV1X's with a persimmon driver and then hit 20 year old Titleist balata's with the R7, and compare accuracy and distances. My guess is that the "improvement" has come mainly from the ball itself, so leave the equipment alone and "slow down" the ball. Simple.