Bowers Limits

Many improvement trends have fundamental limits. Forecasters look at a trend that is about to bump into such a limit (within the horizon of the forecast), and are forced to ask, discount golf clubs"Will this limit end the trend? Or will the trend find some way around the limit?" Sometimes the limit wins, as we would expect. But -- more often than you'd expect -- TaylorMade R9 TP Ironsdevelopers find a way to continue the trend.
Here's an[url=http://www.supplydiscountgolf.com/Discount-Mizuno-MP-58-Irons-912.html ]Mizuno MP-58 Irons[/url] example from the computing cost trend I mentioned above. For several decades, the trend depended directly on the fact that the number of transistors that could be fit on a chip was growing exponentially. In fact, the cost trend was often equated with the trend that counted transistors on a chip. But that trend faced an eventual, seemingly-immutable limit: the size of a molecule. Transistors require a certain number of molecules for reliable operation, even in the purest theoretical sense. It was pointed out many times that the trend was only a decade from bumping into this fundamental limit.
But the cost trend continued, even though the transistors-per-cubic-inch trend had to stop when its[url=http://www.supplydiscountgolf.com/Discount-TaylorMade-R9-Irons-US-Model-861.html ]TaylorMade R9 Irons[/url] limit was reached. How did computing manage to sidestep the limit?
* Semiconductor manufacturers learned how to get acceptable yields from larger chips. So more transistors per chip were possible than had been thought before.
* The volume of computers grew by leaps and bounds starting in the 1990s, as computers became consumer goods rather than capital equipment. This greatly lowered the cost per chip, due to the learning curve.
* Computer designers learned to get multiple chips to cooperate in computing, through parallel computing and array computing.
The potential of a limit to the trend still lurks. But research continues to look for ways to stave off the limits. Research on quantum computing and organic computing really have Mizuno MP 67 Ironsas their objective the ability to continue the trend for a few more decades.
I first learned about this from an article in the 1960s, which called fundamental limits like this "Bowers limits", after a tech forecaster that noticed their impact. I can't find Bowers in the literature any more, but I will continue to call it that.
Does golf technology have any Bowers limits? Let's look at driving distance. The Rules authorities (USGA and R&A) have long tried to limit driving distance by placing bounds on the measurable properties of clubs and balls. We don't know what distance numbers today might have been without their efforts, but they have not prevented a distinct trend to longer and longer drives. As the USGA continues to legislate, here are a few things that might trump the limits it tries to impose:
* Conditioning. A lot of the advances in driving distance at the highest level (the tour players) is due to physical conditioning. Exercise and body-training were simply not a big issue ten years ago, and are definitely a big deal today. It may well trickle down to the amateur golfer, which could result in much longer average drives at the public courses and country clubs.
* Instruction and swing research. Our idea of what constitutes a good swing itself has changed over the years. And our ability to teach the swing has also changed. If this continues, it could continue the trend of longer drives, particularly among recreational golfers. (The touring pros are already much closer to the best we know how to do.)
* Loopholes. Golf club designers may find distance determinants the Rules do not cover, and exploit them to increase distance. I don't know what these may be. (If I knew, I'd be out making a million bucks selling bigger-hitting clubs myself.) But they may be there.
* Ignoring the Rules. Except at the highest levels of the game, there is a remarkable ignorance of the Rules -- and often deliberate disdain. The USGA has done little to counter this groundswell; they remain a conservative organization determined to maintain "tradition" (as they see it) in golf. At some point, those who don't participate in official sanctioned competition are likely to just ignore the Rules they don't like. (I can point to many examples of such on-course behavior already.) If the manufacturers sense this mood about the driving distance limitations, they may go ahead and sell non-conforming clubs and balls and let the market decide.