"For those who love the game."

Huge sweet spot not so sweet Deane Beman: Don't just "let things happen" By Mark Grim  Preserve Golf Publisher February 6, 2005   It is no secret that many big names in the golf world are concerned about how far the top players in the game are driving the ball. Every now and then we learn of another name on record saying more needs to be done about how far the ball is flying. It was great to learn that former PGA Tour Commissioner Deane Beman's views are in sympathy with Preserve Golf. Some in the golf world believe that it is fine the way it is and that we should just leave everything the way it is now, although this appears to be a minority view. While golf's governing bodies and the PGA Tour point fingers of blame at each other, nothing is really being done about the potential impact that a huge sweet spot will have on the future of the game.  The critics of 330-yard drives as the norm are alarmists, the type we have seen throughout the history of golf whenever new innovations arrive on the scene, it is believed.  The fact that the ball is flying farther than ever and people in their 60's now hit it longer than they ever have is just part of the evolution of the game. Superintendents and golf course architects will just have to deal with the distance problem like they always have; either by lengthening courses (to 8000 yards) or by tricking up the courses in terms of tighter pins and slicker, harder greens. Those who don't like the direction the game is going would have been screaming if they were around when the hickory shaft became obsolete to the steel shaft, or when they introduced the solid core ball, etc., etc.  In other words, we've heard from you guys before, and you were wrong. This is just history repeating itself. The case is closed. Once the golf bodies have ruled (the 460 cc limit on club head size) that is the law.   Frank Thomas, the inventor of the graphite shaft and former USGA Technical Director, sounds very scientific and is considered an authority by many of us who did not major in physics. When he claims that the laws of science will prevent the golf ball from flying significantly farther than it already does, we are inclined to take him at his word. However, we must ask a few simple questions. First, what if he is wrong? Second, how can someone really make such a claim if you look back at history, not just of golf, but of mankind?  The ingenuity of man is an amazing thing. When the best minds come together, the unheard of can be accomplished. Although Mr. Thomas makes his statements as an expert, we have to respectfully question how he could possibly reassure us about a future he really has no way of knowing. What if he is wrong and the ball keeps flying farther? Composite designs are making clubs even more efficient as we speak, meaning pros can swing even harder and still get considerable distance from a hit anywhere on a huge sweet spot.  Mr. Thomas said the following in his question and answer article from Golf Digest online Equipment Extra, November 2003: Data shows that increases in distance, due to improvements in ball technology is about 15 yards in the last 40 years, and improvements in the club technology has added another 15 yards in the last six years, for a total of 30 yards for the pros and about 10-15 for the rest of us.  He pointed out who is to blame that the distance the ball is going has gotten out of hand. However, he assures us, that the increases from technology have ended (back in 2003). This is unfortunate because the guardians of the game, who have been continually expressing their concern about the distance the ball is going, could have prevented a significant number of these advances. Fortunately, these advances in distance, because of technology, are coming to an end. Future increases in distance will be primarily a result of improved technique and talent. The real governance is in the hands of Newton and his law, he adds. Although it sounds right that the laws of science have made it impossible to develop a club within current specifications that will hit the ball significantly farther, history proves otherwise. Although I'm not an expert in physics, I do know that Newtonian mechanics preceded Quantum mechanics and that the latter deals with matter way down at the minuscule atomic level.  Mr. Thomas placed the blame on those he called the "guardians of the game," for allowing distance to play such a large role. This presumably means golf's governing bodies and/or players with a lot of clout like Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. It is possible that some professionals may intentionally throttle back in the future, possibly out of an embarrassment about how far they are hitting their drives. Hopefully they won't do this out of a fear that the rules are going to change if they keep hitting it so far. God forbid, then they will actually have to use a driver with a smaller sweet spot. These possibilities are just conjecture, but are worth considering. After all, shouldn't this type of concern be addressed before something happens instead of after?  This is not a call for the formation of another rule making body when the USGA and the R&A are already in place. However, that may be the only way anything is ever going to happen. By now it should be obvious to all that, whether out of fear of litigation or ignorance, golf's governing bodies have proven sterile to effectively address the distance problem.  If it is true that the governing bodies are enabling the demise of the classic game of golf out of a fear of litigation, it is reprehensible. Mr. Thomas and former PGA Tour Commissioner Deane Beman are claiming that the USGA is doing just that. They (the USGA) have avoided enforcing the rules when there is any hint of litigation, which they seem to consider being of greater importance than what is in the best interests of the game, Thomas said. Mr. Beman echoed similar sentiments in the March 2005 Golf Digest after being told that the USGA has about $200 million in its portfolio. They shouldn't be having a debate about what it would cost. The debate ought to be about the right thing to do. He also said the USGA is trying to pass the buck to the PGA Tour to do something about the distance problem out of a fear of legal action. The money ($200 million) is worth nothing to the game of golf if it isn't used to preserve it. Beman takes issue with those under the perception that the PGA Tour made a mistake and wasted a lot of money during the legal battle with Karsten during the square groove controversy. He believes that the drawn out litigation and the money spent gave the Tour an invaluable foothold. It put the Tour in a position of rule making autonomy regarding the legality of equipment.  But I maintain we got something very valuable and worthwhile: We won recognition of the right to make and administer our own rules about what you play with. I never sat by and let things happen. We thought it was reasonable to act, and we did that. When talking about the distance problem, some seem to ignore the problem of the large sweet spots, focusing solely on the ball. Hopefully this position is not taken because of ownership in club making companies or endorsement contracts. While we agree that a ball rollback is also needed, it would not be the only proper course of action in and of itself. The sweet spot has become way too large to ignore the clubs and reduce ball flight in a vacuum (visit the following link for great photos demonstrating increase in sweet spot size from 1998-2003 www.golfdigest.com/equipment/index.ssf?/equipment/gd200305bigdrivers.html) It's almost a joke how large the sweet spots have become. Keeping the club size at the current legal allowance (460 cc) may tend to produce players who are accurate drivers--but accurate drivers who tend to hit the ball about the same distance. In short, we could have cookie cutter pros (more so than they already are now, some might say).  The best solution is to first get a rein on the clubs and solve the primary problem-huge sweet spots. Preserve Golf has called for a ban of lighter metals like titanium (see editorial from November 2003 www.panhandlepremium.com/preserve/Editorial.htm). This would immediately reduce the size of the sweet spot significantly, and would reward power players when they should be rewarded. Room has to be left for a way out of old fashioned heavier steel also if that gets out of hand in the future (we already discussed the ingenuity of mankind earlier) with a trump card option of genuine wood-woods in the future. Another option would be to shrink the allowable size to the 250 cc range and not worry about banning titanium at all (experimentation would have to determine the optimum club head size that would keep the sweet spot at an acceptable size). You could have a period of bifurcation for amateurs, possibly a 5-year period before companies would be forced to manufacture conforming clubs. This time period (the 5-years is just an arbitrary figure) wouldn't be allowed for touring professionals, who would have to begin immediately after such a proclamation. The period wouldn't hurt equipment companies significantly because there would be time to prepare for the changes. Companies in the golf industry are similar to most other industries in that they are constantly under pressure to produce new models each year. The pursuit of bigger, faster and longer will probably never stop, and shouldn't if within the rules. Of course, marketers realize that one of the most effective ways to sell equipment to the average golfer is to promise things like 'easy to hit, hits the ball farther, is more forgiving...' Equipment companies should not be faulted and should not be expected to voluntarily roll back for doing what profitable companies are supposed to do.  Since the manufacturers are pushing the limits in terms of driver size, the trend is toward redistributing the weight in the club head in the area of composite design. The clubs are made up of titanium in the contact area and its perimeter, and lighter non-metal materials in the non-contact areas. This perimeter weighting gives the club even more stability on a non-center yet still on the sweet spot hit. The tour pro now can swing for the fences on almost every drive without as much fear.  Even if it is true that driving distance shows no significant increases in 2005, a rollback of some kind is still needed. Athletic prowess should be rewarded in golf. It you hit the smaller sweet spot consistently, you deserve accuracy and distance. If you don't, you don't. Again, something is very seriously wrong if one player is swinging at slower club head speed yet getting the same or more distance than someone swinging much faster.    To contact Mark Grim send an email to: preservegolf@panhandlepremium.com

 © 2003-2005 Preserve Golf. Founded November 10, 2003. All Rights Reserved.