...and now there will be a limit on the MOI of driver heads....

[Ext User(david s-a)]

".....The MOI of a driver head is a measurement of its resistance to
twisting and, therefore, it is an indication of the ‘forgiveness’ of a
clubhead. It is proposed that, with effect from 1 March 2006, the MOI
component around the vertical axis through the clubhead’s centre of
gravity (Izz) is limited to 1.623 Ib in2 (4750 g cm2), plus a test
tolerance of 0.017 Ib in2 (50 g cm2). Such a limit would encompass all
of the clubs that have so far been submitted to The R&A for evaluation
and been determined to conform to the Rules of Golf. Details of the
proposed testing equipment and procedures are attached and some
submission guidance/information is outlined at the end of this
memorandum......."

Detailed here:-

http://www.randa.org/index.cfm?action=rules.equipment.noticeDetails&noticeid=14

......and what about the ball???

cheers
david

[Ext User(David Geesaman)]

"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3v2d6oF13nm0fU1@individual.net...
> ".....The MOI of a driver head is a measurement of its resistance to
> twisting and, therefore, it is an indication of the ‘forgiveness’ of a
> clubhead. It is proposed that, with effect from 1 March 2006, the MOI
> component around the vertical axis through the clubhead’s centre of
> gravity (Izz) is limited to 1.623 Ib in2 (4750 g cm2), plus a test
> tolerance of 0.017 Ib in2 (50 g cm2).

Sounds like a great idea as long as the USGA gets in accordance. That
should limit things, and give the manufacturers time to sell based on
"maximum forgiveness allowed by the rules".

> .....and what about the ball???

You mean the one that's had the same (and effective) distance limit for
years now? You'll have to explain what's wrong with the ball.

Dave

[Ext User(Kenny Stultz)]

In article <dmhi4501pcu@news3.newsguy.com>, dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3v2d6oF13nm0fU1@individual.net...
>> ".....The MOI of a driver head is a measurement of its resistance to
>> twisting and, therefore, it is an indication of the ‘forgiveness’ of a
>> clubhead. It is proposed that, with effect from 1 March 2006, the MOI
>> component around the vertical axis through the clubhead’s centre of
>> gravity (Izz) is limited to 1.623 Ib in2 (4750 g cm2), plus a test
>> tolerance of 0.017 Ib in2 (50 g cm2).
>
> Sounds like a great idea as long as the USGA gets in accordance. That
>should limit things, and give the manufacturers time to sell based on
>"maximum forgiveness allowed by the rules".
>
>> .....and what about the ball???
>
> You mean the one that's had the same (and effective) distance limit for
>years now? You'll have to explain what's wrong with the ball.
>
> Dave
>
>

It should have to float.

Kenny

--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship"

[Ext User(TooManyPutters)]

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dmhi4501pcu@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3v2d6oF13nm0fU1@individual.net...
>> ".....The MOI of a driver head is a measurement of its resistance to
>> twisting and, therefore, it is an indication of the ‘forgiveness’ of a
>> clubhead. It is proposed that, with effect from 1 March 2006, the MOI
>> component around the vertical axis through the clubhead’s centre of
>> gravity (Izz) is limited to 1.623 Ib in2 (4750 g cm2), plus a test
>> tolerance of 0.017 Ib in2 (50 g cm2).
>
This makes no sense to the weekend golfer. But wait! Now Callaway and
Taylor Made will have new models out again, and again, and again. I hear
prices dropping already........

[Ext User(david s-a)]

Kenny Stultz wrote:

>
> It should have to float.


Like he said....

:-)

"..... recently, in a written 'statement of principles' published
jointly by The R&A and the USGA, it was acknowledged that "History has
proved that it is impossible to foresee the developments in golf
equipment which advancing technology will deliver." However, both The
R&A and the USGA remain vigilant when considering the equipment Rules.
The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to
protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on
technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is
the dominant element of success throughout the game....."

(an extract from the 'equipment' section of the R&A website)

I personally think that with balls like the ProV1* there is an
'over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill' in order to
optimise the capability of the ball.

cheers
david

[Ext User(Douglas Siebert)]

david s-a <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> writes:

>I personally think that with balls like the ProV1* there is an
>'over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill' in order to
>optimise the capability of the ball.


Well, in this respect its at least as much the high MOI clubs that are
at fault. Yes, the ball goes too far now, but merely going far doesn't
replace skill nearly so much as a ball (and clubs) that help it go
straight. It seems so long ago, but it was only 4 1/2 years ago I switched
to the Pro V1 and Integra 400cc and suddenly hitting a drive into a 25 mph
wind wasn't a big deal anymore. That took a way a hell of a lot more skill
requirement in golf than a ball that let me hit a drive 350 on the fly
would.

But, its good to see the USGA is doing something, even if its as usual
waited until its too late. Still remains to be seen if they have the
guts to do something about the ball that isn't just another way of saying
"well, what we have now is OK I guess, just don't make it any better than
that".

--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute. Set him on fire, and
he'll be warm for the rest of his life.