the USGA and R&A's biggest mistake??

I'm getting back into the game in a serious way after a looooooong layoff (raising children, demanding job, etc.).

I was a caddie for many years, for pretty much all of the '70's, and played a lot of golf then too.

So here's what I'm thinking - - as I look at all the new equipment, get back into watching TV golf, reading golf forums, and so on. Like major league baseball, the golf authorities should have established that woods must be made of. . .

. . .wood.

That is, for a club over a certain volume, it must be made of wood.

Sure, blasting the ball with giant metal trampolines can be fun - - but I really think it has taken something away from the game. Now they're trying to reign things in with the groove dimension rules, but that seems so trivial. IMHO the pro's, at least, should still be playing with Toney Penna and Power Built persimmon drivers - - this would have kept both the artistry and the courses in play and resulted in much more interesting and historically pleasing golf.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

And I suppose now I'm off to get me a giant metal grapefruit on the end of a graphite stick to see how far I too can bash those little white things. . .

A lot of older courses are left toothless - fly the hazards, hit a 295 yard poker straight high flying ball and have a sand wedge approach. I remember thinking if I can the ball out to 250 yards off the tee - and control the sidespin enough to keep it between the trees - it will be time for celebration. Now a driver hit less than 275 leaves me thinking about a mis-hit. It gross yet addictive. I really enyoy a tight course where playing irons and fairway woods off the tee is the smart play - it feels less like cheating.

I wish it was that simple, if i had to hit those old "sticks" that used to be used, they would probably end up being firewood in a big bonfire after about 4 or 5 holes. Technology is great, without it i wouldnt have a chance. With it, I feel like I can play this game and thats the case for many people, the game has grown tremendously because the initial learning curve is so much less now than it was probably even 10 years ago. That doesnt mean that everyone will become a great player because of it, it does mean that many will hang around long enough to be good enough to have fun and not get frustrated and quit and thats good enough for many players, especially those that simply dont have the time or money to practice and play very often.

At the same time, the modern driver technology keeps some of us old farts in the game where we might have simply given it up if we were still stuck with persimmon drivers. I was never able to even hit a driver until I got my first TM Burner back in about '85 or '86. I play with some guys who can't hit a ball 200 with their best swing any more, and if their titanium drivers and senior graphite shafts were taken away, they'd never get the ball out their own shadows.

Nobody is stopping the purist from using whatever he wants, but don't take the fun out of the game for the rest of us.

I think that was the OP's position too - nobody's suggesting taking away aluminum bats from weekend warriors in beer leagues, or even Div 1 players, but in the big leagues, hearing the crack of a wooden bat is almost a religious experience. For those of us who only gave up persimmon very recently, and still put a wood wood in the bag now and then, it's nostalgia and looking at baseball with respect. They had vision and foresight not to allow aluminum at the top level. Steroids made up for it, but that's another story.

Right. Weekenders can use whatever they want. But I would think the major Opens plus the Tour should have put in some type of rule like this. So, just like with baseball, if you want to play in the "big leagues" learn how to use wood. Otherwise, fire away with whatever you want, or whatever your local league determines.

There are restrictions on driver size, MOI, and COR already. Don't these accomplish the same thing? Perhaps you think the limits should be lowered, but they have limited the technology already.

And I suppose Major League Baseball could have done the same thing with aluminum bats. But I stil think there is something to be said for natural wood.

It's a balancing act, to be sure, and I'm not advocating mandating hickory shafts and featheries. But at some point I think the technology should be "naturally" limited - - instead of just technical specs. I was watching a Nationwide Tour event the other day, and guys were routinely smashing drives well past 300 yds, and some much, much farther. For me, anyway, it actually was not that interesting to watch.

As mentioned above, that can be somewhat controlled by course choice and setup. The new groove rule has made a noticeable difference in the action on balls hit from rough, placing more of a premium on playing from the fairway. Make the fairway a bit narrower, add some hazards and bunkers that can't be carried by those 300 yard drives. It really isn't rocket science to set up a course so that it offers more difficulty for imprecise play, and more reward for the shotmakers.

Part of the fault lies with the fans who praise and imitate the bomb and gouge playing style. Guys like Daly and Bubba draw big galleries of people who don't really seem to understand the game of golf. They appear to think that golf is all about hitting the ball as hard as you can, then dealing with what's left no matter what happens to the drive. Golf is supposed to be planning a complete strategy for a hole and then executing that strategy. Golf is also supposed to be a mental game, but bomb and gouge has turned it into an almost purely physical exercise. Take away the relative ease of the gouge part of the equation, and you have gone a long way toward curing the bomb part too. Players who can't adapt will eventually fall off the Tour.

One thing that metal woods have over persimmon woods is consistency. Some persimmon heads had strange wood knots inside which caused problems on ball flight.

Back in the 1970s, an old club pro - he was old back then - told me about "problem woods." He said a member had come in with a new driver, complaining he "couldn't hit it." So, the pro and his assistant took the driver out to the range, and found out they both got a bad push when they hit it "square." The pro ordered the member a new driver, no cost.

He said it happened two or three times a year.

True, but I think it's a good feature of golf that the rules are the same for the pros and the weekenders (new groove rule notwithstanding). Besides the length, there are benfits to metal clubs---they last longer, are more consistent to manufacture, etc. Plus, by restricting the properties rather than the technology, it ensures (or at least makes more likely) that a manufacturer can't find a way around the rules to beat the intent. I think wood clubs are neat and all, but I really don't share the opinion that it'd be better to keep them.

The golf video games are part of this too. In those, once you get powered up, you can basically drive+wedge everything, and virtually guarantee a birdie or better every hole. Part of this is that the strategy and subtlety of golf just doesn't translate to a video game...

Listening to Jack Nicklaus yesterday during the Memorial Tournament telecast... he said the exact opposite. He thinks that the BALL gives more of an advantage than the clubs. He said that if we went back to wound balls, even WITH the titanium or whatever drivers... the trampoline effect would be there, but it would be minimal. He thinks that the balls that are being used today are too good. I tend to agree.

CY

Yes, it's mostly the ball. One particular study had a pro golfer hit a modern driver + old ball vs persimmon + new ball result was that persimmon + new ball outdrove the modern driver + old ball (it wasn't close) If I remember correctly they also did modern driver + new ball vs persimmon + new ball result was modern driver + new ball outdrove, but not by a whole lot. If I remember correctly, these were center hits. The modern driver gives you much more forgiveness on off center hits.

I don't have a problem with the technology in golf. That's one great thing about golf is that amateurs can play the same equipment as the pros and the rules are the same for both. Golf to me just wouldn't have the same feel if you had to go backwards technologically when you turned pro. Of course, I grew up in the metal wood technology era, so I may feel differently had I grew up playing persimmon.

I'm not a baseball player and honestly don't know much about the game, but someone mentioned that the big leagues use wood bats. Isn't this only because they are safer for these guys to use? For Major League players, if they were to play aluminum bats, the ball would come off way to hot and could potentially hurt someone?

Whether it's mostly one or the other is a moot point. Rein in both and it was be better television.

BTW - I still play use a quality persimmon driver on occasion and the same ball goes ~ 30 yards farther with my 2009 PING.

I'm not advocating "going back" - - it's way to late for that. But I do think the game would be better had they prevented the pro's from using metal woods in the first place - - like MLB did with the bats. Amateurs could then decide: use woods and try to be/mimic/compare oneself to the pro's, or use the latest game improvement technology - - just like what happens in baseball now. Today, it makes no sense to use wooden woods, no more so than hickory shafts or featheries. There would be nothing "purist" about this since no rules stipulate so. If, for historical reasons, someone wants to use old-style equipment now - - well that's something different altogether (mashie niblick for fun?). No, the wooden wood is indeed dead.

And I would be very surprised if persimmon drivers hit modern balls just as well/far as modern metal drivers since my understanding is that the new balls have been specifically optimized for the new drivers. But if true tests demonstrate this, then it must be so - - and maybe the ball is the "problem". Anyway, I'm not trying to take a Luddite position here - - just missing some of the (at least perceived) artistry that came with the old style wooden woods and a 400 yard par 4 being a challenging hole, and not so much this smash and wedge game that I now see on TV (even if it has been slightly mitigated by groove specs). And maybe I'm just an older guy reminiscing a bit too much. . .

Nothing wrong with reminiscing. I don't watch TV golf nearly as much as I once did, and for the same reason. Bomb and gouge is boring. It was exciting watching the duels between Nicklaus and Watson back in the day. You had to have all of the shots to excel back then. Jack's long game (including his famous 1 iron) vs. Tom's short game.... that was golf at it's finest.

Driver - wedge, driver - wedge... maybe toss in a 9I for variety... utter boredom.

This whole concept is missing one major point. The problem with baseball bats is a lot different than golf clubs. In golf, distance doesn't equal score, in baseball it does. If you can hit a baseball over the outfield wall, you get a home run. If you can hit a golf ball over 300 yards, you don't get anything. Golf is a sport of precision, baseball is a sport of reaction.

A wood and an aluminum baseball bat are the same thing, swing one, swing the other. The only true fundamental difference is the distance the ball goes. The batter's challenge is to contact the ball squarely. The distance a few guys can cover in the outfield is limited, and the ballparks can't be made much bigger, so they have to use wood. The dimensions of the park must be uniform and universal.

Golf, on the other hand, is different. The ball is stationary, and the player doesn't react to it. Square contact is expected on nearly every single shot. The challenge is the control exerted over the ball, not the distance it's hit. Golf courses can be expanded, added to, or made harder. Each course is different, different length, different difficulty, and different layout. You can add water at 300 yards and force guys to layup, or you can make the green more severe.

So, the advantage of being able to hit the ball far in golf is minimal. Give a baseball player an aluminum bat, and he's hitting a home run with each solid contact, and the parks need to be made longer. You've seen guys on tour bomb the ball 300+ yards and fail to par the hole, but have you ever seen a baseball player pound one over the outfield wall on the fly and fail to score a run? Therein lies the difference. In baseball, distance = score. In golf, distance only helps the player get in position to score better.