"For those who love the game."

Titanium should be banned In May of 2002, the USGA and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club made a joint agreement to govern "spring-like effect" on driving clubs.  The agreement said that from January 1, 2008 onwards, the Rules of Golf worldwide will reduce the COR test limit to 0.830, which is the current USGA limit, for all levels of play. While the governing bodies (GB's) are to be commended for their action, it was way too little, way too late. At the time of this writing, 11 players on the PGA Tour were averaging over 300 yards per drive.  While this greater distance may be due to athletic prowess or conditioning in some cases, the distance should properly be attributed to technology.  While unfettered technological advances may be desirable in many areas, including medicine, computers, or even transportation; some things, like a book, or a toothbrush, may never become obsolete. There is a point when we have to say, how long do we really need the golf ball to fly?  A 300-yard drive used to really mean something, even if it was wind-aided. Averaging 300 yards?  That's not right--or necessary.  It doesn't really contribute anything significant to the game.  As a matter of fact, at the highest level, it hurts the game significantly. So many players now are using huge, thin walled titanium drivers with sweet spots more than 3 times larger in 2003 than in 1998 (click to see Golf Digest article and good photos). Senior Champions Tour golfer Tom Purtzer is hitting farther than he ever did while on the PGA Tour.  On its face, this evidence alone is almost enough to rest our case that most of the distance is not prowess-based. However, there are many other examples.  Only wooden bats are used in Major League baseball.  With foresight, they banned the use of aluminum or metal bats a long time ago. Golf could take a similar approach. We are not pushing for going back to real wood woods at this time. Like golf, sometimes the flying distance of a baseball is also questioned. The big difference between the two is that baseball could change or regulate the flight of the ball overnight if desired. There is an official regulation Major League baseball.  This ball could easily be deadened (or made more lively, if necessary).   Golf, however, does not currently have that option. It must be obvious to all that equipment companies will not voluntarily roll back for the good of the game.  There are a few reasons for this, including the public demand for more distance and for perceived profit reasons. There are a myriad of companies with advertisements on television and in magazines that promise longer drives to the golfer who tees it up with their ball. These ads are obviously aimed to feed the ravaging hunger and the golfing public apparently has for more distance.  They must be very effective.   Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer are saying that the ball flight should be regulated. The best way to accomplish this is to have a PGA tour-issued ball. This would allow the GB's to control the game, and really be able to "govern" the flight of the balls. Granted, it would be more difficult for Sergio to endorse the "Dyna-Soar" when he doesn't play with it himself. A tournament ball could be to the detriment of player's pocketbooks, but would be to the benefit of the game.   Any technological advance that almost overnight allows players to hit the ball 20 yards farther off the tee is something that needs to be examined very closely. It is good to see the older players winning with greater frequency on the PGA Tour. However, the real reason it may be happening is that they are just learning how to use the technology like the younger players already have. Where do computer illiterate adults often go to learn how to use a computer?  The young folks are usually on the cutting edge.  Do we need to make greens more slippery or put pins closer to the edge of the green when players are hitting wedge approaches all the time, or would it be better to make it so players don't hit wedges so much?  The latter is preferable. The first step to doing that is banning the use of lighter metal like titanium.  Golf has the right to govern itself.  It is a self-regulating game. The GB's should not be afraid of legal threats claiming that golf does not have the right to govern itself in the best interests of the game. Such threats would probably come from equipment companies. We can't let equipment companies dictate the direction our great game takes. The companies probably wouldn't be hurt that badly if bans took place, anyway. It would be a level field for all. In some cases, equipment companies or competitors would not be able to advertise in the same way or solicit the endorsements of players in the same way any more. But if they all have to do it, it will not have an inequitable impact. It's possible that we could even see such matters settled in the highest courts of appeal. However, we would hope that these companies would quickly get into a line of support for what is best for the game.  Golf is a great game even if you don't ever hit the ball over 300 yards. The game is something that doesn't need to be improved upon in terms of distance or how straight the ball will fly any more. Enough is enough.  If you miss a shot--you missed it.  If you hit it on the screws, you deserve distance--if you don't, you don't. Let's take a huge step toward preserving the game that we love so much--for us--and for future generations. Let's place a higher premium on shot making once again. First, we need to ban the use of titanium.  The next step is to have a regulation ball issued by the tours at the highest level. We can always resort to persimmon woods with tour-issued balls if necessary in the future. Then the GB's will have greater control over the game and the direction it will take. They will be governing bodies in word and in deed.  --Mark Grim  November 7, 2003

 © 2003-2005 Preserve Golf. Founded November 10, 2003. All Rights Reserved.