"Mr. Thomas is convinced current regulations will keep it capped."

John Paul Newport profiled Frank Thomas and his new book in the WSJ and it's interesting to read what he thinks has slowed down distance gains.

Mr. Thomas, who in 1984 revised and strengthened a regulation specifically banning spring-like effect, believes the USGA should have stopped the new clubs with spring-like effect as soon as they were discovered, because they only created potential expense and problems for the game (such as the need for longer courses) and violated tradition. "The first paragraph of the first equipment regulation published by the USGA in 1909 prohibited clubs that 'contain any mechanical contrivance, such as a spring,' " Mr. Thomas noted. But instead, over his objections, the organization in 1998 merely set a limit on spring-like effect a little above the then-current levels. That decision, he believes, was primarily motivated by fear of lawsuits from clubmakers who were already marketing the clubs.

Combined with simultaneous advances in ball technology, swing-motion analysis, player training and agronomy, spring-like effect boosted the average drive on the PGA Tour an alarming 24 yards from 1995 to 2003. But in the last five years the distance creep has slowed (the average is actually down a bit so far this year) and Mr. Thomas is convinced current regulations will keep it capped.

"You'll have to don a helmet"

Thanks to reader Matthew for Sue Zesiger Callaway's review of the Segway X2 Golf. If the mere sight or thought of it doesn't horrify you, this should:

Worst of all, if you're playing by the book you'll have to don a helmet, which adds to the already high dork quotient of golf. But considering I have been nicked by an errant ball once before, I suppose it's a style glitch I can live with.

"The groove rule as proposed should be implemented on the PGA Tour for a five-year evaluation period."

GolfDigest.com's Bread and Grub look at some unfortunate shilling by Johnny Miller before launching into a discussion on U-grooves. You know, the thing the USGA and R&A can't agree on and which the PGA Tour won't get near.

A couple of things they wrote caught my eye. From Bread:

I find it difficult to believe the USGA will just walk away after three years of research without doing something. But I think that is exactly what they should do. Driving distance on tour this year is down three yards from the same time last year. Sure, it's a small sample, but I think everyone would agree that by year's end it's not likely we will see an increase of any substance, if any at all. And that would make it difficult to defend implementing a groove rollback, don't you think?

And from Grub: 

As for grooves, there's no question this issue, which appeared all but signed, sealed and delivered last fall, is about as near a resolution as me not wearing a seat belt anytime soon. Fact is, the best thing that could happen won't. Namely, the groove rule as proposed should be implemented on the PGA Tour for a five-year evaluation period. Only then will we see if it makes a difference.

So let's consider this for a moment. The PGA Tour is all about it's "product," right? And as was noted in my course setup story for Golf World, tournament director Mark Russell believes a groove change would allow for less rough on the tour and the return of the flier lie. Firm greens would also have more meaning. All of that would be more entertaining to watch and a better example for the game.

Yet the Commissioner keeps deferring (understandably) to the governing bodies because he knows what happened to Deane Beman when he raised a stink about grooves.

So how can the PGA Tour be convinced to adopt something along the lines of a tour-specific evaluation period? Thoughts? 

"The testing said it was 25 yards driver and 25 yards ball."

Golf World's E. Michael Johnson talks to players about the last time they used a persimmon driver. Some of the answers are pretty interesting.

Phil Mickelson says he last used persimmon during practice for the 2007 EDS Byron Nelson Championship, conducting an experiment of sorts. "It was an old Wood Brothers," said Mickelson. "Callaway did some tests three years ago with a persimmon driver and a ball from the 1990s, comparing it to an HX Tour ball and modern driver. There was a 50-yard difference. The testing said it was 25 yards driver and 25 yards ball. So I tested it, and that turned out to be about right. I couldn't believe how different the launch conditions were -- and that was a driver I used to play with."

Now We Know Why The USGA Is Accumulating A War Chest...

Golf World's dynamic duo of Mike Stachura and E. Michael Johnson reveal that the USGA has notified manufacturers of a new random driver testing program.

This isn't going to be cheap:

The protocol has the USGA obtaining eight samples from golf retail shops of its choosing. Those drivers will be measured on the pendulum tester located at the USGA Test Center.

The USGA said all drivers appearing on the USGA's List of Conforming Driver Heads are subject to the check testing program with the frequency of sampling to be determined by the USGA, depending on the results obtained. This could potentially be an arduous, time-consuming and expensive task as that list is currently 380 pages long with an average of about nine driver heads per page -- that's well over 3,000 driver heads.

Yeah and at $3-600 a head...ouch!

And if they find the drivers are exceeding the limit...

it will set off a series of events that includes a notice to the manufacturer. At that point, the manufacturer will have a "reasonable amount of time" to review the findings and discuss them with the USGA. At that point the club will be removed from the conforming list unless the manufacturer "provides information to the USGA which warrants additional consideration by the USGA."

Once a club is placed on the non-conforming list, the manufacturer may submit a conforming version of the club, with some form of permanent identifying markings distinguishing this version from the non-conforming version.

"Should the USGA ever consider a limit on lofts..."

In the current Golf World, E. Michael Johnson writes that nearly 80 percent of the field at the Pods Championship carried a 60-degree wedge and that only Mathew Goggin and Rocco Mediate had a 56-degree as their highest-lofted wedge.

And he writes:

Still, though some players on the PGA Tour are using wedges as lofty as 64 degrees (including Peter Lonard and D.J. Trahan at the PODS), not everyone is drawn to higher lofts. On the LPGA Tour, for example, only 36 percent of players at the HSBC Champions had a 60-degree wedge, while 18 percent percent had a 56-degree as their highest-lofted wedge, including Lorena Ochoa and Se Ri Pak.

Should the USGA ever consider a limit on lofts, players such as Ochoa and Pak will have a head start -- and those with 60-degree wedges will have to learn a bunch of new shots.

During my work on a couple of recent stories, several players mentioned the outlawing of the 60 degree wedge. Now, it's one thing to at least argue about grooves and their impact, but how can loft ever be something that is banned?  If someone wants to use a 70 degree wedge or a 5 degree driver, why wouldn't they be allowed to do that?

I don't sense the USGA and R&A are considering it, but just the idea of it always amazes me. Thoughts? 

"What's happened, Doug, is the golf ball is going farther."

I thought this was a good question from Doug Ferguson after Saturday's third round at Riviera, but because Phil Mickelson was anxious to get on Mickelson Airship 1, he poo-pooed the question a bit.

Still, at least he says it's the ball...

Q. Curious on 10, if conditions notwithstanding, it seems like 3-wood is the choice for most of the power hitters. When did that become the case? Has it ever been driver, and have you noticed over the years driver no longer being a choice?

PHIL MICKELSON: What's happened, Doug, is the golf ball is going farther. So when we used to hit drivers, we now are hitting 3-woods. (Laughter).

"Critics say the USGA, after clamping down on technological advances and proposing a roll back on grooves, is trying to placate equipment makers..."

Golfweek's Adam Schupak looks at the adjustable club movement and writes:

Yet other equipment company executives liken the USGA’s action to opening Pandora’s box. They argue the USGA simply relaxed an existing rule on adjustability (moveable weights, for example, previously were allowed) which won’t appreciably affect the way the game is played.

Critics say the USGA, after clamping down on technological advances and proposing a roll back on grooves, is trying to placate equipment makers with its version of Innovation 2.0 – a metaphorical invitation for new design ideas that is suspiciously light on true innovation.

“This is the USGA’s strategy for how it can be perceived as allowing innovation into the game,” says John K. Solheim, Ping’s vice president of research and development.

Furthermore, industry critics say the USGA didn’t think through the long-term ramifications its decision might have on the business of selling clubs.

Though it is difficult to imagine off-the-rack clubs disappearing completely, adjustability at least opens the door to such a possibility. That prospect, no matter how unlikely, radically could alter the practices of clubmakers, component suppliers and retailers. Which has everyone scrambling for a crystal ball, hoping to capitalize on the situation – or at the very least protect their vested interests.

The story also includes a video worth watching, including comments from Dick Rugge.

"I'm hitting it further with less clubhead speed."

Golf Channel did a nice segment during final round Bob Hope coverage where they asked Kenny Perry about changes he's seen during his long and successful career. Here's the text and the video for those who would like to insist the guys are just working out more!

I have seen a lot of changes. I led the tour I guess in '91 in driving distance, I averaged 291. And now Bubba's hitting it 350-360-whatever. It's funny, the clubhead speed I had, I had probably 4-5 mph hour less now clubhead speed I know for sure  than I did in 91. and actually I'm averaging 300, 299, so I'm hitting it further with less clubhead speed. So it tells me between golf ball technology, clubhead, driver, shafts, total package, we've got higher launch less spin on the golf ball, so the golf all just goes a long way now.

More Groove Follow Up

Lost in my heckling of Barbaric and Gamy's heckling of Jim Achenbach over his U-groove column (still not online), I may have noted that GolfDigest's intrepid bloggers failed to note the R&A's possible role in slowing down the groove rule change, but Ryan Ballengee is above all the frey in parsing Jim Vernon's words more closely.

But the column made it a definitive--that the decision had already been made to implement a rule of some sort. Again, when posed to Vernon, he said, "There has been no prognosis made on when a decision will be made and there has been no prognosis on what that decision may or may not be." In plainspeak, not only hasn't a decision on timing been made, but there hasn't been a decision at all.

What does this mean? Is there new research to indicate that the proposed rule change is a bad decision? Would testing compliance on Tour be next to impossible? Might they be considering doing something to the ball instead (and kick Titleist in the pants while they're down from the Callaway lawsuit)?

I think we need some answers.

It does seem that in just a few months we have gone from a foregone conclusion on a U-groove ban or modification, to a much less certain outcome.  

"It’s highly unlikely there’ll be any more equipment changes in the short term."

BBC's Iain Carter reminds you that if you were using a spring-like effect driver, your five year grace period is now up. He also talks to the R&A's David Rickman, who says the driver rule change has slowed down distance increases. And it sure sounds like the R&A is on the fence when it comes to regulating U-grooves.

“The new limit has been part of that calming of driving distance,” Rickman said. “The other aspect is that there hasn’t been a big advance in terms of ball technology in this period.”

For many the golf ball is already travelling too far. Traditional courses need to be lengthened to remain contemporary and new ones require more land. Therefore, the game becomes more expensive and takes longer to play, which hardly boosts its ability to attract new players.

Currently the two rule-making bodies, the R&A and USGA are in consultation with manufacturers discussing ball technology and clubface grooves.

Some groove patterns enable players to impart controlled spin on shots from the rough, thereby negating the benefit of finding a fairway.

This enables players to bash away carefree drives and then gouge the ball from the rough and still make birdies. “Bash and gouge is known and understood,” Rickman says before adding a counter argument. “But the best player still seems to win, so we have to be careful before we change anything.”

Key meetings will take place between the regulators and manufacturers later this month at the major golf trade show in Orlando.

It’s highly unlikely there’ll be any more equipment changes in the short term. The process is fraught with legal difficulties and manufacturers have to be won over – after all it is their aim to sell us the equipment that makes the game easier.

And no one wants to further alienate those players for whom it's already been an expensive new-gear new year.

All five of them.

And Lord knows, the masses have been taking up the game in droves to buy the latest stuff, because we know that's what grown men live for: shopping! 

"Playing it for free, he won twice."

Okay, next point from Nick Seitz's excellent Golf World story on shotmaking. The ball. The one that's harder to move.

"In some ways the old ball was better," says Johnny Miller. "It spun more, so you could get to just about any flag. The irons today are weighted at the bottom to get the ball up, but you can't put sidespin on it."

Steve Flesch concurs. He dropped his ball-endorsement deal for the '07 season after going winless since 2004, experimenting with different models until he found a Srixon ball that suited his control game better. Playing it for free, he won twice.

And... 

Butch Harmon, who coaches Mickelson and Flesch among a flock of tour pros, says, "The young players today don't see an image of turning the ball around doglegs, and the equipment doesn't allow you to do it. The kids are stronger and have sounder swings, and they only see way up high -- they go over everything. It's a power game. You couldn't do that with the old equipment."

Obviously, fans are being cheated by not seeing as much in the way of interesting shotmaking and ball movement. Well, maybe someone stands behind a tee to study the height of tee shots. I don't.

But are today's elite players doing themselves a disservice playing balls sold commercially?

The Shape of Shotmaking, Vol. 1

I'm not really sure where to start with Nick Seitz's compelling look at the state of shotmaking in Golf World's season preview because there are so many points worth noting (and I haven't even gotten to Jaime Diaz's companion chat with Geoff Ogilvy yet, but can't wait.)

The first thought is this: consider how much has changed and the depth of reporting looking at the impact of these changes.

In May 2005 I sat down for an SI Golf Plus roundtable that included Brad Faxon, David Fay and Larry Dorman. They essentially teamed up to tell me that shotmaking was alive and well, the game was more interesting than ever, etc...

Anyway if you go back and read it you realize how absurd they probably sound to a majority of golf fans just two years later, which speaks volumes about how perceptions of the game have changed in a short time.

Which brings us to the Seitz piece, where the overwhelming number of folks quoted blame the golf ball above all else (we'll touch on the club, instruction and architecture blame later).

So here's the first item that leaps off the page: 

Such is his upbringing and talent level, Tiger Woods can pitch a tent in both the traditional and new-age camps, but he laments the decline in more resourceful play. "Most of today's young players never had to work the ball growing up because they were more concerned about distance," he says. "Shotmaking has changed because of the balls. They're harder to work. They go straighter."

If balata balls and persimmon heads were still in play, Woods might well win even more. "Any time a player understands how to shape a golf ball and can consistently hit the ball flush, you're going to want the ball to move more and the equipment to be less forgiving," Woods says. "It puts a premium on quality."

Tiger's custom golf balls, a version of the Nike One Platinum not available in the marketplace, spin more and are easier to maneuver. "They're the spinniest on tour," he says, showing he can coin words as well as craft shots. He doesn't mind giving up a little yardage off the tee to gain accuracy into the greens. Of course, he still averages 300 yards per drive (302.4 yards, 12th on tour in 2007, to be exact).

Now, the USGA and R&A have been running around in circles to figure out ways to restore the importance of skill and shotmaking in the game without touching the ball because the tie between PGA Tour play and average golfer consumption of products the pros play is the most holy of synergies.

Yet here have Tiger not even playing the ball they sell. The only synergy is brand-related, not product related.

I find this odd on many levels. Besides the fact it's another example that the all-vital connection between the pro and amateur games that we are told must be preserved (and which we learn more and more does not actually exist), from a business perspective it just amazes me that this ball is not for sale.

"The majority of golfers want one set of rules but may ignore a rules change, which would render their existing equipment -- which works for them -- non-conforming."

Frank Thomas conducted a not-so-scientific survey of 1500 GolfDigest.com readers on technology and its impact on the game. 

Question 1) How important is it to you that there be only one set of rules? The table shows the results on a five point scale.

Very important --------- 57%
#2 -------------------------- 16%
#3 -------------------------- 10%
#4 -------------------------- 5%
Not important ----------- 13%

I think we have a winner in that one set of rules is important. This is good for golf.

This is beautiful:

Question 2) Do you think something should be done in the equipment regulations to rein in some of the extraordinary performances exhibited by tour players and the like?

"Rein in some of the extraordinary performances." Now that's not loaded in any way. Gee, what miser wants to rein in extraordinary performances?

Yes ------- 26%
No ------- 74%

Well, 26% did.

Frank, it's more like this: would you like to see technology reined into produce extraordinary performances exhibited by tour players and the like using a combination of mental and physical skill?

Love the conclusion:

It looks like our readers don't think reining in the pros by using equipment regulations is necessary. After all, they are the best of the best and there are other means to challenge them.

That's right! Eliminate the fairway!

Question 3) If the equipment performance rules did change because of pro performance and they detrimentally affected you and/or your performance, how likely is it that you would ignore the change(s) and continue to use your existing (now non-conforming) equipment?

Very likely -------------- 47%
#2 ------------------------ 12%
#3 ------------------------ 10%
#4 ------------------------ 7%
Not at all likely -------- 24%

Thankfully, that question wasn't loaded at all!

If the equipment performance rules were to change and so detrimentally affect average golfers along with pros, it looks like about 60% of average golfers would continue to use their existing equipment and ignore the rule (this is not good for golf).

Where's the free market love?

The performance of the majority of golfers (99%) must be carefully considered before adopting a rules change.

There's a newsflash from the manufacturer talking points city! 

Question 4) Do you think that a Ten club (local) rule for elite players is a better idea than changing equipment performance standards for everybody?

Yes ---------------- 63%
No ----------------- 37%

This is a solution which costs nothing and is easy to evaluate. It will not affect current equipment specifications nor will it cause the disruption that having two sets of performance rules for equipment may. I think a reasonable conclusion is that the majority of golfers want one set of rules but may ignore a rules change, which would render their existing equipment -- which works for them -- non-conforming.

Yes, I can see the ad campaign now. "Hi, I'm (tour pro name here) and I just love the decision of whether to leave out my Taylor Made 19 degree rescue, versus my 16 degree. Ultimately they're both so good that I had to leave both out because I really need my putter and wedge."

You have to admire Frank's effort, but he concluded that the game must be played under one set of rules and then declares after the fourth question that a form of bifurcation is the solution.

"You just don't even want to pull your normal driver out when you can play like this."

Mike Clayton writes about a Royal Melbourne round with Geoff Ogilvy using hickory shafted clubs

Ogilvy had never hit a wooden shaft but he had a couple of hits and concluded that "my body will tell me how to hit it".

It took him no time to adjust to the feel of the shaft and after a few holes he said "you just don't even want to pull your normal driver out when you can play like this".

Manufacturers have made fortunes mass-producing quality metal drivers and they have unquestionably made the game easier for the average player. Mishits are more than kindly treated by the big heads but off-centre hits with a small-headed wood with a hickory shaft are not pretty.

Ogilvy barely missed the middle of the two wood's clubface and anyone watching would have been astounded how far he drove the ball. Into the strong south wind off the eighth tee he covered 230 metres and down wind off the next he was right at the 270-metre mark. At the long par-four 11th he lost one high and right on the wind and had to hit a three-wood from there but that was about the only bad one he hit. At the par-five 12th and 15th he easily reached the greens with seven-iron second shots and at the final hole ripped the hickory over the corner of the dogleg and hit a wedge onto the green.

There was nothing revolutionary about our conclusions as we walked off the 18th. That RM played so short for a great player using a hickory shaft backed up what MacKenzie said all those years ago. The custodians of the game need to control the ball because RM, like most of our wonderful suburban courses, has no more land.