I Am So Ashamed: Bomb & Gouge: Golf Digest

I Am So Ashamed

Friday, May 18, 2007 Comments

BOMB: I feel sooooooooo dirty. I need a shower. I need to go see my priest and confess. I am, possibly, a cheater.
Now, before my wife reads this and thinks I’m steppin’ out on her, I’m referring to the fact that I took a look at the Cobra HS9 F driver I used for a period last year. A period that included our company match-play event and our annual interoffice Ryder Cup-like Seitz Cup event. I looked at the loft praying I wouldn’t see what I did—9 degrees. The exact club that is now on the USGA’s non-conforming list.
Now, that doesn’t mean the club is over the CT limit for spring-like effect (239 microseconds plus an 18 microsecond tolerance). But I am sending it in to find out. I have to know. Was I cheating or wasn’t I? OK, by the law I was not no matter what the result. The club was on the conforming list at the time and neither Peter Morrice or Ron Kaspriske asked for my club to be checked for CT conformance. Thank god.
The reason for this revelation are two-fold. First, I’m not big on cheaters. Just read the column I wrote on it a few weeks ago . Second, this is just the sort of thing that is going to crop up in the coming months as the member-guest and club championship season get underway. It’s unavoidable. Unless you are an absolute golf junkie and read magazines or blogs or whatever, you don’t know about the clubs that have been ruled nonconforming. Seriously, go to your club or course this weekend and ask as many people as you can what the last three clubs were to be ruled nonconforming. Not many will know. But some do. And those that do are likely to check bags on the first tee. I know I will. And if I see someone with a driver that has been deemed nonconforming I’m telling him to take it out of the bag or lose the hole. And I’m sure that will be met with a reaction similar to this. Just what we need in golf, right?

GOUGE: Just which one of us is Smokin' Joe Frazier in this situation? But let's face it: there are more than a few roundhouse lefts already being thrown in this whole nonconforming driver business. We both know another manufacturer turned in Nike and Callaway, so you can bet it's safe to assume that the witch hunt is on. And frankly, it's a good thing, because the truth is the industry has gotten dangerous in its flirtations with the upper limits of the CT rule. From two different knowledgeable sources I have heard that it is possible that this problem is bigger than one isolated loft here and one discontinued model there. It is believed by some that there are models of clubs being made where the average Characteristic Time reading for in-store products is 257 —THE AVERAGE. Another said to me not all that long ago, "There but for the grace of God go I." But it's more than that. If CT is going to be regulated by the USGA and its staff in the marketplace, which they seem to be saying they will be doing, I want to know what the CT of the driver I'm buying is. Why should I buy a driver with 239 CT when the one right next to it is 246? Do seven microseconds matter? Not one bit. But that will be the mentality, and consumers will be well within their rights to demand such disclosure. Good luck, though. You have to receive a USGA-approved license to purchase a CT machine, and the USGA doesn't grant those licenses to golf shop owners or equipment editors of major golf publications. The USGA (and let's not forget the R&A, too, because China, where most of these "manufacturing variances" are occuring is within their jurisdiction) is looking for a solution to this problem. I had a long talk with Steve Otto, the R&A's director of research, and it was his belief that the development of certain nonconforming drivers is more tied to manufacturers' not always being acutely aware of the range of manufacturing variances that occur within their designs. He believes everybody is learning about this issue now. Let's hope what's being learned is that the game is still about having the highest respect for the rules, to the point where you will go out of your way to ensure that there is no chance that a rule will be broken. Of course if a rule can't be enforced to 100 percent compliance, is it really a rule at all? I know there aren't plans to bring a CT machine to Golf Digest's intramural Ryder Cup event next fall. Given what you've just revealed, maybe there should be. At this stage, it appears, nothing in golf is more revealing about a man's character than a CT machine.

Rating

Rate it:

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Comments

Archived Comments (2) Click to expand

Good reporting by both of you guys on this Non-conforming / CT issue with drivers. It's an unfortunate problem. Made all the worse by the fact that balls go so far, that it increases the pressure on regulating driver faces.

Bomb responds: Thanks for the kind words. And yes, it is an unfortunate problem. But I really don't think the distance the ball is going and the regulation of driver faces are connected. It's about preserving the integrity of the rules, plain and simple.

Posted by Chuck May 19, 2007 5:05 PM

I think this issue could easily dissolve into something silly. Golf is supposed to be a game based on self-imposed, voluntary honesty and integrity with respect to the rules. If a club manufacturer were knowingly breaking the rules, the USGA and RA should immediately rule that ALL of that manufacturer's products were illegal for USGA/RA play. But why would any manufacturer intentionally do this? The average golfer--the masses that are the target market for the drivers--is he really able to discern the benefit of a few microseconds of CT? Is it worth the headache of having a club ruled non-conforming for a benefit that is detectable only with a space-age measuring device?

But even if everyone is trying to play by the rules, it is still possible that non-conforming products may end up on store shelves. Any time you set such a precise limit for something difficult to measure, such as CT, you open the door for problems. The universe is an imperfect place, and there are variances in measurement that are inevitable no matter how precise your yardstick is. The idea of "manufacturing tolerances" is not some throwaway term intended as a coverup for nefarious motives, but is an inevitable condition of nature.

The USGA has to decide what it is trying to accomplish. If it is trying to be a whistle blower and rat out any single offending club--regardless of whether the additional nanoseconds are really meaningful in the grand scheme of things--then I guess they can pull product specimens off store shelves and go after the transgressors. Or, if they are really trying to protect some aspect of the integrity of the game, then they should work with the manufacturers to come up with reasonable, achievable goals for quality control, both for the finished product marketers and the Chinese manufacturers, and then simply let things go from there. If a company or casting house doesn't comply, the USGA can refuse to certify any club from that source.

I am always amazed that people are so horrified that you could get a "hot" club that went 5 yards farther. Maybe the extra 5 yards is enough to reach the deep rough, where the shorter shot would have stayed in the fairway. I believe that this issue, as with all of the related ones inducing the seizures in debates about golf equipment, amounts to people worrying about the wrong things.

Instead of worrying about the characteristic time of 6000 angels dancing on the head of an FTi, how about we have the USGA do something to really help the millions of regular golfers out there? How about taking their "good of the game" motto seriously? How about doing something about 6 hour rounds, or about the limited access to decent, low cost golf in the US? Or are they really more concerned with preserving the prestige of old private clubs, and privileged form of golf enjoyed by the members there?

Bomb responds: While I agree this is somewhat getting out of hand and I really dislike the whistle-blowing aspect of this, I have to take exception with your mindset of The average golfer--the masses that are the target market for the drivers--is he really able to discern the benefit of a few microseconds of CT? Is it worth the headache of having a club ruled non-conforming for a benefit that is detectable only with a space-age measuring device?

The answer is yes it is worth the headache. And this is not the USGAs fault. Heres the fact: The CT limit is 239. It is not 257. Thats the reasonable goal you talk about. The 257 is to allow for all those manufacturing variances and the imperfect universe you talk about. During this episode I have repeatedly asked RD types at major and not-so-major manufacturers this question: If you designed at 239 is there any way you would go over 257? The answers have been no and likely not. So, my friend, is the USGA to blame or are manufacturers for designing so far into the tolerance zone? Just to be clear, I do not think any manufacturers are intentionally trying to go over the limit. But by designing in the tolerance zone they played with fire and some got scorched. Its like knowing the speed limit is 65, but you know you can get away with going 75. But if you insist at driving at 74 you better be damn sure your speedometer is working perfectly.

Second, while you make the point that the ball may go further in the rough, it also might clear that bunker by a yard. Or that water hazard. I just cant understand the whats wrong with a couple extra yards mentality. ITS CHEATING. Can I play a golf ball that goes outside the rules in your group? Use 18 clubs? How about teeing it up in front of the tee markers a couple yards? Thats OK, right? After all, its only a couple of yardsyou said so yourself.

Bottom line. There is a rule. It is a reasonable one. It has a tolerance to allow for manufacturing variances that are reasonable. Why cant we just abide by it? If we did maybe the USGA could further some of those worthwhile causes you talk about.

Posted by 86general May 21, 2007 2:32 PM