Feherty Advocates Ball Change

Ron Green Jr. in the Charlotte Observer talks to David Feherty, who talks about Tiger, how technology is not hurting the game, and what he'd do if he were Commissioner for a day:

Q. If you had Tim Finchem's job and could change one thing, what would it be? I would change the size of the ball. I'd make it .02 bigger. With one fell swoop you would cure a bunch of problems. The ball wouldn't go as far. It would spin. It would be harder to hit straight. It would be harder to hit far. It would be very slightly harder to get in the hole.

On the upside you'd bring a lot of old courses back into relevance.

It also sits up nicely around the greens. The amateur player has more fun playing with it. I grew up with the 1.62 (ball) and I remember changing to the 1.68 and thinking, wow, this is so much more fun playing with this ball.

For the high handicapper, those shots around the greens are difficult. When the ball is a little bigger, it makes such a difference. There's more of it to get underneath.

We've done it once before. I don't see a reason not to do it again.

I've added Feherty to the list of those who advocate something be done to de-emphasize distance in the game today. He's in good company!

Approach and Putting Are By Far The Most Difficult

From the 1879 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on golf:

The approach and the putting are by far the most difficult, critical, and important parts of the game; though no one who is not fairly competent in his driving also is ever in the least likely to take rank as a first-class player.  The maximum length of a good driving stroke for a first-class player, not favoured by any exceptional circumstances, may perhaps fairly be stated as something over 180 yards, and under 200.

I've taken the liberty of preparing a 2006 edition and run it through the Ali G translator just to show how in touch I am with my demographic (I have to savor this, as I'm down to mere months left in the coveted 18-34 demo):

da drive and da puttin is by far da mostest critical part of da game; though no one who is not incompetent in is approach play is eva in da least likely to take rank as a first-class playa. da maximum lengf of a wicked drivin stroke fa a first-class playa, not favoured by any fore real circumstances, may be somethin ova 320 yards, and unda 400.  

Huggan On Ogilvy

John Huggan profiles Geoff Ogilvy,  who he says is "the most appealing character in years to emerge among the game's elite."

In a world populated by truants, he is a true student of the sport from which he makes a living. Good grief, the man even reads books!

He's curious, too. At home for a brief visit over the winter, Ogilvy, with former European Tour professionals Mike Clayton and Bob Shearer, played Royal Melbourne using wooden-headed clubs.

"It was a whole new level of fun," he says, smiling at the memory. "You had to hit it well for the ball to go anywhere. The difference between a good hit and a bad one with a driver was about 40 yards. With a modern driver you can hit the ball anywhere on the face, really. The difference is only about five yards. Only afterwards, when I had thought about it more, did I get depressed by all of that."

Indeed, the modern game in general is a bit of a worry for Ogilvy, a self-confessed and unabashed traditionalist.

"Two important aspects of golf have gone in completely the wrong direction," he maintains. "Most things are fine. Greens are generally better, for example. But the whole point of golf has been lost. Ben Hogan said it best. His thing was that you don't measure a good drive by how far it goes; you analyse its quality by its position relative to the next target. That doesn't exist in golf any more.

"The biggest problem today is tournament organisers trying to create a winning score. When did low scores become bad? At what point did the quality of your course become dependent on its difficulty? That was when golf lost the plot. The winning score should be dictated by the weather.

"The other thing is course set-up. Especially in America, there is too much rough and greens are way too soft. Then, when low scores become commonplace, they think how to make courses harder. So they grow even more long grass.

"But that misses the point. There is no real defence against a soft green. Today's players with today's wedges can stop the ball from anywhere. The angle of attack and the shape of the shot mean nothing. It doesn't matter where you hit it, as long as it is between the out- of-bounds stakes or between the trees. And so the game becomes a one-dimensional test of execution, time after time after time."

And...

As you'd expect, Ogilvy is a big fan of the endlessly-fascinating strategic aspect of true links golf, and the Old Course at St Andrews in particular. It was there last year that he finished fifth in the Open Championship, shooting the lowest score over the final two rounds.

"St Andrews is the best course in the world because of the shots it makes you play," he points out. "In our increasingly black-and-white game, the Old Course is a million shades of grey. Stand on a tee there, and you have choices to make about where to hit your drive. That's a huge contrast with any course covered in rough, where any decision has already been made for you. It's: 'Hit it here you're good, hit it there you're f*****.' Which is stupid.

"Look at the last hole. It is a masterpiece, all because of one little hollow in front of the green. You have a 150-yard-wide fairway, and you don't know where to hit it. One day you might want to get some spin on the approach, so you lay back a bit. Then the next day, you might want to go way left, so that you can access a pin cut way to the right. On another day, you might want to hit past the pin, and on others that may not work - all on a dead-flat hole with no rough and one little hollow.

"But, because the green is firm, it is one of the best holes in the world. Plus, everyone gets to hit the fairway. And everyone finds his ball.

"If the first game of golf was played on some of the courses we play today, it wouldn't be a sport. It would never have been invented. People would play one round and ask themselves why they would ever play a second. It would be no fun."

Ogilvy also has some strong opinions on Augusta National, where he recently finished tied for 16th place in his first Masters.

"I've read a few of Bobby Jones' books," he says. "I don't think he'd be that flustered by the addition of length. I think he'd have done the same, given the neglect of equipment by the USGA and the R&A. But there is no way he'd have grown rough. He'd have kept it 100 yards from trees to trees. And every blade of grass on the course would have been cut short.

"With the greens they have there, they don't need rough. Which is what Jones wanted. His philosophy was: 'Okay, you have 100 yards to hit into, you tell me where you want to go.' Move the pin 10 feet, and the other side of the fairway becomes the place to be. That's the aspect that has been lost. And if Augusta misses the point, what hope has golf got?

"My mind goes back to the Road Hole at St Andrews during last year's Open. It's the most fearsome hole in golf, and yet they had to grow all that silly rough up the right-hand side. If they hadn't, we would have been hitting chip shots to the green. Symbolically, they could not allow that. That golf hole is the reason the golf ball needs to be changed. It's no fun with the modern ball. I was hitting a 4-iron off the tee at the Road Hole! Are you kidding me?

"There are people who seem to think winding back the ball is impossible. Rubbish! All they have to do is get a ball from 1995, test it every way you can think of, then make those numbers the limits. Job done."

Two Driver Debate, Part II

A reader who is a respected national golf writer had this to say about Phil and his two driver concept:

Mickelson using two drivers and one swing supports the argument against technology. It used to be that tour players had to learn to work the ball either way and many were unable to do so with any degree of consistency. Those that could had an advantage. In other words, it's a lost skill, since you can just carry two drivers and let the club work it for you.

In his Golfonline column, Peter Kostis writes:

It used to be that players carried a standard set that included a couple of woods, the standard number of irons plus a pitching and sand wedge. Whatever shots they could hit with that set were the shots they had to play. But today’s player is different. They see a shot that is required and then get their club maker to produce a club that will let them hit that shot. Can you say 60° wedge, hybrid iron, 7-wood, 9-wood or gap wedge? When players saw Tiger’s 2-iron fly driver distance with 7-iron trajectory, they knew they had to do something!

Going forward, I think we will see more and more players looking at the courses they are about to play and thinking about what shots they’ll need to hit. Then, based on their needs, players will put clubs in their bag that will allow them to hit the necessary shots without changing the way they swing. Develop a repeatable swing, and let the equipment adjust the shot.'

I'm still finding myself seeing both sides to this argument. Though when it was revealed (by Phil) that one driver gave him a 25-yard turbo boost, somehow the concept seemed less like something reverting back to the days of the brassie, and more like a strange symptom of the launch monitor.

Thoughts? 

Offended By Big Hitters?

I received a complaint from someone who said my recent Golfobserver.com column on Hootie was unfair. Why? Because this well-meaning soul said that Hootie shares the same feeling about the distance issue as folks like myself.

But actually there is a big difference. Well, several. First, most of us who like classic golf courses wouldn't hire Tom Fazio to mow them, much less alter them based on his track record.

But the primary point relates to something Olin Browne touched on in Rex Hoggard's Golfweek.com column:

"The powers that be have become offended by the big hitters."

This view came through loud and clear in Hootie's press conference ("If Hogan were hitting a damn pitching wedge.."). His anger over the situation is directed at the players, almost as if this were baseball and he was having to deal with juiced players.

But as comedian Robert Wuhl pointed out a few weeks ago, in golf the equipment is juiced, not the players.

Hootie and those trying to offset eye-opening driving distances need to direct their frustration toward the governing bodies, not the players or even course designers.

The "big hitters" and manufacturers are simply doing what they are allowed under the rules.

The rulemakers--many of them members at Augusta National--are the ones who have let the game down.

OGA Talked About In NZ

The New Zealand Herald's Peter Williams writes about the Ohio Golf Association's competition ball: 

The Ohio Golf Association (OGA) is boldly going where no golf body has gone before. It's ordering competitors in one of its tournaments to use a certain ball - although they haven't actually decided which one.

The OGA, which runs the game in the state where Jack Nicklaus was born and raised, says they are taking a stand against the eroding playability of our old courses due to the length of the modern golf ball.

So, when the OGA hosts the Champions Tournament in August, every player will be required to use a lower-compression ball chosen by the tournament committee.

The impact of the long-distance, modern golf ball is one of the hottest discussion points in American golf.

And...

The R&A and USGA are the only bodies which can legislate against the manufacturers to stop the ball going further. There are already many restrictions on equipment. A ball must be a certain size and weight, driver heads must be no larger than 460cc, while there has to be a certain angle between the club face on an iron and the grooves. So the game's rulers haven't been afraid to put restrictions on equipment, even if they've been sued by manufacturers as a consequence.

Well...

But the major reason elite players hit the ball further is the advance in ball technology. The revolution started in 1996 with Spalding's first high-performance two-piece ball, the Top Flite Strata. Manufacturers followed suit with two-piece technology and since equipment companies like Titleist and Callaway put their R&D efforts into ball technology, there's been no stopping increased performance.

But while the elite can hit the ball up to 100m more - 320m par fours on the PGA Tour are now considered driveable - average club players don't get the same advantage.

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."

The Mickelson Trend?

Tim Guidera wonders if a Phil Mickelson win will translate into a two-driver trend in golf:

We lemming amateurs are led around this game by anyone who can play it at an elite level, from the logos we wear to the shots we attempt to the way we react to putts that go in. Or haven't you noticed all those uppercut fist-pumps that resemble Nike swooshes from the mini-Tigers at your home club?

But there is no greater copycat crime in golf than the club selections we base on how somebody who can actually play this game hits the ball.

So, if a guy using two drivers wins the Masters on Sunday, there will be fools showing up at every golf course in the country Monday with twice as much lumber as they need.

The difference would be, Mickelson has his left-to-right and right-to-left drivers; ours would be OB-right and OB-left models.

And just imagine what it will be like playing behind four guys each hitting two different drivers in any number of directions.

WSJ: Golf's Digital Divide

Warning: more biased anti-technology agenda stuff from that cess pool of liberal anti-corporate journalism.

That's right, Reed Albergotti in the Wall Street Journal(.com) analyzes whether $50,000 simulators and $4,500 sensor vests "are driving a wedge between haves and have-nots."

Golf already has an elitist reputation, but a new generation of expensive high-tech tools is stoking a costly arms race among players looking for an edge. Pricey golf simulators can now be rigged to play matches over the Internet, while an increasing number of weekend duffers are investing in $3,000 "launch monitors" that use infrared beams to measure a ball's angle, speed and backspin. At the renowned David Leadbetter Golf Academy near Orlando, two-day courses in a new biometrics lab, where sensors attached to various muscles detect swing flaws, will cost $7,500 -- compared with the $3,000 tab for three days of old-fashioned instruction. And gearing up for tournaments from this weekend's Masters in Augusta, Ga., to the U.S. Amateur Championship, players are turning to laptop computers and digital video cameras to help hone their swings.

The result is a widening digital divide that's drawing new lines in the golf world. Traditional equipment makers are squaring off against upstart high-tech companies that hail from the world of Hollywood special effects. Courses are split on whether to take the high-tech route to woo new golfers or hew to more time-honored ways. And golfers who say the sport is founded on basics like practice and focus worry that turning golf into a kind of rocket science could ruin it.

And...

All of this poses some risk for an industry that has seen little growth in recent years: The number of golfers has stayed at about 28 million since 2001, according to the National Golf Foundation, a trade group. With more complicated tools flooding the market, newcomers may wind up feeling that the sport takes too much time to master even before they get on a course.

And...

But industry experts say much of this stuff tends to help experienced duffers far more than beginners. While overall spending on training and equipment hit $2.6 billion last year, up 73% from 1994, according to the National Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, a trade group, average scores and handicaps have remained fairly flat over the last decade. "A better club will help Tiger Woods more than it helps me," says Marty Parks, a spokesman for the U.S. Golf Association.

Frank Thomas: 10 Clubs and More Rough

I'm not sure what's more disappointing: that former USGA technical director is advocating more rough and 10 clubs, or that the New York Times continues to print his pieces, even putting the latest column on the main Op-Ed page. 

In an email sent out to his subscribers, the headline read "THOMAS PROPOSES TEN CLUB SOLUTION FOR TOUR," and the subheader said, "Limiting club selection and focus on course set up can help allay technology fears."

In "Golf's Power Failure," Thomas writes:

Now officers and elders of the golf association — which, along with the Royal and Ancient Golf Association of St. Andrews, Scotland, writes the game's rules — have asked manufacturers to study the feasibility of a ball that would travel on average 25 yards less than those used now.

This idea is wrongheaded in several ways. To begin with, mandating such a ball would affect all players, and the vast majority of golfers don't hit the ball too far. (Nor do we hit the ball nearly as far as we think we do; well-supported data indicates that the average golfer hits a driver 192 yards — while thinking that he hits it approximately 230.) It's safe to say that for most of us the great layouts created a century ago still provide plenty of challenge.

Which is why Thomas is advocating change, but not before questioning recent action taken by the USGA to mop up for many of the things that got by his watch:

Even before addressing the ball, the rule-making bodies took several foolish steps. They instituted limits that allowed some spring-like effect from the club faces of high-tech titanium drivers (a phenomenon that let the club itself enhance the ball speed at impact for the first time), while restricting both the length of a driver (which will affect few players) and the permissible height of a tee (which is downright silly). They have also explored limits on how much a club can resist twisting at impact; such a change, like the reduced-distance ball, would have a much greater effect on the average golfer than on those who play for prize money.

Ah, so since this debate has always been part of the game and we should relax a bit, Thomas suggests doing something about it:

The goal should be to keep professionals from mindlessly bombing away while not unnecessarily hurting the average player. I have two suggestions. First, tournament courses should be set up to punish long but wayward hitters by narrowing fairways and growing higher rough (the longer grass along the margins of the hole).

Yes, it's worked so well and cures many sleep disorders. And really, when you consider that fairways are now 20-25 yars, they have so much room to get narrower. I saw the width of a ball would be fair.

The other major change would address the imbalance that today seems to favor power so strongly over touch and finesse. To place greater emphasis on the old skills required to work the ball and to hit less-than-full shots, professional players should be restricted to 10 clubs in their bags instead of the current 14.

What do you think manufacturers would hate more, a ball rollback that doesn't impact anyone under 110 mph, or Tour pros only uh, "branding" 10 clubs instead of 14?

And they say I'm anti-technology!

Monty: If The Ball Doesn't Change, The Courses Have To

Monty at the Masters...

The one big change is 11, that's the big change that I find. That's become a very, very difficult hole. If it was hard before, now it's become very difficult. But the rest of the course, I agree with the changes. I think we have to keep going, provided that if we never change the golf ball, we have to keep changing the course and if we change the golf ball, we'll have to change courses. Wish we had done this 15 years ago in 1990 that you found a ball that was good but you can't go backward in this world, you have go forward. If the golf ball doesn't change, the courses have to.

Q. Specifically, what's the difficulty on 11 for you?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Generally holes that start with a 5 and it says par 4, are generally the problem, yeah. (Laughter) So that tends to be that one.

And...

Q. Phil Mickelson is using two drivers in his bag this week.

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Yes, he is, yes.

Q. What's your reaction to that?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Well, I think with the manufacturers now being able to do that, I think it's sensible. He's sort of caught everybody on the hot, really, I think and good luck to him. He tried it last week as an experiment and it certainly worked. Won by, what was it 14 or something crazy. I think you'll find, and not just on this course, you'll find a lot of people using two drivers now. Why try and change one swing to accommodate a hole. Why not if the club is designed to go left or right or whatever, why not use that? We have a number of courses that you can think of immediately that would favor both and certainly used more than a 3 iron or 4 iron in a round of golf. There's no reason why that can't be the same. It will give him an advantage of hitting the fairways around here which we all know is crucial. The rough isn't long, but we need control from the fairways and distance.

Phil and Skill?

Is anyone else intrigued by the notion that Phil Mickelson is using two drivers, one to shape the ball right to left (the "gamer"), and another for the opposite shot shape?

Golf World's E. Michael Johnson has the details in this story.

In the "skill" debate, I wonder if this will come up as an example where equipment is supplementing skill? 

More power to Mickelson for doing what he has to do to win within the rules, but I guess this brings me back to Max Behr's quote about the role of equipment:

I do not think we will go far wrong if we define a true sportsman as one who endeavors to adjust his implements down to a point where they will just sustain his skill, in order that upon skill, and skill alone, must depend the decision of the contest.

A strong case could be made that good players used to use drivers with slightly open or closed faces to create a certain ball flight or to offset a swing flaw.

And I suppose you could say there is skill in determining that you get different reactions from different clubs. But it seems that the real skill in this case was in the club fitting?

It was this Telegraph story quoting Colin Montgomerie that left me wondering:

Montgomerie then considered how useful the two clubs would be at, say, the 17th and 18th at Wentworth and, again, at the last two holes at the Belfry. "The best thing about the idea," he continued, "is the way you can do away with the need to come up with two different swings."

Thoughts?

They Juice The Equipment!

From the March 31 "Real Time with Bill Maher," talking about the latest steroid controversy in baseball and how America's favorite pasttime should emulate golf:

ROBERT WUHL:  In golf, the players are straight but they juice the equipment!

BILL MAHER:  That's actually very true! [Laughing]

I guess they didn't get the memo that agronomy is the cause of 350-yard drives! 

The Big Bang

For over a year now flogging (or Tigerball) has been a much-debated topic on this site and written about on Golfobserver.com, so it was nice to see the Golf World cover story on this radical new approach that younger players are taking.

Ryan Herrington and Tim Rosaforte explore the concept with excellent sidebar support from Dave Shedloski, Matthew Rudy and E. Michael Johnson, focusing on the how the players are able to power the ball via equipment and improved physical conditioning (though in lumping J.B. Holmes in here, they appeared to ignore his comments earlier this year that suggest physical conditioning has little to do with his prodigious length).

The main story is a solid overview with several interesting anecdotes. Though I was disappointed that they didn't explore the role that course setup may be playing in all of this. (The narrower they get, the more pointless it becomes to worry about hitting it in the short grass...).

Loved this from Bubba Watson:

My goal is to hit it inside the white stakes. No matter where it is, fairway, in the trees, as long as I have a swing [I'm happy].

More worth your time is Herrington's blog post on the story. He looks at who in college golf will be the next wave of floggers ("big bangers" just doesn't quite work).

He includes more comments from a coach quoted in the story who talks about the mindset of younger players:  

 “A lot of people look around and say, ‘that’s really different,’ ” says Georgia Tech coach Bruce Heppler. “Well, not to [them] it’s not. It’s second nature. [They've] done it [their] whole life.

“It’s just crank it on down there and deal with it,” he continued. “Because I think they feel like short shots, no matter how hard they are, they’re really not that hard any more. You heard growing up ‘Don’t get that in between yardage. Don’t get that finesse shot.’ Well they laugh at that now. There are no hard shots if you know what you’re doing. They’ve figured out how to get it up and down and how to hit the flop and how much better the wedge is. How much more spin … now you’re reading you can get too much spin. So there are no hard shots if you know what you’re doing. So it just becomes an absolute birdie fest.”

“I think it’s a culture. Guys just play different. I mean I can go up and down my team and it’s little guys and it’s big guys. To see where we play from … that’s one thing about being at a place where you play the same place all the time. We’ve been at Golf Club [of Georgia] for eight years, nine years now. I can’t tell you how different it is. There were par 5s initially they didn’t go for. And longer par 4s now that they just try to knock it on, shorter ones now. Or just get it up there around the green and get it out of the bunker rather than with a wedge.”

And Herrington ends his post with this:

One last point … this philosophy of play in many respects is much like baseball catering to home runs and basketball evolving into dunk contests. Yet while people dig the long ball, that doesn’t mean it’s good for the game. Just as each of the coaches said that the Big Bang theory is practiced in college golf, they all each lamented this fact, longing for the time when shot-making was still important. I have to say I agree with them. By becoming infatuated with distance, players aren’t necessarily better, just longer.

Oh boy, another one to the add to the converted list. This media bias is contagious! 

Kaufman On OGA

In the March 25 issue, Golfweek's assistant managing editor and business writer Martin Kaufman felt compelled to comment on colleague Jim Achenbach's original Ohio Golf Association ball story, citing this quote:

"We are leaning to one that optimizes (distance efficiency off the tee) between 100 and 105 miles per hour (driver swing speed),"  said Alan Fadel, chairman of the OGA ball committee. "The ball is not going to benefit somebody at 120 (mph) the way the current ball does. We are trying to achieve a little more equality, that's all."

Kaufman appears to not understand that Fadel is referring to the impact of optimization (where properly matched players in the 115 mph-and-up range are getting excessive turbo boosts that effectively work around the USGA's Overall Distance Standard).

So there you have it: Golf's honchos officially have begun to embrace mediocrity rather than celebrating excellence. Years from now, the OGA's foolhardy decision might be remembered as a beachhead for the establishment of a welfare state for mediocre Tour players.

First, this "foolhardy decision" amounts to a 2-day, totally optional state golf association event where the ball is provided free of charge. This is not The Players Championship THE PLAYERS.

Those of us who have followed the issue know that one of the underlying issues with recent distance increases is that of skill, and the blurring of lines between the very good player and the super-elite.

Players of supreme skill like Tiger Woods or Ernie Els would be even better in an event using a ball like the one the OGA has selected. Their games would not be brought down by such a ball. They'd be even better. Tiger has even hinted that he's well aware of this possibility, which is one reason he can't campaign too hard for a change in the ball spec that introduces more spin or one that impacts the role of optimization.

Kaufman sees it the other way, and brings up the issue of equality. He believes the governing bodies have a desire to bring everyone down to the same level.

Any effort to legislate equality, whether in sports or broader society, is inherently problematic, if not doomed to failure. It sends a perverse message that top performers will be penalized for excellence, while laggards can count on benevolent rulers to shield them from superior performers.

And...

Players who swing the driver 120 mph and can control the ball's flight should hold an advantage over players who swing 105 mph. Swinging a golf club abnormally fast reflects superior athletic ability and training. And yes, it reflects superior skill. You remember skill, don't you. Golf used to celebrate it.

I seriously doubt any governing body wants to bring everyone together via an equipment change. (Course setup, that's another story.) Those swinging 120 m.p.h. would regain the proper edge that they deserve with a properly handled rollback.

Groups like the OGA want to eliminate the 350-yard drive born out of the optimization of launch conditions.  Groups like the USGA--assuming the Joint Statement is to be believed--want to reward the player who is physically strong and who can swing the club "abnormally fast," but also reward those who are genuinely precise with their ball striking.

Modern equipment has blurred distinctions in these two areas.