This started as part of a normal midweek post, but quickly went far too long for that. So I'll throw it up as a stand-alone post, and cover other subjects in a second post.
It seems that no one at either of the two major governing bodies has ever learned the efficacy of just ripping off the band-aid, so we're treated to navel-gazing press releases and commentary such this latest cycle. Here's the gist from that joint USGA/R&A press release:
The USGA and R&A Announce Golf Equipment Research Topics and Proposed Equipment Standards Changes
Research topics include potential Local Rule and review of club and ball specifications to help mitigate continuing distance increases
Proposed changes to current Equipment Standards on club length, test conditions for golf ball testing and tolerances for club spring-like effect to ensure effectiveness in relation to distance limits
LIBERTY CORNER, N.J., USA and ST. ANDREWS, Scotland (Feb. 2, 2021) – The USGA and The R&A are re-engaging with the golf industry on the Distance Insights project, which aims to help achieve a more sustainable long-term future for golf.
The governing bodies are issuing specific Areas of Interest to help mitigate continuing distance increases and three proposed changes to the Equipment Rules to ensure their effectiveness in relation to distance limits.
Do these guys know how to grab an audience, or what? We've got research topics, equipment standards and areas of interest, so it sounds like these boys are deadly serious.... Yeah, we kid. They do get a bit more granular, however:
Regarding club and ball specifications we will evaluate the following:
•Reduction in the limit within the overall distance standard
•Modification in the limitation of ball efficiency (update to IV)•Other ball specifications (size, mass)
•Reduction in the performance of drivers: club length and clubhead dimensions (including volume)
•Changes in the clubhead specifications on spring-like effect and moment of inertia, also considering the utilization of radius of gyration limitations
•Production of spin from all clubs from all areas of the course.
We will also evaluate the potential use of a Local Rule option to specify use of a defined subset of conforming clubs and/or balls intended to result in shorter hitting distances and/or an enhancement in the balance between distance and other skills. The concept is that a Committee or golf facility would have the option of requiring the use of equipment meeting these specifications or a subset of them. We are seeking feedback from manufacturers and stakeholders on this concept and how any of the above listed research topics could potentially be considered for use as a Local Rule.
So then, everything? And, to be clear, everything that you've chosen to ignore for the last two or more decades?
But the key bit could well be that last 'graph, the one in which the governing organizations offload their responsibilities onto those nefarious "Committees", though the reference to "facilities" is an interesting red herring....
Luke Kerr-Dineen is the head of instruction at Golf.com, and has this explainer piece on the latest pronouncements. Now I trust we all understand that golf publications are obviously compromised on this subject (as well as many others), in that manufacturer advertising keeps the lights on. That said, he uses a curious faux-Q&A format, but see how seriously he takes concerns on this subject:
Why are people worrying about golfers hitting the ball too far?
Because people worry about all kinds of stuff.
Luke, you now own the distance truther demo, but we certainly don't need to give you much more air time on this subject, or any other.
David Dusek has a more substantive take on the review of equipment standards:
1. Club Length. As a Model Local Rule, reduce the maximum non-putter club length from 48 inches to 46 inches. This concept has been mentioned before, and now the comment period on this potential change ends March 4. If it is adopted a few days or weeks after that date, then theoretically Augusta National Golf Club (and any other facility) could implement a Model Local Rule limiting club length to 46 inches during competition for all clubs except putters. The decision would be entirely up to the tournament organizers. (Hello, Bryson DeChambeau!)
2. Update the method used to test golf balls. Instead of continuing to test balls by hitting them with a 10-degree test driver swung at 120 mph and measuring how fast the balls come off the face, golf balls could be tested for distance at multiple launch angles (7.5 degrees to 15 degrees) with varying amounts of backspin (2,200-2,500 rpm).
3. Change the characteristic time (CT) testing tolerance. The spring-like effect in a driver’s face is limited to 239 microseconds plus up to 18 microseconds for manufacturing tolerances. But manufacturing techniques are improving every year, so what effect could reducing the tolerance to 6 microseconds have on distance?
Boy, people sure do worry about all kinds of stuff...
Are you guys familiar with the concept of a Bill of Attainder? As Dusek notes, that first bit seems unusually targeted:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder passed in Parliament by Henry VIII on 29 January 1542 resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.
I tend towards the sense that our governing bodies don't have the starch necessary to actually do anything, said opinion supported by the fact that their lead issue is something no one is actually doing. Maybe the best we can hope for is to head off further distance gains, but they seem to be targeting straw men.
Fellow gearhead Mike Stachura credits the USGA/R&A with more conviction than does your humble blogger:
If you weren’t paying attention a year ago, the USGA and R&A made it clear on Tuesday that they are serious about rolling back distance. What they actually might do is a little less clear, but more focused than it was.In other words, the rollback clock officially has started.
“This problem obviously didn’t happen overnight, and we’re not looking to solve it overnight,” said Mike Davis, USGA CEO. “But we are looking to solve it.”
Overnight? Yeah, that's a good one, Mike, but Stachura has more on the current state of play:
Instead, the larger effect came with the official release of six specific “areas of interest” for equipment regulations. To be clear, these are not yet proposed rules, just targeted research topics for further study. In rulemaking parlance, though, they are the precursor for a proposed rule of some kind. It’s a step-by-step process that the USGA and R&A codified with manufacturers in 2011 under the pretext that rule changes wouldn’t blindside equipment companies.The areas specified in Tuesday’s documents involve everything from shorter golf balls to smaller, less forgiving and less-springy drivers. Even under study are possible limits on center of gravity that theoretically would make drivers spin more so they flew shorter for tour-level swing speeds. In short, the governing bodies are looking to throw every possible speed bump at not only further distance but potentially taking distance back two decades to when they first raised warning flags about elite players’ driving in 2002. Or the research might pave the way for previously overlooked technological methods of reducing distance for the best while having minimal consequences for the less than best. In any case, in the rulemaking process, this notification of an area of interest is followed by another 30 potential steps and considerations to be navigated before any rule change is fully implemented.
What could proposed changes look like? For example, an extreme change to the rule on spring-like effect very well could reduce distance to pre-1995 levels, or more than 30-yards shorter than the current PGA Tour average. A reduction in clubhead size or forgiveness might take us back to the turn of the century when the R&A’s own research showed the average bogey golfer was averaging less than 200 yards off the tee. Or, as the USGA’s managing director of equipment standards John Spitzer noted, it could be something novel like a density requirement for golf balls that might make them lighter, thereby having a greater negative effect on the fastest swingers.
- The PGA Tour,
- The PGA of America, and:
- The equipment manufacturers.
He stressed that continuing with one set of playing rules for all golfers remains paramount: “It’s one of the great attributes that really bind us to the game and allows us to play the same golf courses under the same playing rules with the same equipment. We think that’s an important aspect of what we’re doing.”
How exactly this is consistent with a local rule defining a specific subset of allowed equipment remains a mystery that will presumably be resolved by better minds than my own. or, yanno, swept under the rug...
Shack has a wonderful installment of Tour Pros Say the Darndest Things, featuring this week's defending champion waxing philosophical on the distance subject. Geoff has a righteous Fisking at that link, but I'll just grab a few fun bits, this first defending the rights of aggrieved genetic mutants:
Q. Today the USGA and R&A released some proposals regarding distance down the road, maybe limiting driver shaft lengths, maybe some ball testing things. Just wondering where you stand on the whole distance debate, and also how big a player should the PGA TOUR be in this whole discussion?WEBB SIMPSON: Yeah, it's a great question. My first problem I have with the driver length is if a 6'10" really good golfer comes out, like are we really going to tell him he can't use anything longer than 46? So that's my only problem with the length of the driver.
Glad to see we're focused on the important issues....
But, and I'm very relieved at this, it turns out that our problems can be addressed by remedial architecture:
But I've been kind of saying for the last few years, I don't think equipment is the problem. I do think -- Jack Nicklaus hit it a lot further than Bobby Jones, and then the guys after Jack are going to hit it further than Jack. Distance was never really that big of an issue when Jack was playing and hitting it 300 yards.I just think the issue comes down to golf course architecture. We need more doglegs. We need tighter fairways. We need longer rough. We need smaller greens. We need more firm greens. All those things I just named save money, saves water, saves land that you have to build a golf course.
Doglegs and trees, got it. Not to mention long rough and firm greens so, Tom Meeks, call your office.
We know that 8,000-yard golf courses are not the answer. Books Koepka shot 16-under at Erin Hills. I believe that's what he shot. Lengthening courses is not the issue. Bunker placements, dog begs, tree placements. I even think at Augusta on 13 we don't need that tee 40 yards back. What they need is a mid-sized tree 20 yards in front of the tee box and five feet left of the tee box because the issue right now is guys can tee it up on the right and they can even cut it, some of these guys, over the tree. Well, if you put a tree there guys can't do that.
Of course, all those trees won't be good for the turf growing conditions, but nothing to see here. But we have a contender for worst appeal to authority ever:
So I really think the attention does not need to be on equipment or the golf ball. Billy Horschel had a great comment a couple years ago.
He said the golf ball is not an issue; I hit a 7-iron in college 180 yards and now I hit it 180 yards, so it can't really be the golf ball is the problem.
Pro tip: Anytime Billy Ho is your authority, you might want to reconsider... But, Webbster, are you seriously making the case that the guys aren't hitting it further?
In a possibly-related story, one of those intransigent opponents of any action on distance finds itself again on the market:
Exclusive: TaylorMade is for sale
KPS Capital Partners has hired Morgan Stanley to run a sale of TaylorMade, the golf equipment brand, DealBook has learned. A deal could value the company at more than $2 billion; KPS bought it for $425 million from Adidas four years ago. Spokespeople for Morgan Stanley and KPS declined to comment, while TaylorMade was unavailable for comment.
There's little doubt as to where this entity stands on the issue of the day:
“We have meticulously reviewed the USGA and R&A’s 2017 Distance Report and discussed its findings with key stakeholders. Additionally, we have carefully considered the inferred implications that the study may have on the game moving forward. The TaylorMade Golf Company firmly opposes any potential rollback of product performance or bifurcation of the rules in any form as we believe these movements will be detrimental to the game at every level.”
I'm shocked... shocked, I tell you. But this is amusing, no?
“We are optimistic about golf’s future and we believe that the growth initiatives our industry has invested in are beginning to drive participation momentum in our sport.
Sure, I totally get it. Those growth initiatives, plus the fact that folks haven't been allowed to do anything besides play golf. So, as long as that continues, or as long as we can get the sale done before folks are allowed to leave their homes...
In response to Webb's comment above, let me say that I share his disdain for the concept of 8,000 yard golf courses. But let me use baseball as a comparative, because one assumes that baseball players are similarly focused on strength training and optimizing launch conditions. While baseball has its own launch-angle revolution, MLB is still able to play in Fenway Park and Wrigley Field? Can we say the same about Merion or, heaven forfend, the Old Course?
Lastly, I've become something of an advocated for bifurcation. Not because I like the concept per se, but because it seems logical that a path forward could be found there. That logic says that the manufacturers and the PGA of America could be persuaded here, in the sense that it doesn't directly threaten their feed lots.... Not that they necessarily see it that way, but it leaves equipment standards unchanged for the recreational market, though it does expose the lie that we play the same gear the big boys do.
But is there sufficient conviction at the governing bodies to see this through? That seems a stretch to this observer, so I'd place my wagers on further studies, comment periods and the like...
No comments:
Post a Comment