Comments on: Dear USGA: Try My Equipment Rules Suggestions

By: Sid

Sid — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:45:23 +0000

It's the balls!
Did they pitch special baseballs to Mantle? Did Jordan shoot only a special MJ basketball?

The tour(s) needs a Tour Ball or at least Tour Specifications for balls. Then a well hit drive will go 290 not 350 and a 7-iron will top out at 160 not 190. Ever hit an 'old' Titleist Professional with today's driver? It is 20% shorter.

The Tour is an exhibition of professional golfing talent. Let's see some talent returned to the game and not just long drives produced from suped up equipment and weight lifting.

By: Shane Jones

Shane Jones — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:42:10 +0000

The standard length tee is gone no one plays 2 1/8" tees anymore... I think the "highly skilled" players should try hickory shafts and a featherie see if Tiger could shoot 10 or 11 under at Torrey Pines this year...

By: Clay

Clay — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:16:41 +0000

Jack, I enjoyed it!

I do think there's a simple solution to the "highly-skilled/top 0.5%" issue.

The USGA and the PGA TOUR, should, jointly, agree that the Rules of Golf only apply to amateurs. The TOUR can go ahead and do anything it wants.

The TOUR can play with white-painted dimpled SuperBalls for all it would matter to us. Struck with 50" drivers off 8" tall tees.

Then, you can take Ben Hogan's fervent prayer that putting should count less than ball-striking, and make the hole 12" in diameter. There's too much putting on TV anyway. Boring.

Finally, the professional game would naturally evolve to its ultimate endpoint...the replacement of the old-fashioned game with professional Golden Tee majors.

On-line, of course.

By: Timothy D Watson

Timothy D Watson — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:10:40 +0000

I agree that the best golfers would find a way around the potential change of the rules regarding groves. I think that irresponsible rules regarding golf equipment don't "preserve the game as we know it," they change the course of golf's trends and techniques. These could change golf more than the original "problem" would have. In the long run, these rules don't stop performance increases due to equipment, they just shift the golf companies' emphasis to different features. As long as golf equipment stays relatively unstandardized (which I think is a great part of the game), there will be improvements made to it to get an advantage.

One of the rules as of late makes perfect sense to me, though. The rule regarding clubhead size stoped a tendency that I think was getting out of hand. New rules can be useful for preventing golf trends from getting freakish.

The springlike effect rule resulted in heavier, thicker center faces aimed at increasing the size of the .830 COR zone by decreasing the power transfer in the center to allow more COR around a greater perimeter. Increasing the COR zone the old fashioned way saves weight and really only gains about four yards of distance to the average swingspeed golfer anyway. The MOI rule caused two big companies, Nike and Callaway, to lead the market in a "freakish" turn to previously unpopular square heads with the intent on reaching the new limit.

I suspect that these "irresponsible rules" are actually created to help save money on course changes for the best golfers in their tournaments. Making rules to force the best to play more normally is more ecconomical than changing the courses significantly each time a tournament comes through.

To prevent the best golfers from playing too abnormally in the future while not straining the "faltering" golf industry, I can only recommend this:

1. Limit club length to 46'' instead of 48''.
2. Allow a maximum of 100g of counterweighting.

These two aspects of distance enhancement have not been played to their fullest. Extremely long or heavy clubs would be hard to use, but controlling a grapefruit on the end of a stick took adjustment for existing players when modernly oversize drivers first came out. These restrictions would not single anyone out, make the game harder for everyday people, make popular existing equipment unconforming, increase the cost to play, start an unusual looking equipment trend, etc as far as I can tell.

In the end, I say that special courses designed just for the best would solve things in the simplest way. This is not the kind of thing that the ruling bodies do, though. Perhaps two short 18-hole courses that are arranged in a way that can have them very easily converted into one full course of double length for the tournaments.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:04:02 +0000

I say they change the rules to only allow a pro 8 clubs in his or her bag. That would really spice things up.

By: Jack Waddell

Jack Waddell — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:00:45 +0000

Norm: Thank you for reading. This article was suposed to be something of a joke. I just don't write jokes very well. My point was: why is a rule necessary if it only affects the top 0.5% of players but causes the rest of the 99.5% of players to change clubs if they want to be playing the same game. I hope that makes sense. Because the USGA and R&A apparently aren't making any. Sense, that is. Marty: I've been through a dark time. Gin has powers. But know I've been back to the Scotch of late. It's that bad. I'll catch up with you soon and tell you the sad story.

By: Marty Strumpf

Marty Strumpf — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:20:42 +0000

I thought you drank Scotch.

By: Norm

Norm — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:37:54 +0000

If I got this article correct, you meant that "the guys/the girls" who are top of the line gets a lot of new rules that put weird things in for example TOO MANY fairwayhits and so on? Not that I have anything against that in common, but you may be right.

My cousin is a pro at a smaller golfclub in the nearby of my homevillage. Not sayin' he is one of a kind, but maybe I should ask him, what he has to say about this crazieness? He ought to know a little bit more than I do.

p.s Sorry if I got things a bit wrong here and there. English isn't my motherlanguage.

By: Nolan Matthias

Nolan Matthias — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:24:28 +0000

Hillarious. I especially like the idea of the 6 degree closed face driver. LOL.

It all comes down to the fact that they can only act so much like big brother.

By: Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:02:28 +0000

Very well said Jack. These are, after all, professionals were talking about. We should expect them to benefit from equipment each and every aspect of equipment unlike your average hack. The same principle is true for me and my cutaway guitar. It's there so I can get to the upper frets when I'm "shredding" but I rarely need it.