| On May 9, 2002, the two
most prominent governing bodies in golf, the Royal & Ancient
Golf Club (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA)
reached a compromise on the issue of non-conforming drivers.
For the past three years the ongoing debate raged
relative to the spring like/trampoline effect of drivers as to
whether the .83 COR or .86 COR were to be conforming or non-conforming
thereby, causing pandemonium to both the rules of golf and to
its players. The Tour professionals were going to be allowed to
use a .83 COR under USGA rules, while the R & A Professional
players could use a .86 COR driver in their tournaments. Immediately
thereafter, the release of numerous high COR clubs in North America
that are not approved for use in events where USGA or Royal Canadian
Golf Association rules applied, appeared.
So convinced were certain manufacturers such
as TaylorMade (R5 Series), Callaway (ERC II), Dog Leg Right’s
HOG (XTL), Tour Edge (350JI) and Adams (GT363R) that their .86
COR products were either on the way to or at the retailers. Both
TaylorMade mounted extensive advertising campaigns and Callaway
based on their decision to roll the dice that the two governing
bodies would allow such drivers. Callaway’s an ad series
for the ERC II driver featuring the word BANNED crossed out and
replaced by BLESSED, noting in smaller print that the proposal
was pending approval. TaylorMade ads had flooded every major golf
magazine for their R500 series, which boldly stated: "One
will match your swing to get you the most distance allowed by
the new USGA ruling."
Comes August 6, 2002, and lo and behold, the
United States Golf Association (USGA) and The Royal & Ancient
Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland (R&A) have independently
determined a rule that sets a uniform, worldwide standard for
'spring-like' effect in driving clubs. This rule represents a
modified version of a joint COR proposal announced on May 9, 2002.
The new ruling on the Coefficient of Restitution of driving clubs
now finally establishes uniformity in the rules for professional
tournaments both here and abroad beginning in 2003. This is, in
this writer’s opinion, in the best interests of the game.
Moreover, in reversing its proposal, the USGA
ruled that its COR limit of .830 will remain in place for all
golfers in the United States who wish to post a score for handicap
purposes. The R&A, which previously had no limits on COR for
either professionals or amateurs, will impose the .830 COR limit
in its Open Championship and recommend its adoption by the major
professional tours outside the U.S. beginning January 1, 2003.
Amateur golfers in areas ruled by the R&A will have no limitations
on COR until 2008.
Response was fast and furious especially from
Nike, Titleist and Cleveland who were most definitely excited
with the ruling whilst TaylorMade, who jumped the gun with their
non-conforming R5 Series, was undoubtedly upset and very quiet
and not talking to the media, as was Callaway.
Mike Kelly, Nike’s category manager for
golf clubs, who had just introduced their conforming 400cc driver
in Reno, also lauded the ruling. "This was a process, and
it was good to see that the process worked," Kelly said.
"It simplifies the retailers' business lives."
Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein commented, "The
joint decision announced by the USGA and R&A is good for golfers
and is good for golf. This decision will insure that the integrity
of the game is protected by ultimately having one set of rules
worldwide for all levels of play and it will insure that the transition
to uniformity will be sensitive to and fair to all affected constituencies."
"Some consumers are going to be very unhappy,"
said Craig Buckley, manager of San Diego’s largest golf
store. Buckley said all their stores throughout Southern California
already has sold more than 300 high-COR drivers since the May
proposal. "It's going to leave a bad taste in their mouths,"
Buckley surmised about consumer reaction. "We fully expect
about half of them will bring their clubs back, and we'll have
to make good on that."
So, just what is this COR that has produced such
heated discussions amongst the retailers, manufacturers and consumers?
The term COR stands for coefficient of restitution, the measurement
of the rebound a golf ball has off of the clubface. In simple
terms a golf ball impacting the face of a driver at 100 M.P.H.
with a .83 COR would come off the face at 83% or 83 m.p.h.. Therefore,
a driver with a COR of .86 would come off at 86% or 86 m.p.h.
Wooden clubs of the past had COR values in the .78 ranges. That
has climbed with the advent of titanium to what is now the USGA
limit of .83.
Currently there are club manufacturers that have
already built prototypes with COR values exceeding .90, although
most makers agree that the current theoretical limit is about
.88. Anything above that COR, based on current metallurgical abilities
would suffer a failure rate that would prohibit mass production.
Now, given the technical inside, what does this
all mean to the average golfer? In current designs the maximum
COR effect was limited to a "sweet-spot" of about 1/3",
or the size of the top of a tee, to achieve the maximum effect.
As the impact point moved away from the "sweet-spot"
(a mis-hit), the COR value dropped dramatically. The goal for
the manufacturers has been to expand the maximum COR zone over
a larger area of the club face (the sweet-spot), whereby even
off-center shots are more consistent.
According to Barney Adams of Adams Golf "Here’s
the real issue - reviewing our data at 100 M.P.H., it’s
about two yards for every .1 in COR, all things equal. Less than
100 M.P.H. you drop off slightly, more you add slightly. Who benefits
the most from higher COR? - the pros and excellent amateurs.
Should the ruling have gone the other way, TaylorMade
Golf, with its expertise in high COR drivers would have gained
a considerable advantage. TaylorMade, the premier golf manufacturer
of 2001, who for the past 18 months (from January 1, 2001 through
April 2002), was the number one driver manufacturer in Japan with
their R300 and XR03 drivers all with COR between 0.840 and 0.850.
Benoit Vincent, V.P. of design at TaylorMade, also noted that
the difference between a COR of .83 and that of .86, translates
into only six to seven yards of added distance (approx. two yards
per .01 COR increase).
Manufacturers recognize the average hit-or-miss
nature of the average golfer’s swing and consequently are
trying to produce a legally COR zone that is as large as possible
as well as trying to design clubs that spring back at lower swing
speeds. Additionally, there exists another part to the COR equation:
that of the ball. Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd’s, Tetsumo
Yamaguchi, found that the "actual COR of a combined system
is the product of how the club and ball work together". Spalding
a few years back touted this theory when they sold "matched"
balls to TaylorMade and Callaway clubs. Should a major club manufacturer
decide to introduce a ball matched to its clubs, then the way
COR is measured may have to be updated.
In any event and probably in the not to distant
future, the same governing authorities and the PGA Tour itself,
will undoubtedly have to focus on defining club/ball performance
standards. Currently, the USGA is experimenting with a new test
to measure COR in driver heads. It will be nicknamed the Pendulum
Test. It will feature portability, exclude the use of a ball and
will not require the club head to be removed.
As to how far a manufacturer can go with the
COR to reach the practical and physical limits, a .930 is generally
considered the outer limit. The elite golfer then perhaps will
gain an additional 15 yards or so, provided that the golf balls
available are not going even farther. But, at this point in time,
the controversy has ended! |
Funny Thing happened on the way to the Golf Course on
