Supporting the spring-like effect rule as it was originally written
could solve problems for the USGA and the R&A
By Frank Thomas
Golf World
PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem has suggested the creation of an
independent global body that would develop a set of equipment standards
to be adopted by the major pro tours. Masters chairman Hootie Johnson
thinks someday -- maybe even someday soon -- players in his invitational
tournament will have to use a new distance-limiting "Masters ball."
Both of these trial balloons have risen from two separate but interconnected
problems: The inability of the USGA and the R&A to find common ground
regarding equipment rules, specifically the spring-like effect, and
the alarming rate at which the average driving distance has increased
on the PGA Tour.
Have the USGA and R&A effectively lost their ability to control distance
and harness technology? Do Finchem's "Global Body" or Johnson's "Masters
ball," born out of frustration, represent feasible alternatives?
In a word, no. For starters, a new entity charged with governing equipment
could never limit itself simply to legislating the performance properties
of the driver and the ball. It would also have to deal with irons, grooves,
types of strokes on and around the green and other associated equipment
and devices. Also, to assemble a truly "independent group" of qualified
experts would be next to impossible.
As elegant a solution as this global body may seem, it would never
be as independent as a unified USGA and R&A. What, then, is the formula
for restoring the system that once worked, if not in perfect tandem,
at least well enough?
The first step would be to develop a clear and sound mission statement
agreed to by both the USGA and R&A (no such mission statement currently
exists). Second, the rulemakers should clearly define the problems as
they appear to exist. This should be followed by a proposed course of
action with justifiable evidence to support it.
If it is agreed that the distance today's pros hit the ball is a real
problem, one solution might be to enforce the "spring-like effect" rule
as it currently reads and was originally written. Eliminating the spring-like
effect will reduce the average driving distance of tour players by about
10 yards, maybe more. Importantly, such a rollback would be a compromise
position that would require both the USGA and R&A to move from their
current positions, but in a direction of solving the distance issue.
It would restore international uniformity in the rules, put a cap on
further distance improvement due to continuing advances in clubface
technology and protect (perhaps) older course designs from being compromised.
Uniting on this long-unresolved issue and taking a firm, justifiable
stand would also restore respect for, and strengthen the leadership
of the governing bodies. And it would remove the need for a "Masters
ball."
Will this proposal result in threats of legal action? Almost without
a doubt. But if the USGA and R&A sincerely believe it is the best course
of action and for the good of the game, and there is convincing justification,
then they should have the courage to defend their position.
To minimize the legal damage, such an action might be first introduced
in the form of a local rule that the PGA Tour can adopt immediately.
The rest of us mere mortals would have the option of falling into line
any time before such a "condition of play" becomes a Rule of Golf, say
in six to 10 years.
The majority of golfers will not, in truth, be affected measurably
by the final adoption of this rule. By that time advanced designs to
help improve the forgiveness factor of drivers will overshadow the minimal
effect any spring-like effect can provide amateur players, who generally
lack the skill required to make consistent contact on the COR "hot spot."
Perhaps when Finchem meets again with representatives of the USGA
and the R&A on Johnson's home ground next week, he'll be able to help
the governing bodies return to "the common ground" upon which the game
must be played.