Great story, Ed. And good discussion fodder -- see my comments below. At 09:07 AM 1/29/03 -0500, Ed Johnson wrote:
Dave and All: See comments below }--------->
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Tutelman" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If people start modifying the COR of the clubheads with milling machines or
> grinders, then the whole notion of type testing goes out the window. Clubs
> will have to be measured at every significant tournament. And, as Charlie
> notes, it is expensive to measure face thickness. Moreover, there isn't a
> simple mathematical relationship between face thickness and COR. So the
> USGA and the PGA tour may have to carry around an air cannon to their
> events and measure COR directly every time.
}---------> Not everytime! See Below }--------->
I still think every time. Just not every club in the tournament. See below.
This is not an idea I'm inventing on the fly. When I raced sailboats, I wasBut the equipment to test it has to be there!
> also a fleet measurer in the Albacore class (15-foot planing sloop), was on
> the specifications committee, and was on the national championship
> measuring staff a few times. At the national championships, all boats were
> measured before the regatta, in any dimension that was:
> (Well, the technical term is DSQ, but SOL is so much more colorful.)
}---------> Total Agreement with SOL! (;-)
}---------> I also come from a racing background as one of first factory riders for Honda Motocycles! I rode a 250cc Honda in professional racing for several years. I won't bore you with details but at that time (1963) was third in the US AMA standings. The relative issue here is that Honda also had a 305cc engine that required disassembly to tell the difference between the two. Of course the 305cc was illegal for professional racing in the 250cc class! In those days a formal PROTEST cost $10! This required my mechanics to disassemble the engine for measurement! Approximately 80% of the races I won ( I won a lot as I still hold every track record in the Pacific Northwest except one!) were followed by a formal protest! The engine was legal in all instances yet I continued to be protested after almost every win.
My point being; If the USGA used their heads ( Yeah, like that is likely to happen! (;-) Only the winner of the tournament would have to have his club tested. If it included disassembly to accomplish the test, so be it!
The workload is smaller, because only the winner (I'd recommend all the trophy winners) need to be tested. But the air cannon and the independent officials to do the test have to be there at every important event.
No consideration was given to us for the labor involved in disassembling a very hot motorcycle engine at the completion of the race. The motorcycle was not even allowed to leave the race track! It was impounded at the finish line for disassembly so that there was no chance for anything to be switched or altered back to stock.
Very good idea!
Had it ever been illegal, I would have been awarded the SOL trophy that Dave previously mentioned. Enforcement is indeed possible and very viable in the future.The biggest difference between pre- and post-measurement (apart from the obvious reduced workload of post-measurement -- only measuring the winners) is that you have a chance to recover from pre-measurement. In a professional event where the competitors are all sponsored by manufacturers (like professional motorcycle racing or professional golf at the highest level), I have no sympathy for the SOL with no chance to recover. The manufacturer was in control to the last minute, and the competitor was sponsored by the manufacturer -- so the manufacturer is not just a supplier but a partner. In that event, any out-of-spec equipment can reasonably be assumed to be cheating. It isn't necessary to decide whether the manufacturer or the competitor was the actual dishonest party; they're in it together.
Now, how about competitions where the player is not sponsored, but rather buys the equipment almost anonymously from a well-known manufacturer. If the equipment is out of spec but NOT on some non-conforming list, the player is SOL for the cheating (or error) of the manufacturer. After a while, the manufacturer would get to be known as one to avoid, but in the meantime...
BTW, sail racing had both cases. It was one of the few sports where the local hotshots (probably my level; the best I ever did at nationals was tenth) could race against the tops in the world. A couple of incidents from measuring day at the 1973 nationals:
* First, to set the stage... Tom Allen was an Olympic gold medalist (sailing's equivalent to a "major winner"). He turned his fame from the Olympics into money by becoming a boat builder and sailmaker. His boats and sails were known to be among the most competitive in the Albacore class.
* One of the things we were measuring that year was the position of the centerboard pivot. Most of the Allen boats were illegal. The competitors had bought the boats in good faith, but had never had them officially measured. (They should have. The capability was there.) They were up late that night with resin and fiberglass, filling the old bolt hole and drilling a new, legal hole.
* On the morning of the first race, a set of brand new sails was presented to the host club's chief measurer, who was measuring jibs. He found every measurement too big (sorta' like the 305cc engine when a 250cc was specified). He turned the sail over and looked for the sailmaker's logo. It was an Allen. Gene (the measurer) angrily muttered, "Somebody ought to sit Tommy Allen down and explain to him the need for rules." The owner of the sails walked away really red-faced, while I struggled to keep a straight face. (I was measuring mainsails, and watched the whole thing). When the guy was out of earshot, I told Gene that the guy with the sails was Tommy Allen himself. No sympathy there!
Cheers!
DaveT
