To Spring or Not to Spring?
2/09/01

To spring or not to spring?
It's the hottest debate in golf right now. Should the rules permit people to play with drivers that exceed the "Spring-Like Effect" standard, such as the Callaway ERC II?

The USGA says No.

The R&A, the game's governing body everywhere except the U.S. and Mexico, says Yes.

This situation is no good for the game as it creates disharmony, confusion and chaos. A common international set of rules is the matrix which binds golf's integrity and lends order to the game. There has to be one international set of rules for both amateurs and professionals alike. The USGA and the R&A find themselves in a deep pot bunker which was dug with tools labeled "litigation," "self esteem," "procrastination" and "fear of the unknown." The two groups must now come together and speak with one voice.

Conciliation is the only solution.

 

As I see it, there are four options. But first, a little background. What on earth is "Spring-Like Effect," anyway?

The measurement used to limit Spring-Like Effect is called "Coefficient of Restitution" (COR), which is a very simple concept. It is a measure of the efficiency of the collision between two bodies -- in this case a golf ball and a clubhead. For example, if a ball is fired at a large mass of steel at 100 mph and it rebounds at 75 mph, the COR would be 75 divided by 100, or 0.75. It's that simple. As the ball always loses some energy during impact, it could never rebound at 100 mph. That would be a COR of 1.0, which is unknown in science. No more physics lessons are needed.

The first rule concerning Spring-Like Effect was adopted by the USGA in 1984. Rule 5.1a in Appendix II states in part: ". . . the face or clubhead shall not have the effect at impact of a spring." At that time, the wooden-headed clubs had no "trampoline effect" -- the resilience of the ball was solely responsible for the efficiency of the impact and the COR was about 0.77 (at a clubhead speed of 110 m.p.h.).

In the 1990s, manufacturers introduced larger clubheads to increase the size of the sweet spot, and then started making them out of titanium, since the clubfaces of steel heads of the same size were collapsing. A surprise result was enhanced ball speed. Why? The manufacturers had inadvertently created clubs with a Spring-Like Effect.

The USGA discovered the existence of this phenomenon only after the clubs were in production. Nobody is really guilty -- both parties were surprised by the new "hot" clubfaces. And so, in 1998, the USGA found itself in a position where enforcing the rule as written -- the 1984 rule -- would have created problems. Instead, it was decided to draw the line at a point to include most of the clubs in the marketplace at that time. The COR limit was established at 0.83. This is a bit like saying: "No smoking in this restaurant, but six cigarettes is OK."

On the other hand, the R&A retained the 1984 rule in the book but did not set any COR limit. They are completely ignoring the "No Smoking" sign.

OK, now we've got that behind us, let's go to the four options. I'm assuming that bifurcation of the rules -- equipment standards for elite tournament pros, but no equipment standards for the rest of us 99 percent of the golfing world -- is not an option.

 

Option I

The USGA and the R&A resolve to admit that the action taken in 1998 was an error, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in average driving distance on the PGA Tour since the introduction of the large titanium clubheads. They show unity in moving to back to what the original rule reads: NO Spring-Like Effect. This would require a lengthy grace period for both golfers and manufacturers alike -- let's say 10 years -- but could be enforced at the U.S. Open and on tour within months.

 

I'd love to see this option happen. No smoking means no smoking. However, it is naïve to even think the world could be that perfect. There'd be too much loss of face, threats of lawsuits and all around more saber-rattling.

I'll put the chances of this outcome at around 5 percent.

 

Option II

The R&A faces up to the fact that it missed the boat and it adopts the same standard as the USGA -- COR of 0.83 (or only six cigarettes allowed). This would mean that only one governing body moves. Again, embarrassment and threats of legal action make this option not very likely. Because of the R&A's delay in admitting the existence of a Spring-Like Effect or developing a standard, there is now too much product out there.

 

I'll put the chances of this being the outcome at about 20 percent.

 

Option III

The USGA's current Spring-Like Effect standard has a limiting COR of 0.83. The R&A doesn't have any limit and will claim that the laws of physics are sufficient. A compromise, with both parties looking good as they move to a new position, would be to set a new limit between the two positions. If the theoretical maximum COR is around 0.92, let's set this new limit at 0.88.

 

Although this looks like a very diplomatic solution, it makes about as much sense as setting a speed limit of 95 m.p.h. if cars were incapable of going faster than 100 m.p.h. (or saying that patrons can each smoke only two packs of cigarettes per night in your restaurant). The extra several yards that could possibly be gained between a COR of 0.88 and the natural physical limit would not be worth the fuss. This option would, however, make the ERC II conform, as well as a few other drivers in production around the world which are making their way into the States.

The R&A may go for this option, but both organizations would have to suffer the embarrassment of adopting an almost meaningless standard to make them both look good. What are the chances of this? I think about 50 percent.

 

Option IV

The USGA drops the Spring-Like Effect standard. Smoke all you want. At least the game would suffer less from this option than from not resolving the present state of confusion and disruption. The USGA moves to the R&A's position and recognizes that the laws of physics are sufficient in this case, and that major increases in distance are not going to happen unless Newton and his mates were wrong.

 

If there were no COR standard, we could expect about 10 to 15 yards more in the average driving distance on the PGA Tour over the next five to 10 years. This increase would be due to advances in both the club and the ball. And it would be close to the maximum that the laws of physics would allow if there were no standards for clubs or balls.

It would be a hard pill for the USGA to swallow. But the manufacturers will not get too upset, except for those that have been towing the line to date. The R&A will save face. There is a minimum threat of litigation. Those golfers who have bought these nonconforming clubs will not suffer financially. It is questionable, however, as to what long-term effect this may have on the game.

I give this a 75 percent chance of happening.

If the latter option does come to pass -- we'll have to wait until later in the year for any decisions -- you can bet that, having lost the battle on golf clubs with regard to the 100-year-old war on distance, the USGA and the R&A will aim all their munitions at the innocent, cute, little dimpled ball -- a subject of articles in the future.

---

This column appeared on golfdigest.com where Frank contributes on a weekly basis. Check it out every Saturday.