Achenbach on Finchem, Manufacturers

Not posted yet online (or ever, perhaps) is a Nov. 27 column from Golfweek’s Jim Achenbach on the equipment debate. After setting up the Tour’s case for a revised ball spec to keep architecture relevant (by repeating the staggering 20-yard average increase in 7 years stat), Achenbach says that a spike upward in driving distance would lead to governing body coalition of the willing, but that “this will be Finchem’s baby.”

“The ball will be detuned to bring driving distance back to the 2003 level. All future distance controls will be tethered to 2003 measurements. Why 2003? Because titanium driver technology and solid core golf ball evolution reached their zenith in 2003.”

The 2003 level allows the USGA to save face, when in reality 7,000 yard courses and the pro game would be better off going back to a late 90s level, or even circa 1995.

Another interesting item from the column:

“The U.S. Golf Association, in response to a request from the Tour, is preparing a list of options should the Tour decide it has no choice but to cut back distance of the golf ball.”

So you ask those who led you into this mess, and who have denied there was a problem, to now get you out of this? I understand Finchem’s political thinking here but to rely solely on the USGA for creative solutions would be a huge mistake.

Achenbach says equipment manufacturers, “are accused of being profiteers, yet they certainly don’t get the credit they deserve for making golf more fun for more people than ever before.”

And he writes, “It is a blatant simplification to accuse anyone of seeking a profit at the expense of the game. Golf equipment companies, for example, have operated completely within the framework of the rules in creating innovative clubs and balls.”

True, but the manufactuers also successfully pressured the USGA to drop the optimization testing mechanism that would have kept distance averages from skyrocketing in the last four years.