Why isn't John Solheim
wearing a PING-logo shirt??!!
Solheim applies for equipment rating patent
By Torleif Sorenson on 12/27/12
Last Thursday, we brought you a helpful column about slope and rating by oober Bryan Kautzman, explaining what the USGA's system of course rating and slope calculation actually mean in assessing the difficulty of a golf course.
Now, PING chairman and CEO John Solheim (son of company founder and legendary engineer Karsten Solheim) has filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a new formula for golf equipment rating. PING's press release states,
"The patent application details numerous scenarios in which equipment could be rated (balls that go varying distances, for example) and are also factored in with current variables, such as the challenge presented by each individual course."The PING chairman hopes that the rating system is incorporated into the USGA handicapping system under the guise of "Conditions of Competition."
The idea of quantifying ratings for equipment is nothing new; last year, Solheim proposed adding a "ball distance rating" system as a new element in calculating a golfer's USGA handicap/shot index. And prior to that, long-time club designer Ralph Maltby introduced his "Maltby Playability Factor" as a method of scientifically measuring factors such as the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity ("CG"), moment of inertia ("MOI"), and "balance planes" into a codified measurement of a club's forgiveness.
This may strike most golfers as "information overload," but with the USGA issuing new rules on groove size and a ban on putter anchoring, über-serious oobers and golfers everywhere may want to learn more about these guidelines and ideas...
...not just the Rules of Golf.
Read an interesting golf article? Tip Your Editor!
Image via PING, Inc.
[ comments ]
Yeeesh! Soon they will be awarding style points.
Useless, and silly. There are many more factors involved in what club works well for an individual than just the club. Don't get me wrong, I love stats, and I love looking for trends, and analyzing data, but you can't quantify a piece of golf equipment as better or worse based on a number. It's based on individual need, comfort, and mechanics. An arbitrary number is not going to properly reflect the gain or loss of a specific piece of equipment for an individual golfer.
Just like standardized testing in schools. I loved taking them. I was good at them. They don't work to guage intelligence.
Of course he used balls as an example - perfrect for Ping who doesn't make balls to my knowledge.
[ post comment ]