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.
Monday, December 6, 2004 at 11:40 AM