Enough Is Enough

That was actually a quote from Dick Rugge in this Gerry Dulac story about the USGA possibly curbing some technology, even as a "distance myth" memo is making the rounds.

There are several interesting quotes from manufacturers types in this piece, and it was nice to see Rugge getting to explain and defend some of the recent USGA moves on Moment of Inertia. 

Make no mistake, the USGA is intent on curbing the distance the ball travels. In addition to the cap of clubhead size, the USGA also is close to implementing a limit on clubhead moment of inertia (MOI), or the head's resistance to twisting. The less a clubhead twists, the greater the "forgiveness," giving players a greater chance to hit the ball straight.

For example, the USGA tested a wooden driver on its Iron Byron swing machine and deliberately set the machine to produce off-center hits (7/8-inch from the center of gravity). The result: The ball traveled 45 yards less than a ball hit "on the screws."

When the same test was performed with a new titanium driver, the ball traveled only 10 yards less.

"Enough," Rugge said, "is enough."

And again, here's another reason rules bifurcation may ultimately be the easiest solution to all of this madness:

Curiously, such a restriction likely would have a greater effect on amateur and weekend players who have trouble hitting the ball straight and need a high MOI. PGA Tour players don't necessarily need or want such a quality, though the USGA is concerned better players will be able to swing harder without fear of a poor result if the MOI isn't restricted.

According to Rugge, the MOI in a club has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.

"That's always our dilemma with any of our equipment rules," Rugge said. "What's good for me [as a player] isn't necessarily good for what's on tour. We don't want to make it so you can't play anymore, but we have to be careful what's going on on tour. It's always a juggling act."

Comments

[Scott S]

One thing that has occured to me before is that club manufacturers, particularly in drivers, no longer seem to care to make anything that is, in fact, less forgiving. The smallest clubhead one can find on a a titanium driver now seems to be 400cc (Bridgestone does have one that is 340, but I don't know if it is available in the US). Fortunately, irons haven't gone the same rout, but this may be due solely to the difficulty of producing forged cavity back heads.

The last driver heads made at 300cc or less came out, it seems, several years ago, and were quickly surplanted by larger ones. TM's 300Ti, the Big Bertha II... the original ERC was 360, I believe.

The notion is that technology is good, that it does, in fact, help everyone, but I am curious about that. A larger head with improved MOI may be easier to hit (somewhere on the clubface), but does it necessarily deliver all the benifits it is said to? Surely there is a minimum clubhead speed required for any of this to be relevant.

The other factor that is perhaps more disturbing is that with larger club faces that are essentially no-miss, are manufacturers not simply creating a vast army of inept golfers with dulled skills who become unable to hit anything but large clubs? I suppose this comes down to an argument between golf's entertainment value (more of the fun with less of the stress of learning) and its developmental aspects (enjoyment through improvement).

Still, if anyone would be willing to create a modern driver at 300cc, it would make my shopping list in a heartbeat. Yes, I know Louiville is still operating, but I like low-maintanence too. Don't want to have to oil a clubhead every month, and the like.

[St. Pete]

Make mine a 48 inch, 45 gram shaft, beach ball, would you please?