Golfweek is reporting that the USGA is investigating the effects of several factors that could result in rules changes. The goal, as always, seems to be to protect the game from technological obsolescence.
The three areas of investigation are: how the ball spins when it leaves the clubface, the effects of moment of intertia, and adjustable clubheads.
Moment of inertia is the resistance of a clubhead to twisting. A club with a high moment of intertia will remain stable, even when stuck off center. This makes it easier for poor shots to remain on line. The “cavity back” club works because it increases the moment of intertia by shoving the weight to the outside.
As for adjustable clubheads, the article says that the USGA is considering expanding the limits of what is permitted.. But, since its illegal to change a club’s playing characteristics during a round, I don’t know what they’re up to here.
I’m also not sure why they bother. I don’t really think that any of these things are making a difference for the average golfer. Statistics show that golf handicaps have not changed in fifty year, and that the average score remains locked in at around 100.
I know all this technology won’t help me. I’m a 15 handicapper because I am sure to flub completely one out of every four or five shots. All the perimeter weighting in the world won’t help me there.
Where it does make a difference is for the pros. If the PGA Tour wants to protect courses and par, then let it impose the restrictions on the pros. (The Masters is considering a “Masters” ball to protect Augusta).
I’m going to have to think about this some more, but it may be time for two sets of standards.