When you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist. C.B. MACDONALD
I love these guys. David Dusek on the latest suit.
David Dusek talks to Geoff Ogilvy about changing putters, just as Bobby Jones suggests in today's quote (above...until I take it down). And you thought some of us Geoff's who would like to see a minor distance rollback aren't also passionate advocates of consumerism?
"Your central nervous system enjoys change," he told me. "The new putter theory is not BS, that's a fact and it works for everyone. So sometimes if my putting feels a bit flat, I'll change putters, but it's not like I'm completely changing putters. I just want to look at something new, something fresh. People might think you are just trying to escape all the bad karma in your other putter, but your brain likes change and it gets you excited about putting again."
It's been so long since I've had anything to add to The List. Great to see what Greg Norman had to say this week:
Norman, who was in Australia to play the Johnnie Walker Classic last weekend in Perth, also said golf's international administrators should limit the impact of technology to save time and money rather than lengthen courses to accommodate for players hitting the ball further with increasingly advanced clubs.
"I think the powers that be could have done a better job of managing the technology breakthroughs that took place over a period of time and implemented different rules for us, the professionals, and not having to spend millions upon millions of dollars to change golf courses for four rounds," he said.
Dave Shedloski, talking to Bob Vokey about the groove rule change:
The rule change, which applies to clubs manufactured after January 2010, has forced Vokey and his design team to rethink grooves on wedges. His fertile mind has been working overtime.
"We have 25-30 different patterns we have already mocked up -- different patterns, different angles, different spacing, different radiuses, different face treatments, different punch marks ... every different treatment we could think of," Vokey said. "Even some of my old dreams from years ago. We want to see what we can come up with that gives us the proper feel and trajectory and level of reliability and performance.
"We've taken all of that, and now we're in the process of narrowing down to about three, and after that we'll submit them to the USGA. They will fall within the specifications; they will conform. We're going to try to get that done before the summer to get them in the players' hands to work with in their off-time. This way, they will be ready to go in 2010."
Not exactly sitting idly by!
Introducing Golf Digest's Hot List homage to the latest equipment, Mike Stachura writes:
The USGA is unequivocal about average golfers: Despite decades of naysayers and experts alike suggesting that the average handicap is not dropping, has not dropped and never will drop, the fact is, it has. Let's say that again: The average handicap of all golfers -- men, women and children -- has decreased consistently for the past 15 years. The average handicap today is two strokes better than it was in the early 1990s, according to research provided to Golf Digest by the USGA's Golf Handicap & Information Network (GHIN). This decrease coincides with a remarkable decade of equipment innovation that has brought us titanium drivers in every shape and size, game-changing hybrids and oversize putters.
It's not the improved athleticism?
Anyway, reader Jordan noted that the most astounding element of the Hot List package was this comparison of drivers in the post-persimmon years. All were made by Taylor-Made and photographed by Jim Herity:
Actually, these "scientists" only mentioned the deaf part as Jonathan Brocklebank (he was a character in a Wodehouse novel, no?) reports in the Daily Mail:
Modern titanium clubs create a 'sonic boom' when they connect with the ball, say scientists.
The risk of going deaf is so great that doctors are advising golfers to wear earplugs while they play their tee shots.
I smell a class-action suit on behalf of all employees subjected to indoor hitting bay noise. Or maybe all Golf Digest Hot List judges?
Tests were carried out on six titanium clubs and six thickerfaced stainless steel models and sound levels measured.
While the steel clubs produced the agreeable 'tink' of a well-hit shot, the titanium ones were much louder, described by some as similar to a gun being fired.
Dr Malcolm Buchanan, an Edinburgh-trained ear, nose and throat specialist - and a keen golfer - said: 'Our results show that thin-faced titanium drivers may produce sufficient sound to induce temporary or even permanent cochlear damage in susceptible individuals.
'Players should be careful when playing with these thin-faced clubs as they make a lot more noise.'
Dr Buchanan, one of the authors of the report which appears in the latest edition of the British Medical Journal, added: 'Wearing earplugs is a possibility, although it might be a bit too radical for some.'
And in case you were wondering who the real offenders were:
They recruited a professional golfer to hit shots with six titanium clubs from manufacturers such as King Cobra, Callaway, Nike and Mizuno. All produced a louder noise than the stainless steel clubs. The worst offender was the Ping G10.
Only one day left, according to Susan Baird, as Acushnet is recalling all of the remaining nonconvernted balls on shelves in response to its appeals loss.
Meanwhile, however, a lower-court injunction that takes effect Jan. 1 will bar the sale of Titleist golf balls manufactured using the contested technology. (The balls will remain legal for consumer use and tournament play, Acushnet noted.)
So this fall – while also launching a bid to block the injunction, an effort that failed last week (READ MORE) – Acushnet stopped using the disputed technology. Last month, it began shipping to retailers the “converted” Pro V1 and Pro V1x models. And last week, Acushnet said it would accept returns from retailers of any remaining nonconverted balls, although it did not believe any recall was necessary.
But now, Acushnet has decided to play it safe.
In what it described as an effort “to remove this uncertainty from the marketplace,” the company this week issued a call for U.S. retailers to return to the company all nonconverted Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls that remain in their inventories as of Jan. 1.
An unbylined GolfDigest.com report looks at Acushnet's latest losing court ruling. An on their blog, Beau and Gizmo do their back and forth on what it all means. Not much, according to Beau:
Short of some mega-million-dollar judgment down the road I don't see this having much of an effect on, well, anything. Titleist has been deemed by the court to infringe a patent that Callaway owns, but didn't actually create. It bought it in a bankruptcy auction. I just can't get jacked up about that. But it should be interesting to see what the tour players have to say. Some were playing the 2003, 2005 and quite a few the 2007 version of the Pro V1/V1x last year and now it looks like all of them will have to play the new, reconfigured model. Pros are picky so we shall see. Still, how much different can it be? The USGA deemed the changes so insignicifcant that they didn't even require Acushnet to resubmit the ball for conformance. But a couple of pros apparently won't have to worry about it. Word on the street is that both Vijay Singh and Boo Weekley (who used Titleist balls this past season) will be going with Srixon's new tour ball in the coming season.
From Fairhaven:
ACUSHNET COMPANY CONTINUES APPEAL PROCESS IN PRO V1 PATENT DISPUTE
Titleist Continues to Manufacture, Distribute and Sell Pro V1 Golf Balls Outside of Scope of Disputed Patents
Fairhaven, MA (December 23, 2008) - Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), announced that it will move forward with the appeals process following denial of its request for a stay of an injunction regarding certain Titleist Pro V1 golf balls. The company announced that it does not expect today’s ruling or the injunction, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2009, to have a material adverse impact on its results and reaffirmed its confidence that it will ultimately win its appeal of the verdict in the underlying patent dispute.
"This decision will not interfere with Titleist’s ability to continue to manufacture, distribute and sell Pro V1 golf balls,” said Joe Nauman, executive vice president, corporate and legal of Acushnet. "While the stay was not granted, we understand that it was a request for extraordinary relief based upon a limited review.”
In September, well in advance of the District Court’s injunction decision, the production of existing Pro V1 model golf balls was converted to be outside the patents in question. As of January 1, 2009, there will be limited amounts of non-converted Pro V1 golf balls in retail inventory.
“Acushnet does not believe that the injunction order requires Acushnet to recall any Pro V1 golf balls from retailers, or that retailers are required to return any golf balls to Acushnet,” continued Nauman. “However, Acushnet is prepared to accept returns of non-converted retail inventory if requested by retailers.”
That's a bummer. I've been stocking up on non-converted retail inventory for fear that the converted retail inventory isn't as good.
Steve Pike talks to Tom Wishon and Terry Koehler about news of the USGA's high-lofted wedge study and they aren't too wild about many of the same things that bugged me and many of you.
"The USGA is grasping at straws here," Koehler said. "The existence of high lofted wedges is mandatory for golfers to have a chance to deal with modern golf course architecture, with deep faced bunkers, thicker greenside rough and faster and firmer greens.
"What are we doing to help grow the game if we take away the golfers' tools they need to contend with these hazards and conditions? If the USGA isn't careful, it's going to lose respect as the authority. Average golfers are going to say 'to hell with the rules.' That would be bad for golf."
And this from Wishon:
"This club requires more skill to hit consistently than any other wedge in the bag because when you have that much loft, there is a less friction between the ball and the face, and less compression of the ball against the face than any other wedge," Wishon said. "Thus, most golfers have a real problem finding that fine line between how hard to swing at the ball and how steep to hit down on the ball to be able to hit a 60-degree wedge solid enough to get the ball on the green and not leave it short in the hazard they were trying to finesse the ball over in the first place."
I spent much of Wednesday asking players at Sherwood about grooves. Why, when the rule doesn't take effect until 2010?
I felt it would be interesting to hear what kind of adjustments players are making going into this year, if any. And you would think it's a topic that players have started to pay attention to now that the rule change is looming.
Naturally, my naivety is once again exposed. Most of these supposed hi-tech savvy dudes have no idea what kind of grooves are in their irons or wedges, and if they do, have given little thought to how the rule change might impact their game.
Stephen Ames was one exeception. He has already switched out his irons and wedges at the same time he went to a softer ball and sees some difference. He has had a few flyers and noticed the biggest difference in reduced ball spin on a windy day. He said he's lost maybe 5 yards off the tee because he now plays with "the softest ball possible," which I presume to be the Nike ball that Tiger uses. Asked why he already made the change in his bag instead waiting until the end of the year, he just shrugged his shoulders and said why not?
I asked Tiger Woods in his press conference and found his answer (and enthusiam on the topic) both exciting and disheartening.
Exciting:
Q. In 2010 the USGA is changing the rule for grooves. Is that going to affect what's in your bag now or how you play golf courses in the coming years?
TIGER WOODS: Yeah, it'll affect what's in my bag. I can't have my two sand wedges the way I have them now.
But as far as -- I play the spinniest ball on TOUR, so for me, my transition will be a little bit easier than the rest of the guys, guys who play a harder golf ball. They're going to have to maybe a little bit more of an adjustment, whether they do it with loft. Some guys are experimenting with 64-degree wedges to try to help them out that way so they can hit fuller shots with more spin, or guys just might be making -- actually more mental adjustments in their course management skills, going for greens, because you know you actually can't get the ball to spin like you used to so it puts more of a premium on putting the ball in the fairway. With the wedges you can't blast it out there on the par-5s and expect an easy up-and-down. You've got to miss it on the proper side more than ever. But it'll be very interesting to see what happens, how guys make that adjustment.
So the USGA and R&A should be pleased to see that Tiger thinks hitting fairways will take on importance.
The disheartening part? I think he has a lot more to say on the matter, and a natural follow up on the news of a high-lofted wedge study would probably elicit a fascinating answer as well. But with his appearances limited and minimal accessibility, we'll have to wait a while.
The Orlando Sentinel's Josh Robbins talks to some of the geezers playing in the Father/Neerdowell Challenge about biggest changes to the game. My two favorites:
Raymond Floyd: Technology. Equipment and technology. ... It's unfortunate that the very top percentile, which is so minuscule, has really benefited. The masses have also benefited, but not to the [same] extent, because they've developed the ball and the club for the high swing speed. So that makes the ball go so much farther. However, the lighter club, the perimeter weighting, has benefited the masses as well. So, where do you draw the parallel? It's benefited everybody, but it's almost making old golf courses obsolete because of what happens exponentially with head speed, the distance the ball goes. ... I'm 66 years old, and I hit the ball farther than I did when I was probably 55.
But you workout Ray, don't discount that!
And Fuzzy...
Zoeller: I'd like to see the USGA step in and calm some things down, or some of these golf courses that have been over the years are just going to be obsolete. Personally as a player, I don't think they're doing their job. That's just the way I feel about it. ... [The technology and the equipment] has gotten out of hand. It seems like the manufacturers are light years ahead of the USGA. I think they need to stop it and put a cap on it somewhere. It's like a runaway dog right now.
What, no love for the groove rule change? I'm shocked!
Reader Ken emailed a list detailing the number of players finishing a PGA Tour season under par on par-4s. You can view the 2008 list here, where John Huston was the only player in 2008 to finish in red numbers for the season.
I've left Ken's notes in about major equipment advances as they might relate to performance. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks of the surprising trend in recent years. Naturally, I'd look to stifling course setup ploys as the number one culprit, but if I'm not mistaken Ken is implying that performance has been impacted by technology. He also notes that Tiger was -8 on par 4s this year in his 8 events. And note that in 2000 Tiger was -71 on par-4s, and Steve Flesch was second at -70!
1983 - 1 - TM Tour Burner introduced
1984 - 1
1985 - 4
1986 - 2
1987 - 11 - Non-wound ball wins first major (Tour Edition)
1988 - 22 –first time metal drivers outnumber wood
1989 – 7 - Callaway introduces S2H2 metalwoods
1990 - 5
1991 - 12 - Big Bertha introduced
1992 - 18 - Titleist Professional introduced
1993 - 14
1994- 15
1995 – 13 - Great Big Bertha introduced
1996 – 8 - multilayer balls and urethane cover introduced
1997 – 4 - Biggest Big Bertha introduced
1998 - 6
1999 - 8
2000 – 27 - Pro V1 introduced, Tiger switches to Nike ball
2001 – 37 - Pro V1 takes tours by storm
2002 – 17
2003 - 12
2004 - 8
2005 - 7
2006 - 5
2007 - 5
2008 - 1
Geoff Shackelford is a Senior Writer for Golfweek magazine, a weekly contributor to Golf Channel's Morning
Copyright © 2022, Geoff Shackelford. All rights reserved.
