121 replies to this topic

[The Beagle]

Petter7, uh-oh... I think you've confused your own personal views and opinions for facts and principles - common mistake.

IMO, authority for decisions like this ought to be more diffused. Golf is bigger than Dick Rugge - so why leave something as important as the rules of golf, as they relate to golf equipment and design, to the musings of one man? Like, it just doesn't make sense.

[mosesgolf]

While we're on the subject, can we bring back .860 cor drivers?  
Man those things were long.  Case in point.  There are 2 short par 4's at my home course (Rio Hondo in Downey, Ca)--#12 &16 for you locals (both play around 310ish).  On the same day, I drove both of those holes.  I havn't driven those greens since then using .830 cor drivers.  BBLB  Bring Back the Long Ball.  
Ok.  Just kidding but a man can dream.  

Going back to these new grooves and the USGA not really messing with regular Joe golfer.  I disagree.  Even though we can use square grooves til 2024, the oems no longer will be making square groove wedges after this year.  Thus, if we want new wedges going forward, it will always be v grooves.  No No No USGA.  That should be our choice not yours.  And in 2024, we can't post our scores unless we use v grooves.  Still a no go and who is going to play with 15-20 year old wedges.  In the end, we all end up with V grooves.

To make rules to put reins on the top 1000 or so golfers in the world when in reality you really can't/didn't which in reality affects mr. 5-40 handicap golfers makes no sense.  My old English teaher would not be proud of that last sentence.  

[The Beagle]

square, on 20 September 2010 - 03:31 AM, said:

Shot distance in golf has absolutely nothing to do with "working out, getting stronger". Distance is all about making solid-square ball contact. Good technique, especially rhythm (sequence) and tempo (timing)

Sorry, bud... but you've been reading too much Golf Digest.

If the above were true, Ai Miyazato would keep up with Bubba Watson and Dustin Johnson.

[petter7]

The Beagle, on 21 September 2010 - 01:15 AM, said:

Petter7, uh-oh... I think you've confused your own personal views and opinions for facts and principles - common mistake.

IMO, authority for decisions like this ought to be more diffused. Golf is bigger than Dick Rugge - so why leave something as important as the rules of golf, as they relate to golf equipment and design, to the musings of one man? Like, it just doesn't make sense.

Beagle, what fact or principle of the groove "Condition of Competition" ruling do
you think I am confusing with personal views and opinion??

Fact, the USGA clearly states that through extensive research they produced data
that showed the U-groove clubs had become too easy to hit out of rough and that
skilled players not only could get the ball out cleanly in most cases, but they were
still able to control distance and spin the ball. Therefore the switch to a shallower
V-shaped groove. Actually, they don't have to be V-shaped, just the volumn size
is limited and the edges have to be rounded to a specific spec.

Your statement about Dick Rugge being the only person involved in the decision
on the grooves is incorrect. Rugge has a staff of 16 people, along with 6 engineers
with Ph.Ds. The process that led to the decision on the grooves entailed thousands
of tests and a ton of research done by many qualified people. The USGA and Dick
Rugge believe the game should be about who has the most skill, not who has the
best equipment. I agree! If you don't believe that, ask them.

It's late, time for bed. Good night all.

Edited by petter7, 21 September 2010 - 02:49 AM.

[The Beagle]

Petter7, you're coming across as less than open here - and that's what I'm referring to.

petter7, on 21 September 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

Rugge has a staff of 16 people, along with 6 engineers with Ph.Ds

And?

[crookshanks]

petter7, on 21 September 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

The USGA and Dick Rugge believe the game should be about who has the most skill, not who has the
best equipment. I agree! If you don't believe that, ask them.

Everyone had access to the same equipment before the rule so it was already about who had the most skill.  That argument isn't even an argument.

[stage1350]

Petter,

I've hit and still play equipment similar to Vijay's, though not quite as open.  I had very good success at the time with one of his Fujikura Prototypes (SPD-1051-XX-VJS 116g 1.5° torque, very high bend) and the Graphite Design VJS 110 PLUS.  Now, I've moved down to the girly Miyazaki Black 83-X (coincidentally, what Vijay's playing).  But taking a fringe player's tastes and attempting to apply it to the whole rarely makes for a good argument.  Roll the face back to square, line up, and make your swing.  

It's about as effective as saying ALL 25 handicappers will not see a benefit from square grooves.  There is always someone beyond the third standard deviation.  When I was a high handicapper, I still had clubhead speed and could bust a drive as long as anyone.  But I couldn't check a wedge to save my life.  When I was a 25 'capper, I was the example of a guy that could benefit from square grooves.  

Here are some serious questions for you: When there is a cost/benefit in square grooved simply due to consistent channel width throughout the life of the club and ease of manufacture, why abandon what has become an industry standard?  Based on your posts, I believe you are someone old enough to remember the need to regroove Wilson Staff blades every other year because the V-grooves would wear out. Square grooves helped eliminate that and it's part of the reason that Ping Eye 2 irons are still played.

Second question for you and Rugge: When all these PhDs and Engineers make their study, and then set concrete specifications because they are the "best," how can a company like Callaway come in with a wedge that meets EVERY specification on paper and yet still not be deemed conforming?  Why did Rugge have to go back to the pornography argument of "I know it when I see it?" and declare the wedge illegal because despite meeting all specifications it still spun too much IN HIS OPINION?

That, in my opinion, is where they lost their credibility.  They may truly be the nicest people in the world to your point.  But they have a specific agenda and (in my opinion) it's NOT in the best interests of the game.  If the new wedges are so great and the professionals love them as much as you claim and they are so much better, why should they care if Phil is using an inferior and outdated Eye 2 wedge that (at the time) was still 100% legal?

[petter7]

stage1350, on 21 September 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

Petter,

I've hit and still play equipment similar to Vijay's, though not quite as open.  I had very good success at the time with one of his Fujikura Prototypes (SPD-1051-XX-VJS 116g 1.5° torque, very high bend) and the Graphite Design VJS 110 PLUS.  Now, I've moved down to the girly Miyazaki Black 83-X (coincidentally, what Vijay's playing).  But taking a fringe player's tastes and attempting to apply it to the whole rarely makes for a good argument.  Roll the face back to square, line up, and make your swing.  

It's about as effective as saying ALL 25 handicappers will not see a benefit from square grooves.  There is always someone beyond the third standard deviation.  When I was a high handicapper, I still had clubhead speed and could bust a drive as long as anyone.  But I couldn't check a wedge to save my life.  When I was a 25 'capper, I was the example of a guy that could benefit from square grooves.  

Here are some serious questions for you: When there is a cost/benefit in square grooved simply due to consistent channel width throughout the life of the club and ease of manufacture, why abandon what has become an industry standard?  Based on your posts, I believe you are someone old enough to remember the need to regroove Wilson Staff blades every other year because the V-grooves would wear out. Square grooves helped eliminate that and it's part of the reason that Ping Eye 2 irons are still played.

Second question for you and Rugge: When all these PhDs and Engineers make their study, and then set concrete specifications because they are the "best," how can a company like Callaway come in with a wedge that meets EVERY specification on paper and yet still not be deemed conforming?  Why did Rugge have to go back to the pornography argument of "I know it when I see it?" and declare the wedge illegal because despite meeting all specifications it still spun too much IN HIS OPINION?

That, in my opinion, is where they lost their credibility.  They may truly be the nicest people in the world to your point.  But they have a specific agenda and (in my opinion) it's NOT in the best interests of the game.  If the new wedges are so great and the professionals love them as much as you claim and they are so much better, why should they care if Phil is using an inferior and outdated Eye 2 wedge that (at the time) was still 100% legal?

PM sent.

[ibradley]

HeadonaStick, on 19 September 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

ibradley, on 19 September 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

A friend of mine played in the one day Canadian Tour event with the reduced distance ball. He said the game was WAY more fun. He loved having to hit mid and long irons again. He said it was way more enjoyable than just hitting wedges to pins cut 8 feet from the edge of greens.

I don't understand why anyone on this board would be against rolling the ball back. How can anyone who loves like game not enjoy hitting a wider variety of shots?

I don't understand why you would assume what you enjoy is what everyone enjoys.  

Besides, there are very few golfers who hit driver wedge on every hole.  Which is part of the point.

A ball rolback would barely be noticed by the vast majority of golfers. I just honestly can't see how anyone who is a good player would not enjoy the game more when they hit a variety of shots. Every single good player I know thinks a roll back would be awesome. I don't know any good players who regularly play shorter tees because they think the game is more fun hitting less drivers and more wedges.

[Zooko23]

The only ppl that average 260 or more off the tee are Tour Pro's and everyone on this forums. Scaling back the ball I feel would be death for a 15 handicap on a 6600 yard course

[stage1350]

ibradley, on 21 September 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on 19 September 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

ibradley, on 19 September 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

A friend of mine played in the one day Canadian Tour event with the reduced distance ball. He said the game was WAY more fun. He loved having to hit mid and long irons again. He said it was way more enjoyable than just hitting wedges to pins cut 8 feet from the edge of greens.

I don't understand why anyone on this board would be against rolling the ball back. How can anyone who loves like game not enjoy hitting a wider variety of shots?

I don't understand why you would assume what you enjoy is what everyone enjoys.  

Besides, there are very few golfers who hit driver wedge on every hole.  Which is part of the point.

A ball rolback would barely be noticed by the vast majority of golfers. I just honestly can't see how anyone who is a good player would not enjoy the game more when they hit a variety of shots. Every single good player I know thinks a roll back would be awesome. I don't know any good players who regularly play shorter tees because they think the game is more fun hitting less drivers and more wedges.

If you honestly can't see that, then you must be blind.  

I want to get the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes, period.  If I want to do it with a Driver and wedge, that's my call.  If you want to get there with 3w, 7i, I'm not going to stop you.  

Yet you seem to want to stop me from using my wedge and driver more often.  Can you honestly see the problem with that?  

If you want to hit a variety of shots, go to the driving range.  I just want to play golf.

[freshprince99]

"Yet you seem to want to stop me from using my wedge and driver more often. Can you honestly see the problem with that? "


i dont want to see you use your driver less often, i just want you to pay a penalty when you dont hit it straight.


( i know your comment wasnt directed at me, im just chiming in)

Edited by freshprince99, 21 September 2010 - 08:39 PM.

[HeadonaStick]

freshprince99, on 21 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

"Yet you seem to want to stop me from using my wedge and driver more often. Can you honestly see the problem with that? "


i dont want to see you use your driver less often, i just want you to pay a penalty when you dont hit it straight.


( i know your comment wasnt directed at me, im just chiming in)

Except that has nothing to do with a ball rollback, which is what the comment was about.

[HeadonaStick]

ibradley, on 21 September 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on 19 September 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

ibradley, on 19 September 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

A friend of mine played in the one day Canadian Tour event with the reduced distance ball. He said the game was WAY more fun. He loved having to hit mid and long irons again. He said it was way more enjoyable than just hitting wedges to pins cut 8 feet from the edge of greens.

I don't understand why anyone on this board would be against rolling the ball back. How can anyone who loves like game not enjoy hitting a wider variety of shots?

I don't understand why you would assume what you enjoy is what everyone enjoys.  

Besides, there are very few golfers who hit driver wedge on every hole.  Which is part of the point.

A ball rolback would barely be noticed by the vast majority of golfers. I just honestly can't see how anyone who is a good player would not enjoy the game more when they hit a variety of shots. Every single good player I know thinks a roll back would be awesome. I don't know any good players who regularly play shorter tees because they think the game is more fun hitting less drivers and more wedges.

Your post is pretty contradictory

First, if it won't be noticed by the majority of golfers then why do it?

Second, if most golfers won't notice it, then they aren't going to have any additional variety in their shot making than they do now, so again, what's the point?

Third, there are very few golfers now for whom courses aren't a challenge as is.  Very few golfers get near par from the forward tees, let alone the tips.  Golfers are using a variety of clubs and hitting a variety of shots.

[2zlinks]

It is players like me that the rule absolutely kills. I've qualified for a handful of USGA events. Prior to my twins being born a couple of years ago I went and splurged on a set of Miura 301's. Now in order to even try to qualify for those events I have to go out and replace my set, not a chance! I couldn't be more disappointed or discouraged by the USGA's "leadership" if I had to be!

[spooky]

stage1350, on 21 September 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

If you want to hit a variety of shots, go to the driving range.  I just want to play golf.

Usually in agreement with your posts, but have to say that golf did used to involve working the ball more than it does now. I think there is certainly less artistry in golf now than there used to be.

[tElihu]

2zlinks, on 21 September 2010 - 09:22 PM, said:

It is players like me that the rule absolutely kills. I've qualified for a handful of USGA events. Prior to my twins being born a couple of years ago I went and splurged on a set of Miura 301's. Now in order to even try to qualify for those events I have to go out and replace my set, not a chance! I couldn't be more disappointed or discouraged by the USGA's "leadership" if I had to be!

Agreed. Although I certainly didn't pay Miura prices for my new ping S58's, I now find them sitting in the closet if I want to play in any tournament. And if I cannot play a tournament with them, why have them...

I should send the USGA a bill for $700.

[crookshanks]

spooky, on 22 September 2010 - 07:29 AM, said:

Usually in agreement with your posts, but have to say that golf did used to involve working the ball more than it does now. I think there is certainly less artistry in golf now than there used to be.

I don't think there's less "artistry" so much as different.  Besides, it's not like you can't shape shots with the balls currently on the market.  We've all seen and or hit nasty slices, hooks, balloons or some other form of "shaped" shot either accidentally or on purpose.

[dropnbassonu]

OK, I have listened to all of the arguments here, and have yet to here the answer I have.  This would fix everything you guys were talking about....making the tour pro's work the ball and hit different shots.  Are you ready?

- Leave the amateur alone with grooves, ball, etc.
- Make the tour guys use only 7 clubs!

Now how cool would that be.  So, what 7 clubs would you use?  I think I would take out the odd # irons and my driver.

[InspiredTP]

I'd like to see the PGA put on a "throwback" tournament either early in the season or maybe during the fall season.  Something where players aren't allowed to use equipment that was made after 1970, or maybe even new equipment that has the same specs/components of older gear.  I GUARANTEE the TV ratings would be through the roof given there's no other tournament like it, and it'd be fun to see how these guys would play on a course set up shorter than todays 7,600 yd monsters using equipment that won't go nearly as far and golf balls that'll spin like crazy.  I'd even buy tickets to that one...

[mosesgolf]

InspiredTP, on 22 September 2010 - 08:22 AM, said:

I'd like to see the PGA put on a "throwback" tournament either early in the season or maybe during the fall season.  Something where players aren't allowed to use equipment that was made after 1970, or maybe even new equipment that has the same specs/components of older gear.  I GUARANTEE the TV ratings would be through the roof given there's no other tournament like it, and it'd be fun to see how these guys would play on a course set up shorter than todays 7,600 yd monsters using equipment that won't go nearly as far and golf balls that'll spin like crazy.  I'd even buy tickets to that one...

That is a great idea.  I had a retro day w/ a golf buddy a few years back.  We had to use equipment from the 1980's including the ball.  Brought my old Macgregor persimmon driver, blade irons, and the good ole Titleist Tour Balata (had a sleeve laying around as a keepsake).  On a 430 yd par 4 where I usually hit driver 8-9 iron, I had driver 3 iron.  I had to nut it to hit 220-230yds off the tee and this is from a guy who often hits driver mid-long irons on many par 5's.  For me it was no fun but would love to see what they'd score using Jack, Arnold, Ben's etc equipment.

[pmoore311]

rymail00, on 19 September 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

petter7, on 19 September 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

Sean2, on 19 September 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

I lost all respect for the USGA. Their focus is on 0.00001% of the world's golfers. They should be doing what they can to grow the game. The wedge rule, testing a ball that doesn't travel as far, and the like does not support that growth.

In addition, the average golfer still shoots around 100 and drives the ball approximately 200 yards. The answer? Making courses longer and more difficult. The result? More golfers quitting the game.

The USGA should be working with golf courses and course architects to see what can be done to make the game more fun and rewarding for the average golfer. Pete Dye said that golf is not fair and golf courses should not be fair. What an idiot.

You're blaming the wrong people IMO. Spend some time and really find out what the USGA
does for the growth of the game and their green section is something you should look into.

OEM's persistent barrage of equipment on steriods and the knee jerk reaction of architects
to build longer and tougher courses is not the fault of the USGA. These type of threads are
proof of how complex and difficult it is to define and maintain the essential aspects of golf
and how it is played. The USGA has to wear many hats and deal with multiple issues that
take serious consideration, time and wisdom to make the best possible decisions. Golf at
the highest levels of competition is just one facet of the game they deal with.

Making quick and rapid decisions will only lead to an atmosphere much less desireable
than the one that presently exists. These are issues that cannot be resolved straighaway.
All major sports organizations struggle to deal with change and imperfections that could
threaten their perspective games. Solutions can take a while to evolve into long lasting
benefical and correct improvements.

Call or write a letter to the USGA Sean2 and explain how you feel. It's always worth the
effort to have an exchange that will lead to a better understanding of the truth. Over the
years, I have disagreed with the USGA on many issues, especially on rules that I feel
need to be changed and have let them know how I feel. I never come away with the
feeling that they are unreliable or restricted somehow by old school thinking.

Golf equipement is NOT changing. Clubs have been maxed out for almost a decade. The golfer is changing. They are bigger, stronger, more flexible. Plus the strength coaches, sports pyschologist, basically a team of people to help them play there best all the time.

There is no way you can compare the shape and strength of golfers from 1950 to today., there is just no cmparison stregnth wise. The COR has not changed, clubhead speed did.

+1 here, this is often overlooked when talking about the freakish distances these players hit the ball today. Golfers today are much more athletes than golfers of the past.  For example look at Dustin Johnson, as the eluded to on TV coverage a few weeks ago the guy can hold one leg out straight and do a one legged squat all the way to the ground. I dare someone to try that.

Clubs have been maxed out, but better fitting, and better conditioning is where much of the distance gain has come from.

Anyways my 2 cents.

[SneakyLong420]

first, i really doubt they would ever roll back equipment 30 years. 2nd, its not the equipment, its the pros that have change as others have said.....and for the guy above me i can bust out at least a 5x5 of those single legs

[nichho]

pmoore311, on 22 September 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

rymail00, on 19 September 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

petter7, on 19 September 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

Sean2, on 19 September 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

I lost all respect for the USGA. Their focus is on 0.00001% of the world's golfers. They should be doing what they can to grow the game. The wedge rule, testing a ball that doesn't travel as far, and the like does not support that growth.

In addition, the average golfer still shoots around 100 and drives the ball approximately 200 yards. The answer? Making courses longer and more difficult. The result? More golfers quitting the game.

The USGA should be working with golf courses and course architects to see what can be done to make the game more fun and rewarding for the average golfer. Pete Dye said that golf is not fair and golf courses should not be fair. What an idiot.

You're blaming the wrong people IMO. Spend some time and really find out what the USGA
does for the growth of the game and their green section is something you should look into.

OEM's persistent barrage of equipment on steriods and the knee jerk reaction of architects
to build longer and tougher courses is not the fault of the USGA. These type of threads are
proof of how complex and difficult it is to define and maintain the essential aspects of golf
and how it is played. The USGA has to wear many hats and deal with multiple issues that
take serious consideration, time and wisdom to make the best possible decisions. Golf at
the highest levels of competition is just one facet of the game they deal with.

Making quick and rapid decisions will only lead to an atmosphere much less desireable
than the one that presently exists. These are issues that cannot be resolved straighaway.
All major sports organizations struggle to deal with change and imperfections that could
threaten their perspective games. Solutions can take a while to evolve into long lasting
benefical and correct improvements.

Call or write a letter to the USGA Sean2 and explain how you feel. It's always worth the
effort to have an exchange that will lead to a better understanding of the truth. Over the
years, I have disagreed with the USGA on many issues, especially on rules that I feel
need to be changed and have let them know how I feel. I never come away with the
feeling that they are unreliable or restricted somehow by old school thinking.

Golf equipement is NOT changing. Clubs have been maxed out for almost a decade. The golfer is changing. They are bigger, stronger, more flexible. Plus the strength coaches, sports pyschologist, basically a team of people to help them play there best all the time.

There is no way you can compare the shape and strength of golfers from 1950 to today., there is just no cmparison stregnth wise. The COR has not changed, clubhead speed did.

+1 here, this is often overlooked when talking about the freakish distances these players hit the ball today. Golfers today are much more athletes than golfers of the past.  For example look at Dustin Johnson, as the eluded to on TV coverage a few weeks ago the guy can hold one leg out straight and do a one legged squat all the way to the ground. I dare someone to try that.

Clubs have been maxed out, but better fitting, and better conditioning is where much of the distance gain has come from.

Anyways my 2 cents.

So what about me then? I hit the ball 50/60 yards further than I did ten years ago; I'm 52 and don't work out. I suspect that my technique has improved in that time but I have gone from 10 to 8 and back to ten. So am I just lucky or has the equipment that I use given me that extra yardage; I know what I think.

[B T JUSTICE]

Well i am pretty much slap bang in the middle of the group of golfers who have been absolutely shafted by the R&A and USGA. Namely an amateur golfer who buys his own equipment but plays nationally and in the odd pro event.

Clubs that i bought when they were entirely legal for all levels of play (£1k worth approx) are now illegal leaving me staring another £1k in the face for some new gear, that i dont really want, to allow me to continue to compete.

I dont mind these organisations drawing a line in the sand, but roll backs stink.

As i have said in previous threads on this topic, does anyone really think that the guys on the USGA and R&A equipment and general committees will have any problems getting their hands on free and 2010 complient equipment free gratis? Of course they dont.

Farce. They need to ban gyms, sports medicine /  psycology  and constant practice if they want to end bomb and gouge, not some bloody grooves.

[tourbound]

2010 has been a crazy year for scoring and all. Take not that this year the tour picked up a few new tourneys that were on easy courses. Also, around the country there has been a lot of wet weather that helps produce softer course conditions for the boys on tour.  Notice this year how soft the greens have been for guys, which produces them to just throw darts at flags.  Remember how tough the US Open was supposed to be. The greens were super soft the first 2 rounds.

[spooky]

crookshanks, on 22 September 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

spooky, on 22 September 2010 - 07:29 AM, said:

Usually in agreement with your posts, but have to say that golf did used to involve working the ball more than it does now. I think there is certainly less artistry in golf now than there used to be.

I don't think there's less "artistry" so much as different.  Besides, it's not like you can't shape shots with the balls currently on the market.  We've all seen and or hit nasty slices, hooks, balloons or some other form of "shaped" shot either accidentally or on purpose.

Nowhere near the shape that you could put on the ball in the days of balata, etc. In my opinion they should have simply limited the ball in some way as that has made the biggest difference, but then maybe you would have loads of people moaning about not being able to hit 300+ drives any more in the quest for unstoppable distance.   I also absolutely hate that we have different rules now.

[Bob57]

Don't see how the new grooves affected driving distance and driving accuracy, but never ruin a good story.  What did people expect 3 stroke per round increase.  The only guy that the change seems to have impacted is Tiger.  For the first time in his career instead of being in the top 10 and usually the top 5 for the scrambling stats he is nowhere to be found---think 10 from the bottom in all the stats. Of course he hasn't had time to practice his short game while working on his swing changes and taking his turn with the kids

Edited by Bob57, 22 September 2010 - 08:30 PM.

[14mh]

I don't think that has much to do with the grooves and more to do with the life he is in. I heard (don't remember where) the only club that wasn't to the conforming standards was his lob wedge.

[NPVWhiz]

My impression is that the USGA has to be exceedingly disappointed with what the data show so far.  

The real problem with the implementation is the the testing showed a difference in spin from the rough, but it didn't (and couldn't) anticipate that professionals would simply adapt.  And adapt they have, it appears.  They can hit the ball a bit softer and shorter of some pins, and for the most part it looks to have had virtually zero effect on making crooked driving more penal.  

My guess is that the stat they were looking for was a scoring decrease on Greens Hit from Off the Fairway, inside of 150 yds.  

The testing showed that the two groove types were very similar from the fairway, which reflected some of the previous testing.    They should have anticipated that the professionals would adapt and minimize the performance gap between the two.  

We could go on and on about what the USGA should have done years ago, but I think that all the analyses lead back to the ball.  The USGA waited and waited to update how the tested the maximum distance limit.  Once they found that they ball manufacturers had done an end run around the test, it was too late to do anything about it.  

I still keep a few old Titleist professional and tour balata balls in the bag just to recall how great they felt off the face, and how much more they moved around when struck off the button or off square.  I think the old Spaulding Tour Edition was the beginning of the end.  

It's really just nostalgia among some of us mid-40s to 50s players; I'll admit that.  But driving used to mean something.  A long straight tee ball back in the 80s was an awesome sporting skill that took years and years of hard work to groove.  When I was young, you knew that even if you could putt, driving skill truly limited what you could accomplish.  It just isn't like that today.  It's much more of a putting contest today.  A missed shot today is much less likely to be a missed green than in 1985.