Well, it's an exciting time for technology and equipment in golf. With the advent of the new, square drivers, manufacturers are creating more and more interest in technology and the game.

In this Newsletter, I give you my take on square drivers as well as presenting the results of our last survey on drug testing in golf.

Check out our new "Spend a Weekend with the Frog" Program. It's a great way to try the Frog and discover its stability, balance, forgiveness and feel. Develop confidence and have fun on the green!

What do the new square drivers do for your game?

Now we have square drivers. Frankly Speaking, ‘What was wrong with the round ones?’

With the introduction of square or squarish drivers, manufacturers are chasing the legal limit on the measure of forgiveness known as Moment of Inertia (MOI). The best way to do this is to concentrate the mass as far away as possible from the center of gravity, which lessens the club’s tendency to twist on off-center contact. The USGA has set a limit on MOI about the vertical axis, and also has a size limit for club heads of 5 inches from toe to heel, and a fraction less than 5 from the front to back. These limits form almost a square. So the best way to approach the maximum allowable MOI within the size restrictions is to get as much weight as possible into the corners of this square.  Thus we now have the square driver.

The moment the USGA establishes any limit on equipment, manufacturers decide that approaching it is the thing to do, because golfers infer from any “new limit” that the closer you are to it, the better the club  must be.   The manufacturers take advantage of this myth and chase it, letting the consumer know that its new club or ball is the closest to that limit and therefore must be good or even the best.

Originally, the USGA proposed a standard on MOI of 4,800 gm. cm ² (see http://www.franklygolf.com/Speak/moi.asp for a simple explanation of MOI), but soon modified this after the manufacturers suggested that it was inappropriate.  The USGA explained its quick change of mind by saying that it was based on input from the manufacturers, and that going from 4,800 gm. cm ² to 6,000 gm. cm ² “doesn’t mean anything in real terms.” Studies have shown that the USGA’s statement is correct, that this change doesn’t mean much in real terms.  The obvious question, then, is, If this change doesn’t mean anything, would a violation of the new limit mean anything? And if not, then why set the limit?

When drivers increased in size into the 400-460 cc range, they went from MOIs of about 2,000 gm cm² to 4,000 gm cm².  This was a real change that improved forgiveness and led to a significant improvement in performance on mis-hits. But there is a phenomenon known as the law of diminishing returns; every incremental increase does not lead to an equivalent increase in performance.   Most of the 400cc to 460 cc drivers   perform very well, and are only slightly less forgiving than the newest and latest Square Drivers with MOIs approaching the 5,500 gm cm² range. The difference in performance is simply not significant; this is a text book example of diminishing returns.

There is very little room left to improve the performance of drivers, which leaves manufacturers struggling to create distinctions for their products.  In this sense, a USGA-imposed limit on anything is a godsend; they can claim to be pushing the envelope by getting as close to the limit as possible, impressing golfers who have no way to understand whether the limitation is significant to begin with.   I believe that we are now in the “Big and Square” phase of a fashion cycle. In time, drivers will return to a more traditional look, as this will then be something new and different, with no perceptible difference in performance. We could quite possibly see the cycle retracing its curve back to the 400+ cc drivers and more traditional shapes as soon as all the square shapes and others have become commonplace. Hemlines go up; hemlines come down; consumers, for some reason, follow along.  From a performance point of view, let me again quote the USGA: “It doesn’t mean anything in real terms.”   But changing along with the fashions of the day is fun, it activates the placebo effect and it doesn’t harm anything other than your wallet.  

Consumers are slowly becoming aware of the fact that real changes of any significance have become fewer and farther between, especially when it comes to drivers and balls.  If you really want to make a change in performance, becoming physically fitter and more flexible will improve your performance far more effectively than any piece of equipment. But doing that is not as much fun as shopping.

If you want to concentrate on any one single piece of equipment, consider the following: you hit your putter approximately 2 ½ times more often a driver during a round. With some basic instruction and a well-designed putter you CAN putt like a pro. Driving like the pros is only a fantasy.

Frankly, for the moment, being square is cool.

Frankly What Do You Think ?

Have your scores or handicap dropped because of the latest driver technology?

Click here to take part in this survey!

Results of Drug Testing Survey

In our last Newsletter our Frankly What Do You Think section was focused on the subject of drug testing in golf. Here are the results from over 400 Frankly Friends who took part:

Honesty and honor have always been essential aspects of the game of golf. Players are expected to be self-regulating, to know the Rules and to police their own actions. The extent to which performance-enhancing drugs can help golfers is unknown, though they have posed a problem for many sports where strength is a benefit and workout-recovery is a factor. Do you believe drug-testing has a place in golf, at any level of skill or competition?

Many of our Frankly Friends have some very strong views on this subject. Here are some of the comments from both sides......click on YES or NO to view.

Thanks to everyone who had their say!!

Have a dream weeekend on the greens with the Frog for only $10. Click here to find out more.