I believe we are not physically better then humans were 100 years ago. Its the technology that has changed the game.

However, couses should not have to change physically or equipment limited. Par should change. We need to use Par and Hadicaps as our judgement.

If the same course plays 4 strokes short today then before par should be dropped to 68.

Its human nature to resist change, but we need to learn to accpet it.

There is one way that all these questions could be answered. Get Tiger or Phil etc to play a televised round with some blades, woods and a balata ball from the 70's.

Are you going to give them 10 years to practice with those clubs and balls, too, so that they can develop a swing that maximizes their potential?

I didn't think so.

Then we would see if the equipment has made that much difference or is it the professionalism and fitness regime of todays players?

I am sure that today's equipment is longer and more forgiving but as the ad says "these guys are good"

Think of it this way: If the NBA wanted to "protect" the game of basketball the way the USGA protects golf, you'd be watching Kobe Bryant on a 300-foot court with 20-foot high hoops...

In a stare down between manufacturers and the USGA, the USGA has consistently backed off. In addition to the threat of litigation, they harbor the real fear that one day, if perceived too restrictive, the rules will be ignored by the general golfing population and they'll lose whatever status and leverage they now possess.

Perhaps parallel lines of equipment for "average" and "pro" players was inevitable, if unfortunate, in my opinion. While a future of 400 yard drives is indeed debatable, I can't help but wonder if the nano technology that's starting to be employed in shafts won't one day make that a possibility. I also wonder what's being done to anticipate and set appropriate limits.

Yes, players like Hogan, Jones, and Palmer worked diligently on their equipment. Jones pieced together his set before there was such a thing as a "matched set." Later, Hogan and Palmer had to deal with shaft and clubhead manufacturing techniques that resulted in specs all over the place, so they had to pick and choose components carefully. But still, in the end, the clubs they used were remarkably close to those used by the average guy.

Allin:
You make an excellent point when you mention agronomy. I didn't want to get into that in this article, but it's certainly fodder for this old man's rant. Did you see the ragged grass around the bunkers and the shaggy (by today's standard) greens at Augusta in that 1960 Master's replay on Sunday? The kind of conditioning we now demand thanks to Augusta National's example is hugely expensive and a cost we all are paying.

Eric M:
I indeed remember the J driver. Even hit it once. And, yes, that's a perfect example of what I wrote above when I said the USGA is afraid of pushing too restrictive a set of standards.

Don:
Love your characterization of the four majors. That's certainly what we've come to know and expect. And I also think it's what we as fans and the world's best players deserve. We sure didn't get the expected this weekend and I think we all can feel properly cheated as a result.

The Masters: No rough, fast greens, risk/reward, chances for spectacular shots.

US Open: High rough, narrow fairways, hard greens, converted par-5s, 270-yard par-3s, test of endurance/patience to "protect par."

British Open: Links golf with windy conditions, firm turf for low/running shots, slower greens.

PGA Championship: Mixture of the above three styles on courses that are too new or for whatever reason don't fit the US Open rota (Whistling Straits, Kiawah Island) or have fallen out of it (Oakland Hills), set up tough but not as severe as the US Open.

The USGA and other golf organizations need to focus less on par and more on setting up courses to provide a fair and fun test. That will set an example for the clubs and munis that we play on a regular basis to not feel the need to make courses longer and more penal, making the game even less fun for new players.

I agree, and I think the U.S. Open has long had their name written on the "protect par" championship. The other majors have their own gig and should stick to what made them unique and great.

When Old Tom Morris was winning British Opens at 22-OVER-par, that was OK. If someone wins the Masters at 22-under-par, that's OK with me. That means they played the best, and they won. Do you think Zach Johnson is kicking himself because he shot 1-over-par last week? Nope. He's thrilled that he won – a thrill that would be the same at any score. Par is a guideline, a reference point. It is not the magic number.

The USGA and other golf organizations need to focus less on par and more on setting up courses to provide a fair and fun test. That will set an example for the clubs and munis that we play on a regular basis to not feel the need to make courses longer and more penal, making the game even less fun for new players.

Anyone remember the J Driver? The R&A ruled it acceptable, but the USGA banned it (late 80s early 90s). While not overlooking the U grooves situation. I think this rift between the two major governing bodies was an equally important event. It signalled that there was wiggle room, even if equipment manufacturers could only sell something oversees. It also signalled that the USGA would inevitably come under ever increasing pressures from the US market and the members, that make up the organization, to allow more hi-tech products into the game.

I would submit, without any evidence, that the USGA chose what it considered the lesser of two evils (self-preservation and expansion) and only relatively recently realized that they may have not chosen the best path.

What concerns me is what comes next?

I don't know either, but the USGA doesn't have a very good track record of predicting things. Still, I don't see much else to legislate, given…

Allin said on April 9, 2007:

It seems me that The USGA must continue to set parameters not only for measurable dynamic properties like ball speed, spin, grooves, cor etc. but also static properties, club weight and length minimums and maximums.

A shorter driver is perfectly legal, and there are already limits on the length a driver is allowed to be. Appendix II, Item 1c says:

The overall length of the club must be at least 18 inches (457.2 mm) and, except for putters, must not exceed 48 inches (1,219.2 mm). For woods and irons, the measurement of length is taken when the club is lying on a horizontal plane and the sole is set against a 60 degree plane as shown in Fig. I. The length is defined as the distance from the point of the intersection between the two planes to the top of the grip. For putters, the measurement of length is taken from the top of the grip along the axis of the shaft or a straight line extension of it to the sole of the club.

Allin said on April 9, 2007:

Still there has to be some room for invention. Hybrids and hollow body irons, the use of new bonding agents etc. I am not a fan of adjustable clubs. I know they cannot be changed on the course, but there is a big difference between lead tape and some of the adjustments which are becoming possible.

Given the "you can't change them mid-round" rule, I think they're fine. If anything, they make the days of lead tape obsolete. No biggie there. On the plus side, it saves consumers from having to buy two or more different drivers to suit different conditions or courses.

Pros get no disproportionate advantage because they can have clubs built to their specifications anyway. Movable weights just lets us hacks do it as well (though still not to the same degree).

Allin said on April 9, 2007:

I believe there should be some limitation of their ability to modify their bag week to week, they shouldn't be able to change out more than 1 club plus a putter, and club adjustability round to round for all your clubs including drivers should not be allowed for pros.

I'm never in favor of bifurcating the rules. If anything, too, that would be a PGA Tour rule, not a USGA rule.