There was a piece that I saw a link to on Twitter yesterday by Chuck Stogel at CBSSports.com entitled "Experts weigh in on equipment limits, groove issue."  The piece is basically two short essays by Titleist CEO Wally Uihlein and former Technical Director of the USGA, Frank Thomas.  They both speak about equipment issues facing the game and decisions that already have been made by the USGA regarding equipment - particularly around the golf ball and club grooves.

Wally Uihlein via cache.gettyimages.com

Uihlein begins his essay on the wrong foot.

For the past decade, it has been the practice of select media at this time of year to question technological advancements in golf equipment, and more specifically, the golf ball. This year, however, it should not be necessary.

By "select media," Uihlein tries to pigeon hole equipment critics into a very vocal minority of journos.  He's probably talking about people like Geoff Shackelford and myself.  (Geoff has his take on this essay at his site.)  Unfortunately, though, the collective of critics is much larger than that.  Again, to Shackelford's credit, he has been maintaining a list of players, officials, and media that have complained about the negative impact that equipment has had on the professional game.  It is pretty lengthy and features some very prominent golfing names.

Uihlein's case is based on two ideas.  One is that the average driving distances have been effectively capped on the PGA Tour since the 2006 season.  Second, he claims that USGA restrictions on technology have effectively boxed in equipment makers.  Therefore, no one should be complaining about technology.

Uihlein is not wrong in his statement of the facts.  How could he be?  The problem is that the conclusion that he draws is not really reason to pause the criticism of technology's impact on the game.

Though driving distances have not increased in the past several PGA Tour seasons, the damage to the game has been done. 

Courses are longer than ever and are still being lengthened.  Bethpage Black has been lengthened some 200+ yards by Mike Davis and the USGA since the last US Open there in 2002.  Augusta National has been forced to respond to technology by making changes to the golf course that drastically alter its original character.  Turnberry has been lengthened almost 250 yards by the R&A in response to technological advances since the 1994 Open Championship there.   Peter Dawson, this week, on why:

“Today’s professionals are bigger, stronger, fitter, have more technology at their command, and it’s very important that we keep our great links courses relevant to the modern-day professional.”

The PGA Tour has been setting up courses in response to technology.  They have made fairways smaller, rough deeper, tucked in more pin placements.  Jack Nicklaus opted to furrow rake bunkers and grow 5"+ rough at Muirfield Village in the last several seasons.  The rough is getting deeper at Bay Hill.  Did you see Oakland Hills last year at the PGA Championship?

Meanwhile, there is little correlation between hitting fairways and winning golf tournaments.  This is the USGA's biggest rationale for groove regulation and a bifurcation of golf equipment rules for the next 14 years.  The best golfer of our generation barely has to hit 55% of his fairways in order to win golf tournaments because he (a) has an incredible arsenal of shots and (b) equipment that allows him to get to greens from even deep PGA Tour rough.

The golf ball flies straighter than ever, but that still hasn't improved driving accuracy on the Tour.  In fact, the lack of variance in poor hits has led players of a younger generation to consider hitting fairways less important.  They hit the ball as far as they can, find it, and hit it again.  The difference between Arnold Palmer's rendition of that style and the modern style is that there was a much more serious penalty for missing the fairway in his day.  Today, the ball will not go as far offline and the equipment can help a player steer it to the green with a golf ball that will actually stop on today's greens.  Nevermind shotmaking, which is rendered less of an art by a golf ball that just doesn't want to move left or right.  PGA Tour players, including Tiger Woods, admit as much freely.

It's not that Titleist - or any manufacturer - makes poor equipment.  Quite the contrary.  They make great equipment that is a marvel to see produced and be played.

If their great equipment has been effectively reigned in by the governing bodies of the game, then perhaps we can effectively cap golf ball distance at a lower number.  This would allow golf courses to stop the practice of retrofitting their layout and design to be able to withstand today's boomers.  Merion could host more majors.  Interlachen could host a US Open and a Women's Open. 

Maybe the solution isn't a bifurcation of equipment rules so much as it is the development of the tournament golf ball.  It has been floated for quite some time, dating back to the beginning of the 2000s.  After all, the equipment that the average amateur plays really doesn't resemble the sophistication and customization of professional equipment.  Why continue the charade at the cost of classic golf courses?