California Golf Technologies

What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2007 (Part 6)

Why All the Rules? And, All about Hybrids

By Leith Anderson

Over the last few years there has been a lot of comment about how improvements in golf equipment have made the game easier to play. To "protect the game", the USGA is standing at the dike, trying to figure out which hole to stick its finger in. They have limited the head size, the "spring effect" and the length of drivers. They have told golf ball manufacturers that using silly putty to make golf balls is a no-no. Recently, they have promulgated rules limiting Moment of Inertia in driver heads. While appearing to plug some leaks, they have permitted perplexing inconsistencies. Why, for example, is it OK to adjust moveable weights in a driver head to alter ball flight but not align the shaft to do the same thing?

Despite the improvements in equipment and ball technology, the game is not all that much easier to play. Numerous studies of handicaps over the years reveal that despite advances in golf equipment, scores are not really going lower for the majority of amateur players. If the game is not really being destroyed by equipment advances, why all the rules?

Meantime, there are real philosophical challenges to the "integrity of the game" that the USGA has chosen to ignore. How about belly putters? Since when does securing the butt of a club against your body constitute a "stroke?" Even players who are currently using belly putters think they should be illegal.

I think that the USGA has embarrassed itself with the rules it has chosen to enforce that purport to limit performance improvement with drivers. Perhaps they’re still smarting from the bloody war with Ping years ago when they tried to roll back square grooves in irons. Ping fought the rule like a mad dog and in the end nothing happened except the lawyers got rich. So here’s what you do: Make sure nobody cares about the limits you establish so you stay out of court. There is no evidence that any of the USGA rules regarding drivers has been effective in "protecting the game".

USGA Limit on Driver Head Size

As manufacturers discovered how to make driver heads out of titanium balloons, the USGA decided that they had to set a size limit. They chose 460 cubic centimeters. Why? The most popular size at the time was 400 cc. The line the USGA drew in the sand was arbitrary - set well above the then-current state of the art. None of the major OEM’s was adversely affected. In fact, they probably breathed a collective sigh of relief, knowing that they wouldn’t have to waste R&D money trying to build drivers larger than 460 cc’s and maintain a 200 gram weight limit.

A few lesser component companies had released drivers in the 500cc range that looked like something a circus clown would carry. There was no evidence that super-large drivers delivered any performance advantage. Conversely, it is arguable that when drivers go much over 460 ccs, they become too fragile to stand up under the punishment inflicted by golfers and the large size is more likely to decrease swing speeds and deliver less distance. Why bother?

One of the most renowned designers and manufacturers of golf equipment is Katsuhiro Miura. Mr. Miura is the founder and inspiration behind Miura golf, widely regarded as producing the best forged irons in the world. Mr. Miura has planned to introduce his own drivers and fairway woods for several years. In that time, he has studied performance and workability. When his new driver is released in a few weeks, it will be less than 400 cc. Just as skirts always get longer after they get shorter, I predict that better players will be rediscovering drivers in the 400 cc size range in the near future. The USGA-imposed 460 cc limit is irrelevant.

USGA limitation on club length

On the PGA Tour there are plenty of golfers that are looking for a little extra distance. So far, the longest driver that any regular PGA Tour member plays regularly is Phil Mickelson’s 46" "beast". If 48" drivers were a great advantage surely you would see one on Tour. But there are none. Tour Players know that they have to put the ball in play. Most of them use 44.5" drivers. But the USGA has a rule against drivers longer than 48". Why bother?

Why not permit golfers with extraordinary physical ability to use any length golf club that might improve their results? What if a 5 foot tall player - like Tadd Fujikawa, for instance - figured out how to control a 50" driver and used that skill to make it to the PGA Tour? In a golf world that suffers from boredom, that would be a huge attraction. If an unusual club is exceptionally difficult to control, but a player masters the technique to make up for his own physical limitations, wouldn’t that be interesting?

The most interesting twist on the question of driver length was the response of the Long Drivers’ Association. They happily adopted the USGA limit and brought their maximum length down to 48" from 50". Distance did not suffer. Even long drive contestants have to hit the grid. The USGA-imposed length limit is irrelevant.

Defining "Hot Heads"

Through the 1990’s manufacturers became increasingly skilled at manufacturing driver heads - first with steel - later titanium - now composites. The strength to weight ratio of titanium permitted larger heads year after year. Thin titanium faces were built to flex. That characteristic became known as the "trampoline effect" - incorrectly named by marketing departments. The implication was that the ball would "spring" off of the face of the driver, propelled by the "rebound" of the face.

But that’s not what happens. When the face flexes, the ball has a few more milliseconds in contact with the face of the driver. That allows the ball to compress a little more (hence the "silly putty" prohibition). The extra ball speed comes from more compression of the ball. The face of a titanium driver does not propel the ball like a trampoline.

The more a driver face flexes, the more the ball compresses and the higher the ball speed.

At the Golf Lab, our experience with flexible driver faces came through our work with professional long drive contestants. Long drive contestants will break most driver heads. It’s usually only a matter of time. Commercial models are not built to stand up to swing speeds north of 140 MPH. Long drive contestants always have a bag full of drivers - names like Alpha, SMT, Bang and Ashton - built to withstand competitive abuse. They constantly test their drivers to try to figure out which one will perform the best. One of the tests they use is to lay the edge of a credit card across the face of their driver. In time, the driver face begins to flatten. At that point, the face has weakened. That’s also the point when it flexes the most, when the face is the "hottest". Once the heads reached this stage, they are reserved for competition.

With use, titanium driver faces can become very slightly more flexible. It is quite possible that a driver that left the factory as "conforming" could become "non-conforming" after a few weeks on Tour. But there is no point making driver faces too flexible. When you do that, they will fatigue and break even faster. Perhaps that was the reason that the USGA changed its testing procedures.

Testing Driver Heads for Coefficient of Restitution

The first attempt to limit "trampoline effect" was to invent a test that determined COR, the abbreviation for "coefficient of restitution". The USGA clamped a driver head in a vise and shot a golf ball from an air cannon. If the ball bounced back at more than 83 percent of the air cannon speed, the driver was deemed illegal. Why 83%? In the absence of any explanation, you’d have to consider it an arbitrary number.

The Royal and Ancient Golf Club - the rule makers for Europe and the rest of the world decided in their wisdom that a COR of 86% would be OK. Callaway decided to market a non-conforming driver (.86 COR) for "recreational golfers. Arnold Palmer endorsed the Callaway driver as "more fun" and almost got excommunicated from the PGA for his heretical position. Eventually, the rule making bodies negotiated a truce to accept the American position. The difference in COR-related distance? A couple of yards. Why bother?

In the end, the USGA succumbed to criticism that the test they were using may not be fair. The COR test did not test the club itself, but rather inferred whether the club was legal by measuring something else. It might also be that the USGA realized that transporting an air cannon to tournament sites was impractical. Through manufacturing inconsistencies or use, non-conforming drivers could show up in tournament play. The USGA needed a testing device that was portable enough for on-site testing at tournaments.

The Characteristic Time Test

For readers who are interested in technical detail, a nine-page white paper about testing for "characteristic time" is available from the USGA website: www.usga.org.

The short story is that the USGA invented a new electronic gizmo that is small enough to travel. It operates by clamping a shafted club and pinging face with a pendulum. After bouncing the pendulum off the face of the driver eighteen times, the computer does its magic and determines whether a driver is legal or not by measuring how fast the pendulum bounces off of the club face. The USGA is satisfied that this measurement of "characteristic time" is a good way to test a driver face for flexibility. They publish a limit decorated with scientific symbols that civilians will not understand. They don’t say how they decided the limit. How much distance is at stake? No one thinks it’s more than a couple of yards for most amateur players. Why bother?

There is some value in having a portable way to test drivers on Tour. We won’t have to hear about Prima Donna Tour players calling each other out. It’s hard to get caught by the characteristic time test because any manufacturer can buy the testing equipment and make sure that the USGA never sees a non-conforming head. To avoid embarrassment, staff players’ equipment is meticulously tested. But just when you think surprises are impossible, they happen. Nike ran afoul of the characteristic time test.

The Great Nike SUMO2 Flap

The month of March was not good for Nike. According to published reports, a Nike competitor bought and tested a bunch of Nike SUMO2 square drivers and found that they failed the characteristic time test. The USGA was alerted. The USGA then bought their own SUMO2’s and found that, sure enough, a measurable percentage - estimated by industry sources at 20% - of the Nike drivers were non-conforming.

Rumors buzzed around. One was that Nike called the penalty on itself to counter the emerging belief that the SUMO2 was a short hitter. Given that the consequences would be measured in millions of dollars lost, that’s an unlikely theory. The ultimate irony is that most clubfitters, based on launch monitor testing, and even Nike itself, thought that the SUMO2 actually delivered less ball speed than the conforming and more conventional SUMO.

The USGA placed the SUMO2 on its "non-conforming" list making the SUMO2 illegal to play in any USGA sanctioned tournament or in any round that would determine official handicaps. That’s everything except for practice rounds. The SUMO2 was out.

Once the die was cast, Nike emerged in full crisis-management mode. Nike executive management is well-aware that companies are judged by how they respond to defective product situations. They sent out for lemonade recipes.

To answer questions about how the SUMO2 was originally approved by the USGA, Nike blamed an "unauthorized manufacturing change" by one of their suppliers. They announced a recall plan for all of their SUMO2 drivers, offering to send a brand new driver to any customer who would call them up, leave a credit card number, and promise to return their original driver in the prepaid shipping box provided by Nike.

There was one major problem: Nike didn’t have any conforming SUMO2 drivers. After announcing the recall in mid-March and opening a website and call center to manage returns on March 25th, actual replacements to customers were not available until the middle of April.

Nike had executed a brilliant marketing plan, holding back all sales until "SUMO Saturday" - February 3rd. They used the time to build up inventory in the channel so all of their retail accounts would have inventory on "opening day". More than 50,000 SUMO2 drivers were in the market place. They got on the charts in March, grabbing 17% market share for drivers.

In the Executive Suite, there were high hopes that SUMO2 buyers would keep their non-conforming SUMO2 drivers after Nike announced that the "hot head" would deliver up to two extra yards on a center strike. It will be interesting to see how many players care about USGA events and official handicaps. History suggests that the non-conforming SUMO2’s will become popular collectors’ items.

At first, Nike had no answer for customers who reshafted and modified their drivers. Legally, the company could duck responsibility for replacing drivers that had been altered. Once again, Nike executives realized that would add insult to injury - refusing to protect their best customers’ investment in Nike products.

To solve the problem, Nike struck a unique and innovative agreement with the Golf Lab. A large shipment of conforming SUMO2 drivers was allocated and sent to the Golf Lab. All Golf Lab customers and any other SUMO2 owner who may have customized his SUMO2 driver can bring his driver to the Golf Lab to have a conforming SUMO2 head installed. All modifications will be assiduously preserved. There is no charge. As partial compensation for the trouble, all SUMO2 owners will also receive a dozen new Ignite golf balls. The goal is to get SUMO2 tournament players back into USGA sanctioned events as soon as possible. Players who call ahead can have the swap done while they wait to minimize inconvenience.

The financial and business disaster for Nike is difficult to fathom. The traditional start of the golf season is the beginning of April. The Masters rings the starting bell. That’s when the prestigious private clubs on the East Coast open for business. At the beginning of April, Nike had one of the hottest drivers in the market. Unfortunately, none were for sale on "opening day" and the best guess about when the shelves would be stocked was sometime starting the end of April. Meantime, no serious golfer would buy a non-conforming Nike driver. Nike and all of its retail accounts would lose two months of sales at the height of the selling season.

The SUMO2 Saga will be interesting to watch as it plays out. Although Nike blamed a supplier for unauthorized changes, they had no good answer for why they received over 50,000 drivers without discovering the problem. Nike insiders were speculating what "Big Nike" would do once the full magnitude of the disaster was understood. Consensus was, in Donald Trump’s trademarked phrase, that "somebody will be fired." It will say a lot about Nike when we find out who the company chooses to pay for the mistake.

How Much is Too Much MOI?

I almost forgot one more irrelevant rule.

Moment of Inertia (MOI) in driver heads is defined as resistance to twisting around the vertical axis of the club head. The value is determined by an electronic gizmo designed for the purpose. Details can be found on the USGA website, www.usga.org. Be warned, the formulas are gobbledygook for most of us. Results of testing are a number, expressed by the formula "g-cm2" - spoken as grams (pause) centimeters squared or in Native American lingo as "oz-in2" - spoken as ounces (pause) inches squared. It’s enough to know that the formula takes into account the weight and the circumference of the driver head. The heavier the head and the longer the distance around, the higher the MOI number. For simplification purposes, I like to call the number "MOI whatever units".

To put the number in context, older titanium drivers measure in the low 4000 MOI whatever units. Last year’s Nike Sasquatch was the highest of its time at 4650. This year the SUMO is 4950 and the SUMO2 tops the list at 5300. Other manufacturers have joined the fray. The Adams Portobello BUL comes out at 5000.

Last fall, when Nike was showing prototypes of their SUMO2 driver - and made it clear that they were aiming to attack the Taylor Made dominance in drivers based on moveable weights with a new focus on "geometry" - the USGA picked up on the trend and announced a new limit on MOI. MOI was to be capped at 5900 MOI whatever units.

Once again, the USGA chose to set a limit well above the current state of the art. In fact, there is no reason to believe that a manufacturer could even build a driver that measured 5900 MOI whatever units. It is also interesting to consider that the limit was set without any kind of testing. Will high MOI drivers make the game too easy to play? That’s not proven.

Nike competitors are unwilling to admit that the SUMO2 constitutes a significant breakthrough. Anecdotal evidence from early users suggests that they think that high MOI drivers, particularly the SUMO2 seem to be more accurate. Very few have reported that the SUMO2 is both more accurate and longer. Opinions aside, there has been no independent testing to prove the case, one way or another.

We have our MOI limit. But why bother?

The Advent and Evolution of Hybrids

It all started four years ago when Todd Hamilton put the Sonartec MD hybrid on the map by winning the British Open. His was a 17* replacement for his four wood. That’s when we all began to notice a new golf club category.

In a way, the original Adams Tight Lies fairway wood was the first hybrid. Barney Adams turned the traditional fairway wood upside down and created one of the first fairway wood designs that helped a player get the ball in the air more easily.

Shortly after, the Orlimar phenomenon exploded and players began to realize that lower center of gravity and shallower faces also helped players make solid contact.

Since then, there has been a sea change in the way players put their bags together. Long irons are all but gone - except for the best players. Even Tour players are replacing long irons with hybrids, to gain higher trajectories and softer landings on tour-hard greens.

Hybrids are here to stay. How do you find the right one to fit your game?

Early Mistakes

The first generation of any product is not usually perfect. That was definitely the case with hybrids. The first generation was modeled after the ground-breaking Adams and Orlimars - long, light and whippy. Head styles were modeled after fairway woods, just smaller. There was only one problem: they were just as hard to hit accurately as fairway woods.

The pendulum then swung to clunky, short, heavy and stiff. The Mizuno Fli-Hi is a good example of that genre. The Taylor Made Rescue became popular. But manufacturers had still not discovered how to put together a hybrid that was long, accurate and easy to hit.

The Breakthrough

We’ve spent a lot of time experimenting with hybrids at the Golf Lab. Here’s what we think we know:

A hybrid should be no more than ½" longer than the iron it is designed to replace. Most three irons are 39" long. If you choose a 21° hybrid to replace your three iron, make sure it’s no more than 39.5" long.

A hybrid should be shafted with a shaft that is similar to your iron shafts. Most hybrids off the rack today are supplied with 85 gram shafts. That is too light for most players who are looking for consistency. Our favorite hybrid shaft at the Golf Lab is the Aerotech 110 gram Steel Fiber shaft. At a minimum, move up to 95 gram shafts in your hybrids.

Choosing your set makeup requires a little thought. Hybrid lofts will be a little lower than corresponding iron lofts, usually by a degree or so. Even with a lower stated loft, hybrids go quite a bit higher. The most popular loft is 21°, to replace a three iron. Most players then choose an 18° to bridge the gap between a three wood and the 21°. That takes care of your two and three iron replacements. The third choice is a 24° that will replace your four iron. Some hybrid models are available up to 36° although high loft hybrids are appropriate mainly for seriously iron-challenged players.

If you’re thinking about adding hybrids to your bag, here are a few of our favorites:

Bobby Jones

If the Bay Area has a favorite son in the golf industry, it’s Jesse Ortiz. Jesse and his father brought the Orlimar Golf Company to prominence and then watched the meteor burn out in the atmosphere. Jesse is back as the chief designer at the Bobby Jones Golf Company.

The Bobby Jones hybrids are truly different. They are small, contoured and finished like a piece of jewelry. The most interesting feature is the shape which allows you to hit your hybrid out of a deep divot. Bobby Jones makes their products available as "heads only" for a select group of custom golf shops. Match yours up with a 95 or 110 gram Aerotech Steel Fiber Shaft for great results.

Nickent

Nickent made its name on the Nationwide Tour. Dozens of players have chosen the Nickent and to some extent the company has been responsible for the proliferation of hybrids on Tour. The shape is on the small side with a contoured sole and a little offset. Nickent hybrids come in many more lofts than most lines, allowing fine tuning to distance control.

Adams Golf

The leading hybrid on the Senior Tour is Adams. The Adams is a little deeper in the face and a little larger than most. That makes it a good choice off the tee as well as the fairway. One nice feature is the weight screw that allows you to adjust swingweight without using lead tape. Adams supplies the Golf with "heads only" so we can build your custom Adams hybrid with the shaft of your choice without wasting a shaft that comes with the club.

Nike CPR

We call this one the "flying saucer". It’s certainly an avant-guard design that will be a little hard for traditionalists to love. It has one advantage: it’s absolutely the easiest to hit of all of the hybrids we have tried. Plus it comes in lofts up to 32*.

All of these models are available to demo at the Golf Lab. You can test the exact loft and the exact shaft that you’re thinking before you pull the trigger.

Short Strokes

Last month I mentioned that a breakthrough in ball fitting was imminent. Max Out Golf Labs has been working on a system that will be available over the Internet. Golfworks has also been working on a system. Neither system made it out of the lab by press time. Mark my words; ball fitting is going to be very interesting for all golfers. But, you’ll have to wait until next month for that story.

For players, especially seniors, experimenting with longer drivers, here is a trick that you should try. Most driver heads weigh 200 grams, give or take a couple. At the end of a 48" shaft in motion, that 200g head gets pretty heavy. Our testing with long drive champion Eric Jones proves that lighter heads produce higher swing speeds. Pick up an Adams 460 D head or Taylor Made 425 TP with complete weight kits. Replace the weights with the lightest available. Your driver head will now weigh around 190 grams, possibly less. That will be enough to squeeze an extra five MPH of swing speed for most players. In addition, the driver will be easier to control. Don’t forget, when you choose your ultra lightweight shaft, test flexes somewhat stiffer than you would normally use. Our top performing shafts have been the ACCRA T-40 and 50 and the new Fujikura Rombax 55 gram shaft. Also, most players who do well with 48" drivers used heads with lower loft than they would choose for a shorter driver.

Miura is releasing two new models of their world-renowned irons. They will be in the market by the time you read this. The first is a tune-up of their venerable 201 design. The top line is thinned out and the sole grind relieved with a little more bounce. The graphics in the cavity match the stylish script of the 301 model. The second design is a tweak of the 101. The 101 is the closest that Miura comes to a game improvement model. For 2007, they have reduced the offset, modified the toe shape and replaced the fussy graphics inside the cavity with the elegant Miura script. The Tournament Blade stays the same. There will be another run of the "Baby Blades" - Miura’s tiny muscle backs for skilled players. Miura is also getting drivers, fairway woods and utilities ready for the American market. For players who eschew meaningless design changes, Miura is a breath of fresh air. Miura aims for constant improvement without obsolescing earlier designs. Mercedes don’t go out of style either.

Increasing the weight and changing the balance of putters is coming into widespread acceptance. The Heavy Putter Company seems to be breaking through after investing millions on infomercials. They’re also pioneering putter fitting with electronics. Utilizing the SAM system, the HPC is conducting hands on fittings around the country to prove that heavier weights improve consistency for most players. There are other ways to do the same thing. Counterweights can be added to any putter. There are now 200 gram shafts available for players who want to increase overall putter weight without plastering lead tape all over the head. Sentient sports is readying a complete custom putter system with weight adjustment reminiscent of the Taylor Made R7 driver series - along with the technology to figure out how to locate the weights. Tweaking your putter can lower your putts per round.

Eric Jones is out on a limb. He introduced a new "coaching program" three months ago. The idea was that you form a group, play an 18 hole round once a month with the group and Eric himself. The group provides support and competition and Eric provides advice and coaching. Eric schedules several open practice sessions during the week. Program participants are free to attend convenient sessions, work on identified weaknesses and hit all the balls they can stand. The goal? Improvement measured by lower handicaps. The "crazy aunt in the attic" that most golf pros ignore is that most of their students don’t improve in a measurable way. Eric has promised to release complete handicap statistics about his program participants. His view is that if you don’t improve, why bother with lessons? Wouldn’t you buy into a program that could prove that 90% of its participants lowered their index by three strokes within four months? You can make contact with Eric by visiting www.seavergolf.com.

My own "Mornings at the Muni" program for product testers continues. The weather is getting very good. What better way to start the day than nine holes early and breakfast at the Bay Cafe with Don in the kitchen? If you want to know if different equipment will help you improve, a Morning at the Muni is a good way to find out. Your cost? $28 gets you greens fees, a cart and breakfast. You can add a few bucks and play all day if you want. It’s not Pebble Beach, but the Muni is a good golf course.

Leith Anderson is a Partner in the Golf Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
He will answer any and all questions relating to club fitting and club making. Contact: Leith@calgolftech.com.