By Frank Thomas September 26, 2008

Our equipment guru, Golf Digest Technical Advisor Frank Thomas, has the answers to your questions. Click here to submit a question for possible use in this column and you could receive a signed copy of Frank's latest book, "Just Hit It: Our Equipment and Our Game." For more from Frank you can visit his site franklygolf.com. [Note: Each week submitted questions will be reviewed and the best one will receive a signed copy of Frank's book, "Just Hit It."]

THE SMASH FACTOR CONTINUED

Frank, you make reference to Smash factor not being important for irons. Does this imply we should pay attention to it for drivers instead?

Recently Bridgestone has been challenging consumers to "take the ball challenge," meaning challenge your current ball in play vs. one they will recommend after they use their computer to watch you hit some balls. As far as I know, the computer can show some big gains for high and middle handicaps, but not as great with lower handicap players. I am a 5 handicap and have a 100-105mph swing, but the guy running the computer said my smash factor was 1.6, and that that was off the charts. However, I only hit the ball about 260 carry. Could I not have the right shaft (65gm X-stiff shaft, trying to decrease spin)? Can a higher smash factor maybe produce too much spin?

Thanks,

--Dave

Dave,

I need to answer your last question first. We do know that the longer the ball stays on the face of a driver the less (not more) spin it will have when leaving the face, all else being equal.

The driver "smash factor" -- ratio of ball speed divided by head speed --is a measure of the efficiency of the impact. If you hit the ball in the center of the face where the COR is usually at its maximum (i.e. at the limit of 0.830) the ball will come off the face at its maximum speed. The smash factor for a 200 gram head traveling at 110 mph using a calibration ball (Pinnacle Gold) will have a smash factor of about 1.50. However, if you miss center of the face, or the club face is wide open or closed, this will reduce the smash factor -- efficiency of the impact. Click here here to learn more about COR on my website.

With your smash factor being 1.6 you either have a slower head speed than the example given, OR a club with a COR higher than the limit, OR a hot ball, OR a machine which may need to be calibrated.

If you hit the ball 260 yards with your head speed, you should be reasonably happy assuming average to soft fairways. I have some questions about you using an X-Stiff shaft, as this is normally recommended for swing speeds a little higher than yours. If however, you like the shaft you have and you can feel where the club head is during your swing, then stick with it; but if you are fighting your club to get it to perform well try a more flexible shaft.

Frank

WHY A TEN CLUB RULE?

Frank, I've enjoyed reading your articles and opinions about the game of golf and its direction. As a recreational player, I also thank you for your contributions to the game.

Even though some say the integrity of the game is in jeopardy, I think the people "guarding the game" have all in all done a very good job. I wish the leaders in the game of bowling had the same foresight as it is another game I enjoy playing but it has gotten way out of hand, at all levels.

My mail to you however is about your proposal in limiting the professional to 10 clubs. I realize many in the game of golf, as well as yourself, strongly believe in one set of rules for all players. So here are my questions:

How then do you justify your 10 club proposal for the professional, but not for the recreational player?

Why is this different than having different equipment standards for different levels of play?

Might there be a circumstance where you might endorse different equipment standards for different levels of play?

I thank you in advance for any attention you might give to the questions and keep up the great work!

Best regards,

--Ted

Ted,

I thank you for your kind comments and your support and loyalty. I try to be unbiased but every now and again an issue comes up that pushes one of my hot buttons, and then I don't hang back.

I too, believe that the USGA is doing a good job in most areas, such as the playing rules and running very well organized National Championships and a fantastic museum. I also believe that we need the USGA as it lends order to our game.

We don't go to jail for violating the rules. Rather, we abide by them voluntarily because they make intuitive sense. You can enjoy the game by making up your own rules -- and some groups have been known to do this -- but if there are a set in place that have been proven over about 400 years to work reasonably well, then why try to change?

As you know, I am very much in favor of only one set of rules for all golfers. My point in making the proposal re. a ten-club "Condition of Competition" adopted for professional events, is that if there is a problem and two sets of rules is inevitable, then this is the least disruptive form of bifurcation.

The ten-club rule does not require any equipment rule changes, and it does not affect any golfers except for those in events where this "Condition of Competition" is posted. It will make the game a little more difficult for the superstars -- something the USGA has been trying to do for a long time -- and for it to work effectively, all one needs to do is have the ability to count to ten.

This would also mean that we could continue to relate to the pros by knowing that some -- very few -- of our shots are equivalent to the best in the world, and that we used the same equipment to achieve this shot. We could have Pro-Ams together on the same course and compete fairly with the same equipment. This would enhance the entertainment value of the tour events and -- if this is important for national championships -- would make watching these events more interesting.

Ted, yes I agree that one set of rules is important and the USGA should get more golfers playing by them by promoting the "Rules in Brief." This would get about 75% of the golfers playing by 80% of the rules, rather than 5% playing by 90% of the rules.

In the equipment arena, the USGA is not doing a very good job because it changes rules which affect all of us (about 99%) because of perceived problems caused by the very elite players (only 0.01%).

If this continues then golfers will soon demand two set of rules -- or not play by the rules at all -- and this is not good for the game.

Thanks for your support.

Frank