BOMB: Although we see differently on the issue of distance and technologies role in it, I found Geoff Shackelford’s “The List”—a compilation of “Those expressing concern about recent distance increases and what they would do about it”—interesting reading. I confess, I had never read through the entire list before, but seeing all the comments in one place allows one to see whom at least has a rational thought and those who might want to take a mulligan.
My vote for the person in need of a breakfast ball the most is none other than Arnold Palmer.
Now I know anyone who takes on Mr. Palmer is asking for a public flogging--or worse--but at least hear me out.
In 2005 Palmer said, “To get right to the point—we need to just cut the golf ball back. How much? Probably at least 20 percent.”
OK, lets take a look where that leaves us.
Current PGA Tour driving distance stats show the distance average on tour at 283.4 yards. Lop 20 percent off that and the best players in the world are averaging a whopping 226.72 yards off the tee. At the top of the distance food chain, Bubba Watson is currently at 313 yards. Skim 20 percent off the top and the tour’s leading bomber is hauling the mail at a less-than-eye-popping 250.4 yards. Not exactly the kind of numbers that will have potential sponsors beating down the doors in Ponte Vedra looking to sign up for a long-term commitment. At the bottom, Corey Pavin’s 253.6 average would still be above the Interstate, but just barely at 202.88 yards. Don’t even get me started on what the LPGA numbers would look like.
The point being not to take Mr. Palmer to task, but to ask that we use our heads and engage in thoughtful dialogue. There are two sides to every debate and each is worth hearing out (I particularly like Paul Azinger’s take). Shackelford, for his part, is planning on adding some comments from those who are pro-technology to his List page. Excellent. Regardless of what side you’re on, however, let's just shoot from the hip a little bit less. It will make for a better discussion.
GOUGE: Sometimes we mis-speak. I think Mr. Palmer meant to say 15-20 yards, but even if he didn't, the question remains whether we need to turn off the distance faucet, or at least reduce the flow. I know what it's like to overstate the case. Using PGA Tour data, I recently made the case that the number of 350-yard drives has exploded in the last half-dozen years. Unfortunately, that statement is flawed. The Tour does not explain that it determined a player's longest drives one way from 1992-2002 (they used only drives on the two measured holes) and a different way from 2003 to the present (they use every hole on the course). That means that my chart from last week is a little heavily overemphasized. In truth, there aren't 40 times as many 350-yard drives today as there were 10 years ago. Still, it's well more than double what it was 10 years ago.
So that's our first two mea culpas. And it's barely Monday afternoon.
But to the issue at hand. Has driving distance gotten out of control? In the only meaningful, consistent measuring stick, the data suggests that driving distance has flattened to a rate of increase more in line with what we saw in the 1980s. You can suggest that players are hitting 3-wood on holes the tour is measuring for driving distance, but I don't think so. And the tour doesn't compile such information. Still, it is interesting/frightening that both Sean O'Hair and Tiger Woods hit their tee balls on 18 yesterday in the vicinity of the plate marking Robert Gamez's shot that won the 1990 Bay Hill tournament. Of course, they hit 5-woods, while Gamez hit a driver 19 years ago. Both players hit 7-irons into the 18th green, just like Gamez, only his Ping Eye2 7-iron from 1990 had a titanium shaft. On the 16th hole, O'Hair and Woods hit tee shots with driver, each going about 300 yards (297 for O'Hair, 300 through the rough for Woods). Let's remember the fairways were soft, too.
To top it all off, Mr. Palmer is about to rework Bay Hill yet again. He even suggested a return to a par of 72. That won't happen. Not unless they play the aforementioned 20-percent shorter ball. A 20-YARD shorter ball, however, raises possibilities. What better place to start the argument for bifurcation than with a test case on the PGA Tour. Less theory, fewer statistics and more real world evidence. Palmer's long been a spokesman for the USGA, it was his discussion with USGA Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge years ago that got the effect of grooves reexamined, so why not have a once-and-for-all test on tour with a shorter ball to see what we think? The shorter golf balls apparently exist. Maybe the USGA can let him borrow a few gross and play next year's tournament as a scientific experiment.
Results for March 2009
See all blog posts >
Of drivers and major winners
BOMB: Interesting debate at my club the other day. Two guys were debating the merits of the TaylorMade R9 and Nike SQ Dymo STR8-FIT drivers. By the way each was entrenched in their respective positions you would have thought they were sales reps for the companies. Although the conversation seemed more like two guys trying to show each other how much they knew about equipment, the guy favoring Nike said one thing that caught my ear.
“OK, so what was the last major won with a TaylorMade driver?”
Hmmmmmmm.
With the Masters coming up and with all the hype surrounding the Golfsmith/Sergio Garcia driver promotion, it seemed like a question worth answering. So after stretching the memory banks I came up with Vijay Singh in the PGA. In 2004. That said, 2004 was a very good year for TaylorMade as it had driver wins in three of the four majors.
Over the last five years the driver-wins-in-majors scorecard reveals a fairly spread-out field. Nike leads the way with seven (thank you, Mr. Woods for six of them), followed by Callaway, TaylorMade and … wait for it … Wilson (thank you, Mr., Harrington). Titleist grabbed a pair, and Cobra and Ping each had one.
Now, should Paddy win the Masters, Wilson would jump into the No. 2 spot all by themselves. Which really just proves that using major wins to determine the quality of a driver is an almost useless conversation. Those two guys would have been better off jumping on a launch monitor than on each other.
GOUGE: I know your club. I doubt a launch monitor would have solved the debate over R9 vs. Dymo STR8-FIT. Just take them both out to No. 7 and let them have a wrench-off to see which driver lets them hit the high hook around the corner of the dogleg. I bet it’s a good bar challenge, too.
Determining the best driver based on tour use is relatively ludicrous, of course. And major wins is somewhat laughable, too. But it all begs the question, of course. How does one determine the best driver?
Here’s a three-step process: 1. Find three heads you love to look at from address. 2. Take all three and after a general fitting for loft and shaft flex by a qualified expert, make 4-6 swings with each on a launch monitor, rotating to a different driver after every two hits. 3. If you see a difference on AVERAGE hits (not just your best hits), take a demo model out to the course to how it works in someplace other than Fantasyland.
Don’t have that kind of time, you say? Would rather just order something online? Don’t know where to get fit? Please. Here are ten websites to get you started on the fitting process for your new driver.
Go. Now. Don’t come back until you’ve finished your assignment.
⿿ MoreMarketing for Dummies
BOMB: Hey buddy, while you were off vacationing in Maine, I was getting calls from my friends asking me what I thought of the Golfsmith promotion in which they are offering a FULL refund on the purchase of any TaylorMade R9, r7 Limited or Burner ('09) driver purchased between now and April 11 should Sergio Garcia win the Masters.
So here’s what I think—Golfsmith blew it by thinking small time.
Sure, it’s a cute promotion and will generate buzz and likely some sales. And I'm sure there’s an insurance policy involved that makes it relatively risk-free for Golfsmith. Besides, Garcia has missed the cut three of the last four years at Augusta. But if they truly wanted to make some noise—and generate some sales—here’s a better idea. Expand the idea. A lot. As it stands, the promotion only appeals to those interested in a TaylorMade driver. But just as Jerry Seinfeld once said about the infamous puffy shirt, “But I don’t wanna be a pirate!” what about those who say, “But I don’t wanna buy a TaylorMade!”? So here’s what you do. Use the same promotion but open it up to include virtually every driver manufacturer. Nike purchasers get a refund if Tiger Woods wins, Callaway and Phil Mickelson, TaylorMade and Sergio, Titleist and Adam Scott, Cleveland and Vijay Singh, Cobra and Geoff Ogilvy, Ping and Lee Westwood, Wilson and Padraig Harrington, Adams and Chad Campbell. Heck, you could even throw in Fuzzy Zoeller and PowerBilt if you were so inclined.
Idiocy, you say? A guaranteed loser for Golfsmith? Oh my short-sighted friend, you’re not doing the math. According to Golf Datatech, approximately 180,000 drivers were sold last April at on- and off-course golf shops. Right now sales are off about 10 percent so lets call it 160,000. If the above promotion were running, don’t you think a good number of the folks likely to buy drivers would go to Golfsmith because there was a legit chance they could end up getting it for free? And what kind of buzz and attention do you think such a promotion would generate for them? Best of all, it’s not a slam dunk there would be any refunds at all. See wins by Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Mike Weir and Jose Maria Olazabal in the last decade as evidence.
I should go into marketing.
GOUGE: I'm sure there's an opening at Golfsmith for you right now. Probably behind the cash register at the Minnetonka store. I, on the other hand, think Golfsmith got it right, probably by being realistic first, and second, by saving themselves the opportunity to do similar future promotions.
As Matt Corey, Golfsmith senior vice president of marketing and business development, explained it to me, "We're doing something unique in the industry with this promotion, but my hair is a lot more gray than it was. We've worked fast and furious the last 60 days to make this happen." Corey told a story that on Saturday in the company's flagship store, a man was interested in a specific hand/loft/shaft flex combination on a new TaylorMade driver that wasn't available. When his wife suggested they just go somewhere else and buy the club, her husband reminded her that if Sergio won the Masters his new purchase wouldn't be free if he didn't buy it at Golfsmith.
Now that story doesn't have to be true, but the logic holds. And as Corey reminds me, "I can't pay for that type of marketing." I doubt Sergio contends at Augusta, but if he does, Golfsmith gets the benefit for the cost of an insurance policy.
Still, I'm a little troubled. If people need gimmicks to get in the door of their favorite golf retailer, I'm wondering what information has been lost in translation, people. What's next? Free hot dogs and ice cream at every retail outlet? Employee pricing discounts? Government bailouts?
There are only two reasons to buy a consumer product: Either what you have needs to be replaced, or the new stuff is, as Ely Callaway used to say, demonstrably superior. Trouble is, we are looking for the dramatic improvement we saw 10 years ago, or even five years ago, and it just isn't as apparent. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Driver hot spots have expanded over the last few years, but that improvement is not as obvious as it was when average driver head sizes were growing at what seemed like 100 cubic centimenters a week. You can't really look at a new driver today and see that it screams improvement. (Some are even getting smaller!) What is better is how we get you in the right driver, how each driver is smarter and sleeker and more likely to fit you than the previous generation. But you have to be willing to make the effort to go through a proper fitting with a qualified expert.
But if you need gimmicks, well, then you're just not paying attention. Of course, that might be the nature of marketing: to get you to pay attention to something that should be obvious. It just might be why the team at Golfsmith is the smartest guy in the golf retail room right now. There is a certain roll-the-dice aspect to the whole campaign, which is sort of enticing, but the fact remains: There shouldn't be any doubt whether your new driver is better than your old driver. A launch monitor doesn't lie. So take your old 975D to the shop and put it up against the 909 DComp and see if you see better numbers, not just on the best hits, but on the worst ones, and the average ones, too. And the best news is if your old driver is better the numbers will say so, no questions asked.
(By the way, all you aeronautical engineers can relax. Adams fixed the formula for the drag equation that appears in ads promoting its new Speedline driver, replacing the lowercase letter p with the Greek letter rho (representing density). Alert reader David McAlees reminded us of the obvious glitch, which I'm sure we would have realized on our own after another couple of years. But since some folks seem to think golf consumers only care about the chance to get free products, I doubt a corrected physics formula is going to resonate. Too bad. It should.)
So here’s what I think—Golfsmith blew it by thinking small time.
Sure, it’s a cute promotion and will generate buzz and likely some sales. And I'm sure there’s an insurance policy involved that makes it relatively risk-free for Golfsmith. Besides, Garcia has missed the cut three of the last four years at Augusta. But if they truly wanted to make some noise—and generate some sales—here’s a better idea. Expand the idea. A lot. As it stands, the promotion only appeals to those interested in a TaylorMade driver. But just as Jerry Seinfeld once said about the infamous puffy shirt, “But I don’t wanna be a pirate!” what about those who say, “But I don’t wanna buy a TaylorMade!”? So here’s what you do. Use the same promotion but open it up to include virtually every driver manufacturer. Nike purchasers get a refund if Tiger Woods wins, Callaway and Phil Mickelson, TaylorMade and Sergio, Titleist and Adam Scott, Cleveland and Vijay Singh, Cobra and Geoff Ogilvy, Ping and Lee Westwood, Wilson and Padraig Harrington, Adams and Chad Campbell. Heck, you could even throw in Fuzzy Zoeller and PowerBilt if you were so inclined.
Idiocy, you say? A guaranteed loser for Golfsmith? Oh my short-sighted friend, you’re not doing the math. According to Golf Datatech, approximately 180,000 drivers were sold last April at on- and off-course golf shops. Right now sales are off about 10 percent so lets call it 160,000. If the above promotion were running, don’t you think a good number of the folks likely to buy drivers would go to Golfsmith because there was a legit chance they could end up getting it for free? And what kind of buzz and attention do you think such a promotion would generate for them? Best of all, it’s not a slam dunk there would be any refunds at all. See wins by Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Mike Weir and Jose Maria Olazabal in the last decade as evidence.
I should go into marketing.
GOUGE: I'm sure there's an opening at Golfsmith for you right now. Probably behind the cash register at the Minnetonka store. I, on the other hand, think Golfsmith got it right, probably by being realistic first, and second, by saving themselves the opportunity to do similar future promotions.
As Matt Corey, Golfsmith senior vice president of marketing and business development, explained it to me, "We're doing something unique in the industry with this promotion, but my hair is a lot more gray than it was. We've worked fast and furious the last 60 days to make this happen." Corey told a story that on Saturday in the company's flagship store, a man was interested in a specific hand/loft/shaft flex combination on a new TaylorMade driver that wasn't available. When his wife suggested they just go somewhere else and buy the club, her husband reminded her that if Sergio won the Masters his new purchase wouldn't be free if he didn't buy it at Golfsmith.
Now that story doesn't have to be true, but the logic holds. And as Corey reminds me, "I can't pay for that type of marketing." I doubt Sergio contends at Augusta, but if he does, Golfsmith gets the benefit for the cost of an insurance policy.
Still, I'm a little troubled. If people need gimmicks to get in the door of their favorite golf retailer, I'm wondering what information has been lost in translation, people. What's next? Free hot dogs and ice cream at every retail outlet? Employee pricing discounts? Government bailouts?
There are only two reasons to buy a consumer product: Either what you have needs to be replaced, or the new stuff is, as Ely Callaway used to say, demonstrably superior. Trouble is, we are looking for the dramatic improvement we saw 10 years ago, or even five years ago, and it just isn't as apparent. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Driver hot spots have expanded over the last few years, but that improvement is not as obvious as it was when average driver head sizes were growing at what seemed like 100 cubic centimenters a week. You can't really look at a new driver today and see that it screams improvement. (Some are even getting smaller!) What is better is how we get you in the right driver, how each driver is smarter and sleeker and more likely to fit you than the previous generation. But you have to be willing to make the effort to go through a proper fitting with a qualified expert.
But if you need gimmicks, well, then you're just not paying attention. Of course, that might be the nature of marketing: to get you to pay attention to something that should be obvious. It just might be why the team at Golfsmith is the smartest guy in the golf retail room right now. There is a certain roll-the-dice aspect to the whole campaign, which is sort of enticing, but the fact remains: There shouldn't be any doubt whether your new driver is better than your old driver. A launch monitor doesn't lie. So take your old 975D to the shop and put it up against the 909 DComp and see if you see better numbers, not just on the best hits, but on the worst ones, and the average ones, too. And the best news is if your old driver is better the numbers will say so, no questions asked.
(By the way, all you aeronautical engineers can relax. Adams fixed the formula for the drag equation that appears in ads promoting its new Speedline driver, replacing the lowercase letter p with the Greek letter rho (representing density). Alert reader David McAlees reminded us of the obvious glitch, which I'm sure we would have realized on our own after another couple of years. But since some folks seem to think golf consumers only care about the chance to get free products, I doubt a corrected physics formula is going to resonate. Too bad. It should.)
Ruling body's power upheld
GOUGE: Tell me if you've heard this one before: A sport's governing body decides to impose an equipment-based rule change that would essentially and in some cases almost immediately make nearly all current equipment non-conforming. Said industry reacts negatively to the idea. The governing body seeks and carefully considers input from industry manufacturers, adjusts slightly the specifications of the rule change but ultimately makes the decision to go forward with the decision that would leave most current equipment in violation of the rules.
Sound familiar? Sound like a situation golf might be in the middle of right now? Sound like, say, the USGA's new restrictions on grooves? Well, try this on for size: A company in said industry cries foul, sues the governing body for restraint of trade, anti-trust and a few other unmentionables. Lots of heated exchanges, threats and general puffery and bluster. In the end, the judge throws the whole thing out and the governing body's new rule stands.
Here are the specifics: The NCAA (you know, the guys with the brackets) proposed new guidelines on the dimensions of the head of a lacrosse stick. (Substitute "USGA" for "NCAA" and "groove" for "head of a lacrosse stick" and you get where I'm going here.) The NCAA made a couple of tweaks to the rule over an 18-month period, but essentially adopted a rule that made most current heads in violation of the new rule. The impetus of the rule change was to restore some of the original competitiveness of the game in areas like stick checks and the face-offs, something that equipment advances had perhaps diminished. A company called Warrior (not a stretch to say Warrior is very much like a TaylorMade or Callaway in golf terms) eventually filed suit in U.S. District Court in Michigan, complaining the rule change would force consumers (about 500,000 people play lacrosse in the U.S., according to surveys) to pony up $58 million to change their clubs, er sticks, or about $115 per.
Judge Marianne O. Battani wasn't having any of it, however. You can sort through all the legal-ese if you want to, but her key statements are these:
"The NCAA's rule ... appears not to be subject to antitrust scrutiny, in and of itself, because, it is not 'commercial in nature.'
"... the rule is only directed towards increasing the quality of play in college lacrosse and, thereby, enhancing interest in intercollegiate lacrosse.
"... the rule relating to lacrosse stick heads has a noncommercial purpose—to promote free dislodgment of the ball."
"... the NCAA's act of reviewing proposed lacrosse sticks is, at most, a promise that approved sticks complied with the rules in effect at that time. The NCAA was not promising never to change its rules in a way that would make a previously approved stick illegal."
This sounds so much like the groove rule it could be a test case. In no uncertain terms, it appears there is now, at least, and may always have been, sufficient legal precedent for the USGA to make any rule it finds necessary. That final statement from Judge Battani sounds to me like a killer for any manufacturer wanting to rail against the USGA over rule changes. One wonders if it might be that extra bit of confidence a ruling body might want in putting forth any future equipment performance rollbacks. (Golf ball and driver head size, anyone?)
And for those of you keeping score, the USGA groove change, in the best of all possible worlds for the industry, chould result in abut $19 billion in new equipment purchases over the next 15 years (based on an estimated $750 in new iron and wedge purchases for each of the 25 million golfers and the fact that the rule change is expected to apply to all golfers by 2024). Which, come to think of it, might be why no one in the industry is really complaining all that much about the groove restrictions. Hmmm...
BOMB: Did anyone ever tell you that you're a windbag? I'll save the readers a lengthy retort. Here's the deal: Governing bodies make the rules. Equipment-makers then live by those rules. Period. Should the governing bodies listen to the manufacturer's concerns? Absolutely. And in the case of golf, I think they have done a fair job of that in the last 10 years which is why there is not the legal threats we have seen in the past--which is a good thing. Lawsuits over the making of a rule is the kind of "I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home" attitude we could all live without. And for any manufacturer that thinks the public is outraged by the rules, well, go ahead and make some non-conforming equipment and see how you make out. My guess is not too well.
Equipment regulations should be points of discussion, not contention. But when the talk is finished and a decision is made, everyone just needs to stop the nonsense and get on board. Besides, a projected $19 billion in sales isn't all that bad, now is it?
The fading fantasy of blade irons
BOMB: To all those folks that simply can't understand why we don't rate muscleback blades in the Hot List, I point you to Mr. Jim Furyk, formerly the No. 2 player in the world (now No. 11) and still a pretty darn good stick. At last week's WGC-CA Championship, Furyk gave up on his muscleback blades and returned to the Srixon I-506 cavity-backs he used for much of 2006-2007. Oh, and what do you know, he finished third at Doral, his best performance since September.
"I think I am more accurate, and I can hit straighter," Furyk said of the clubs. "I want to have the ability to move the ball in either direction, but I was struggling to cut the blade. I trained my game with the older clubs. It took me a while to figure it out, but I'm definitely encouraged by what I'm seeing."
Again, if players such as Furyk (and about 70 percent of the PGA Tour) use irons with some semblance of forgiveness, why would an everyday player who does not play for pay use anything else? Answer me that, Batman.
GOUGE: We're largely in agreement that normal humans should use blade irons about as often as they set their Betamax to record their favorite Golf Channel broadcasts. Still, it's worth noting that Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the world use what amount to be forged muscleback blades, and six of the current top 10.
But what are we talking about here, really? Maybe a little difference in ballflight for a tour player, maybe a subtle difference in shot-shaping, maybe. I do find it interesting that some players think the game only works for them if they hit shots with an unforgiving piece of forged carbon steel. Of course, if Tiger Woods started showing up at tournaments with the Nike VR Split Cavity set, you would be able to count the number of players still using blades on one knuckle.
I think the more telling voices are those I remember from our Hot List panelists of top-rated teachers and scratch players, all of whom were much happier with clubs that looked like fun than those that looked like work.
I really don't want to hear discussions about the look or the feel of blade irons. If you want to play them, by all means, go ahead. But don't think you're achieving something that doesn't exist in the rest of the iron market. The object of the game is to get the ball in the hole in as efficient a manner as possible. Not to look like a 21st century reincarnation of Bobby Jones. We don't play hickory shafts anymore, either. Lighten up and maybe enjoy the game.
Can't believe I'm the guy endorsing fun. But there you have it. Now, I'll go somewhere and be sick on myself.
Mail Bag, sort of
BOMB: It's always interesting going through the Hot List e-mail inbox and seeing what awaits. But rather than keep all these gems to ourselves, we thought we'd share a few of the questions along with our answers.
From John: "I have a TaylorMade 510 TP with a Fuji Speeder 757. What's the closest equivalent today?"
BOMB: Aside from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, you mean? John, seeing how you're more than five years removed from your last driver purchase it is likely you would be impressed by the gains in this category. In short, you don't want something equivalent, you want something better. Clearly though it appears you prefer a more traditional head shape. A look at the Titleist 909 drivers, Ping's G10 or TaylorMade's R9 may not be a bad starting point. Cleveland's Launcher is another option to consider.
From Brigham (and several others): "I couldn't find anything on golf balls this year and I'm kinda disappointed. Am I an idiot and just couldn't find it?"
BOMB: Well, idiot may be a bit strong. Not reading closely may be closer to the truth. As we mentioned in the February issue, we have broken out golf balls to allow for a more extensive treatment of them. The golf ball Hot List will appear in the May issue of Golf Digest that should hit newsstands around April 10.
From Nikki: "How come the Nike Victory Red forged split cavity set or the TW forged did not make the Hot List?"
BOMB: Let's start with the TW forged. In short, we do not consider pure muscleback blade irons for the Hot List. They're certainly beautiful to look at, but if you have enough game to hit musclebacks you likely don't need our help with your equipment selections. As for the Victory Red split cavity-back, its scores in Innovation and Performance were not among the upper echelon in the category. To make the Hot List you almost without exception have to do extremely well in at least our three most highly-rated criteria (Performance, Innovation and Look/Sound/Feel) and perhaps all four.
GOUGE: This feels a little like Dear Abby, or maybe a weaker version of the Suze Orman show, but I dug up a few gems, too. Like this one from Tim: "My son currently plays the the Mizuno MP-60. Looking for something in the Mizuno line that would offer a little more forgiveness."
Dear Tim, I hope your son is a solid single-digit handicapper or a card-carrying member of the PGA Tour. Otherwise, you could be brought up on charges of child abuse. Seriously, the MP-60 is a fine iron for accomplished players, but if you're looking for a smarter, kinder, gentler alternative, we heartily endorse Mizuno's MP-52 with the milled pockets within the back cavity.
We love the thorough reader, too. Like this note from R Hunt, who asks "Can you tell me if the Ping G10 irons are smaller in 2009 than they were in 2008?" The note details how our surface area, heel to toe, topline and sole width measurements are slightly smaller than in 2008's Hot List write-up.
OK, we confess. The numbers are different, but the size of the G10 irons hasn't changed. While we remeasured every repeat iron with this year's batch of new irons and while there are some differences attributable to manufacturing plus-minus tolerances, we did adjust our measuring methodology slightly to bring it more in line with advice we received from some of the R&D folks at the top manufacturers. That explains some of the variation you see. Also, it's worth noting that in the driver spin and launch angle numbers, you may see some changes in the descriptions of some repeat products (like the G10). Remember, though, those spin and launch ratings are based on the field of drivers considered this year, which is of course a different group than last year. The rating is a relative scale, hence the slight differences year to year.
Finally, while we pride ourselves on getting all the new products in our February issue, sometimes an entry just can't arrive in time for our full consideration. Unfortunately, that was true with the TaylorMade R9 this year. We weren't aware of the product until early December, which is too late to put it through the full Hot List process, and thus we couldn't give it a rating for the Hot List. It seems to be a fine entry, smallish perhaps but tech rich and always with that distinctive and appealing TaylorMade sound and feel. Rob from Calgary wants to know if R9 is "worth the hype or should I stick with my R7 Quad?"
Dear Rob, the R7 Quad was revolutionary, but so was the telephone. Time to upgrade. From a technology standpoing R9 seems to offer more potential ballflight correction. But TaylorMade alone has introduced at least (I am not making this up) 16 drivers since R7 Quad. And if you want to consider the rest of the industry, you could probably multiply that number by 10. If you can't find a driver better somewhere in that bunch, then go ahead and stick with your R7 Quad. The best news, of course, is you can take your old driver to a launch monitor and find out whether you're producing better numbers with it vs. something new. So I'll give you a gross of balls if the old r7 gets better numbers than the best of the new stuff.
Keep those cards and letters coming. We'll figure out answers, or at least make up something that mitigates the confusion.
Profiles in Journalism, and other messes
BOMB: So, are you a journalist or a sports agent?
It's a question golf writer Steve Elling should be asking himself these days. On March 5 Elling wrote a piece about Erik Compton for CBSSports.com. Like many of us, Elling was clearly and rightly moved by Compton's story, although when he complains "Even we hardened, sarcastic, jaded beat writers were amazed the Compton story didn't gain more national traction last fall." I would point him to Jim Moriarty's fine piece, "Change of Heart," that ran in the Sept. 5, 2008 Golf World and was so well done it captured a first-place award in Golf Writers Association of America's writing contest.
But what really caught my eye was the following groundbreaking piece of journalism:
"None of us could understand why equipment makers or sponsors weren't busting down his condo door. While he doesn't have status on a major tour, he is getting a steady supply of exemptions, and every time he plays, he generates coverage. It was such a no-brainer, I personally contacted three equipment companies on his behalf to try to get the guy, at minimum, some fresh tools -- he had given away his clubs, convinced he would never play golf again and not completely sure he would survive. He was using garage-sale-quality clubs at Q-school last year, making the story that much more unbelievable."
Huh? OK, Compton's a great guy with a great story. But when it comes to covering a sport, it should end there. Why any journalist is making calls on behalf of a player to try and get him an endorsement deal or some sticks is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed. It's easy to cheer for a guy like Compton, but there's a reason there's no cheering in the press box. Besides, be serious -- although Compton may have had trouble securing an endorsement deal, there is not a single equipment company in the land that would not happily have made him custom-built clubs at his request. And those garage-sale clubs at Q School? They weren't exactly hickory shafts and persimmon. He was playing with Titleist equipment barely removed from the current line -- or about what you can find in the bags of a handful of PGA Tour players on any given week.
GOUGE: Given the state of journalism today, I wouldn't be surprised that a sportswriter would need a second job. I wouldn't have picked sports agent of one of your profile subjects, however. If nice guys got endorsement deals, then most equipment companies would be out of money. The whole point is to sign players that are in the mix, hanging out in final groups on a regular basis and, well, for starters, have fully exempt playing privileges on a professional tour. I want Erik Compton to win six times this year on the PGA Tour, but if I'm an equipment company handing out full-year endorsement contracts, I'm making business decisions.
Speaking of business decisions on tour, though, let's look at how the rich are getting richer. To no one's surprise, the perennial leaders in golf ball (Titleist) and driver (TaylorMade) are once again on top of the list with their latest products. The 2009 Pro V1/Pro V1x franchise is the No. 1 ball played on tour and TaylorMade's presto-change-o R9 driver is the most played driver on the PGA Tour (although let's not overlook Nike's SQ Dymo Str8-Fit, which boasts a fairly similar adjustable idea and announced it earlier . Of course, it's also fair to say that for both Titleist and TaylorMade, relinquishing their respective positions on tour is unacceptable. But I do find it interesting that the No. 1 driver on tour is now 420 cc, or smaller than it's been since about 2004. Either this means we need to re-think everything, size doesn't matter or maybe, just maybe, Adams Golf and its Speedline driver might be on to something with the idea that the aerodynamics of supersized drivers are a problem, particularly for fast-swinging players. Of course, the USGA isn't planning to ban the Speedline, so maybe there's no there there. Yet.
And one other thing. Before you go messing around with your set makeup, don't overthink it. John Rollins opted to add a wedge and take out his 4-iron last week at the Honda Classic. Turns out the 4-iron was the club he needed on the 71st hole. His 3-iron nearly air-mailed the bleachers. Nice. That's why you really need to look at a distance gapping fitting session like those offered by a good fitter with a TrackMan (Soren Kjeldsen figured it out) or Ping's NFlight software. Not to sound too much like Yoda, but friends, "Don't guess. Know."
Fair market value, of a sort
BOMB: Well, well, well, seems like everyone is watching their nickels these days, even the boys at the USGA. A notice was sent to manufacturers yesterday informing them "beginning with all submissions received on or after April 1, 2009, the USGA will begin charging submitters of clubs and other equipment for official conformance evaluations. This is being done to partially defray the cost of services provided by the USGA's Research and Test Center and to more equitably distribute the cost of that support among the all equipment manufacturers."
According to the notice, the charges will be as follows:
Woods $150 each
Hybrids $150 each
Iron sets $500 per set
Individual Iron Heads $150 each
Putters $50 each
Other (tees, gloves, shoes, etc.) $50 each
Although on the surface some may find this surprising, it shouldn't be. The USGA has charged for golf-ball evaluations since 1979, so why not clubs. Further, I liken it to the golf equipment equivalent of an entry fee to the U.S. Open or U.S. Amateur. If the USGA can take $125 or so from an individual for that, why not be able to do the same from manufacturers that are constantly bombarding Far Hills with new club submissions?
GOUGE: Before those in our community move into warp speed in over-reaction mode, it's worth noting that the degree of difficulty in determining the conformance of a single golf club is a lot closer to an exercise in computational physics than an organizational meeting of your office book club. It is not a simple session of having a bunch of guys in blue blazers eyeball a submission, harrumph a few times and then issue a proclamation or poof of white smoke. What's more, it's not a once in a while type deal in Far Hills these days. Time was when a busy week at the Research and Test center might involve a handful of clubheads, or even fewer. Throughout much of the 1990s, according to information we have seen from someone who should know, the number of annual club submissions was less than 500 a year. By 2005, the number was close to 2,500 a year. The fact is, the number of areas which must be evaluated for conformance has significantly expanded (COR and now Characteristic Time, volume, width and breadth dimensions, moment of inertia -- and that's just on drivers). As manufacturers look to push the envelope in previously unnecessary directions (how about something like improved clubhead aerodynamics?), it becomes the USGA's responsibility to figure out what sort of test, if any, might be required to evaluate conformance. Sure, times are tight and even the USGA probably has budget shortfalls that might be mitigated somewhat by an extra million or two dollars a year. But if ball manufacturers have been charged for decades, it makes no sense for clubs to get a free ride.
Still, I'm left to ponder something you wrote this week, my astute and burgeoning TV star comrade. If there were two sets of rules, would all these products have to be submitted? Maybe, maybe not. But given that the number of different clubs that might need to be evaluated for conformance only at the elite level is easily one-tenth (or less) of those that under one set of rules have to be submitted today, wouldn't that be another way to envision a less overwhelming situation for the USGA? Given that I don't expect too many 13-degree drivers to be played this week at the Honda Classic (as in none), the USGA theoretically wouldn't have to busy itself with these sorts of exercises in a two-sets-of-rules world. Notice I didn't use the dreaded b-word (bifurcation), which when uttered in proper company at dinner causes soup spoons to be dropped and false teeth to come unglued. It's not that either of us believe two sets of rules would be better. Truly, we don't know. But we think sometimes a healthy discussion maybe provides a third, previously unrealized or even unimagined option. Everybody is looking for a solution where they win. Why not think about everyone's position in this particular dance? This is what happens when an industry works together. Can that happen? In desperate times? Some would say what better time is there.
Puzzling 'til our puzzlers are sore
BOMB: As my daughter likes to say, I'm confuzzled.
Recently we received a communique from TaylorMade regarding its TP Red LDP ball that said, "Some of them were found to exceed the USGA's initial velocity rule, less than two-tenths of one percent. The cause was human error - we accidentally made a batch that paired the TP Red cover with the wrong core. This variance was limited to TP Reds only, and did not affect the TP Black or any other TaylorMade balls."
OK, fair enough. Mistakes happen when you're dealing with human beings. Plus, we're only talking about two-tenths of one percent. Besides, we've been down this road before with the nonconforming drivers due to "manufacturing variances" so I don't think it's all that big a deal.
With one exception.
TaylorMade says the ball is being taken off the conforming list and that another one -- with the same design as the current TP Red LDP but with a new sidestamp -- will take its place to avoid confusion. The note goes on to state the following:
"Because the TP Red that's in the market now, with the original side stamp, conforms to the Rules of Golf they can continue to be used in normal play including those rounds in which scores are posted for handicap purposes.
"That's because only high-level tournaments, like tour events and USGA competitions, typically require contestants to use a ball that's on the Conforming Ball List. Most club championships and member guests don't. Of course, no matter what kind of tournament you're playing in, it's a good idea to ask an official beforehand if you need to play a ball that's on the List. If it turns out a listed ball is required, you'll need a TP Red with the new side stamp. If not, the original side stamp will do fine for the kind of recreational golf that almost all golfers play, including scores posted for handicap purposes.
"You can identify the TP Reds with the new side stamps and a sticker in the top right-hand corner of the box and on individual sleeves reading 'TP Red Tournament Edition.' "
So here is the confuzzling part. If some of these balls exceed the initial velocity and the ball is taken off the conforming ball list, how on earth can it be used for recreational rounds and posting scores? I do get that competitions need to post that a ball on the conforming ball list must be used in order for that to be in effect. But how can a ball whose physical properties exceed the limits set forth by the USGA be used to post a score for a USGA handicap? I don't seem to be able to get a satisfactory answer on that. Perhaps you can enlighten me, pardsy.
GOUGE: Let me see, enlighten, as I understand it means "to furnish knowledge to," although I prefer its more existential definition, "to give spiritual insight to." I can't help you with any of that. I'm lost. I do think it would behoove players who are thinking of competing at state and local events to make sure that if there's a one-ball rule they better make sure the TaylorMade balls they're playing are on the OK list. But still, given that the official USGA procedure allows for three balls in a typical submission of 24 to fail the conformance standards and still have the ball be OK by the rules, I'm confused by all the histrionics. By our understanding, the TaylorMade mistake only applies to 0.2 percent of its production, significantly less than the 12.5 percent that the USGA ball-testing procedure allows. But let's give them credit for being nice guys. I guess.
Who we can give no credit to for being nice guys, however, are the boys at Callaway and Acushnet, who have once again decided to roll around in the mud for the whole world to see. In a nutshell, the latest legal overindulgence involves Acushnet suing Callaway for patent infringement by Callaway's Tour i and Tour ix ball, and Callaway suing Acushnet for patent infringement, claiming the "converted" 2007 Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls AND the new 2009 Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls still infringe patents owned by Callaway. This, of course, comes on top of the already severely muck-ified legal St. Vitus' Dance shaking through both companies over Callaway's successful (thus far) patent infringement claims against the old Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls. If you're not following along -- and why would you at this point? -- this is nothing more than a case of "I know you are but what am I?" All the gory details are best obtained by checking out the website of David Dawsey, the smartest guy in the room when it comes to golf patents, who explains in detail how the love continues between these two not so BFFs. Personally, I find it at least mildly interesting that Callaway is being sued over a ball it introduced last year for patent infringement on a patent that was granted this year. I know, I know, patents are applied for years in advance, but as you my friend might say, "C'mon, MAN!" How does this help anybody in an industry that's in desperate need of positive reinforcement?
BOMB: Bottom line is that this helps no one, my friend—except the lawyers, perhaps. One of the industry's dirty little secrets has long been that patents are infringed all the time and what eventually happens is a game of "I won't call you on infringing my patent if you won't call me on infringing yours." Deals are struck between companies where they agree to share or license certain technologies. It's simply what happens when everyone is designing in the same boxes and the U.S. Patent Office is virtually impossible to figure out. And why these two can't come to an agreement along these lines is beyond me.
GOUGE: Could be they don't like each other all that much. Which means it can only get uglier. And in our business, friend, that's better than Christmas morning.
