What's going on?

The USGA's latest equipment crackdown causes only more harm than good

By Frank Thomas
Golf World

TO: Executive Committee, USGA
FROM: Frank Thomas, USGA Technical Director, 1974-2000
RE: What's going on in Far Hills?

As a former USGA insider now on the outside looking in, I am saddened to witness the slow decay of an organization so dearly needed to guide us through difficult times and to protect (not preserve) a game that means so much to so many.

Long putters like Scott McCarron's remain OK. Photo: Rusty Jarrett

You have put manufacturers on notice that "excessively sized clubheads do not conform to the Rule of Golf that states,'The club shall not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.' " You also have determined that excessively long clubs are not traditional (even though the long putter seems to pass your test).

I know these proposals have been considered before, but you're heading in the wrong direction. You've been given bad advice, first in coming up with the arbitrary 385cc limit in clubhead size, then, at the first hint of a lawsuit, in raising the limit to 460cc.

The obvious victims of your proposals are not golf-club manufacturers nor the elite golfers who may be compromising the integrity of a few 100-year-old courses. The true victims are beginning golfers, women golfers and seniors. Your actions, therefore, appear to be thoughtless, without merit. It seems to be a vain attempt to demonstrate that something is being done. What you have done successfully is to solicit bad public relations at a time when respect and sound, strong leadership are called for.

It is unfortunate that an organization, of which I remain a strong supporter, has to cower behind the vague and undefined language of "traditional and customary" to avoid or minimize the potential effect of a legal challenge. It is so transparent that your real concern is not what is traditional and customary, but the distance the world's 500 best golfers are hitting the ball. Limiting shaft length and head size to the dimensions proposed is akin to putting shark nets in a backyard swimming pool -- it will not catch the intended.

Your attempt to limit club size and length reminds me of the "dimple race" of the early 1970s, when the 336-dimple design was giving way to new designs with more dimples -- some featuring as many as 812 dimples. During this period, the ball was getting longer and the obvious conclusion to the uninformed was that more dimples equals more distance.

If at that time the governors of the game had taken action -- as now, out of fear and without technical support -- to limit the number of dimples, they would have been comforted that something was being done. This would have resulted in a lot of egg on their faces, for the number of dimples was soon found to be self-limiting. In fact, the more dimples a ball has the closer it gets to becoming smooth, and a smooth ball will travel about half the distance of that traveled by the dimpled balls used today.

Look to members of your own technical staff (who are among the best scientific minds in the business) to provide the data that demonstrates the flaws in your recent proposals, including the one to abandon the proposed optimization test method for balls. Backing off from adopting one of the most sophisticated and scientifically sound test standards in the world of sports is even more misguided than your proposed limits on clubhead size and shaft length.

In fact, if you want to tackle a truly important issue, about which there is ample evidence that your distance defenses have broken down, resolve the dispute between the USGA and the R&A on coefficient of restitution and the impact the springlike effect of thin titanium clubfaces is having on distance at the professional level.

If you're going to propose limits on distance, they must be based on solid scientific evidence. Then, have the courage of your convictions. Golfers will abide by sound reasoning to protect the challenge of the game. That challenge must not be compromised.

January 25, 2002

 

Taken from Golf World 25 January 02