Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Nigel Islam on January 10, 2013, 11:08:58 AM
-
I was finally reading GD last night after spending two weeks taking in the rankings, and Jerry Tarde suggested that the belly putter and groove issues were essentially test cases for the USGA to take on the much larger issue of rolling back equipment. I have often wondered why they chose to go after those seemingly less significant issues without addressing the ball, but if their plan is to set precedent in an event to roll back the ball then I am all for it. I would take back some of the thoughts that have crept into my head about the USGA, but its almost a case of too little too late. Does anyone think they are actually going to do this in a successful way?
-
I was finally reading GD last night after spending two weeks taking in the rankings, and Jerry Tarde suggested that the belly putter and groove issues were essentially test cases for the USGA to take on the much larger issue of rolling back equipment. I have often wondered why they chose to go after those seemingly less significant issues without addressing the ball, but if their plan is to set precedent in an event to roll back the ball then I am all for it. I would take back some of the thoughts that have crept into my head about the USGA, but its almost a case of too little too late. Does anyone think they are actually going to do this in a successful way?
I read that editorial, and founding interesting and somewhat plausible.
BUT, and this is a large but, unless he has inside info at the end of the day I'm not sure I can buy his premise. The groove rule makes far, far better sense if you believe that the USGA is NOT going to do anything to the ball or further bifurcate than if you accept Tarde's idea that it is some sort of precursor to a ball change.
As to the other rule change, if you take it by itself it is NOT an equipment rule, which the USGA has taken great pains to point out. I see no real difference between this ruling and the change they made when Sam Snead putted straddling the line of the putt. Putting has nothing to do with the golf ball issue, then or now.
As to the possibility that water issues will lead to a change in the golf ball so that courses can be shorter and less water used, the logc doesn't hold water for me, pun intended. Proponents of a shorter golf ball seem to me to mostly interested in protecting courses that already exist; they want Merion to be relevant for championship golf, but aren't really advocating 6000 yd courses to save water. Since there is little new construction going on right now, and isn't likely to be any time soon, I stuggle to see how the USGA would help the water situation by a ball rule that would only impact courses that already exist. But tha's just me...
-
Nigel, AG - I think you are both being too generous to Mr. Tarde in your interpretations of the editorial and what's behind it. It struck me more as a moment out of "1984" - a re-telling (and revising) of history with a straight face. To suggest some insider information and to imply some long standing disapproval of the USGA's lack of control over runaway technology is easy enough for Mr. Tarde to do, but it is all the more galling for that -- especially since anyone likely to be reading him has spent years wading through thousands and thousands of ads about and articles on (thinly disguised press releases, really) the latest and best technology, and why we should all be dumping the irons and drivers we bought last year for the hybrids and drivers that came out this year, and that promise evern greater distance. Golf Digest needs ads - fine; it needs to promote equipment companies - fine; but please, please don't use the ediorial page to try to 'brand' said magazine as anything other than what it is, and has been, and continues to be, i.e. the loudest shill and carnival promoter for the very thing it now pretends to decry.
Peter
-
I've been told for years that they would address other issues first (grroves, long putter, etc.) and see where it got them, and then deal with the ball at the end, depending on how those other factors have had an effect.
But, Peter makes a nice point, too. In fact it is not just the magazines who talk about the issue out of both sides of their mouths. One reason we couldn't reach more consensus about the modifications to The Old Course at St. Andrews is that lots of architects make a nice living out of changing courses to "deal with technology", and they like the recurring work.
-
Nigel, AG - I think you are both being too generous to Mr. Tarde in your interpretations of the editorial and what's behind it. It struck me more as a moment out of "1984" - a re-telling (and revising) of history with a straight face. To suggest some insider information and to imply some long standing disapproval of the USGA's lack of control over runaway technology is easy enough for Mr. Tarde to do, but it is all the more galling for that -- especially since anyone likely to be reading him has spent years wading through thousands and thousands of ads about and articles on (thinly disguised press releases, really) the latest and best technology, and why we should all be dumping the irons and drivers we bought last year for the hybrids and drivers that came out this year, and that promise evern greater distance. Golf Digest needs ads - fine; it needs to promote equipment companies - fine; but please, please don't use the ediorial page to try to 'brand' said magazine as anything other than what it is, and has been, and continues to be, i.e. the loudest shill and carnival promoter for the very thing it now pretends to decry.
Peter
Peter,
I take your point, and very much agree. I'm not a "fix the golf ball!" guy, but the irony of the golf mags in any way taking the pulpit on that subject isn't lost on me.
-
Kind of like the hypocrisy of the baseball writers voting Barry Bonds National League MVP seven times yet then turning around and saying that because of steroid use he should not be in the hall of fame.
-
Golf Digest needs ads - fine; it needs to promote equipment companies - fine; but please, please don't use the ediorial page to try to 'brand' said magazine as anything other than what it is, and has been, and continues to be, i.e. the loudest shill and carnival promoter for the very thing it now pretends to decry.
Peter
Peter --
Agree completely with your essential point -- with one important quibble:
Golf Digest surely does need equipment advertising, but it does not need (and never did need) to "promote equipment companies" in order to get those companies' ads. It needed to promote its readership, to get those ads.
Too often, obviously, as with most publications dependent on advertising, journalistic standards go out the window when the subject is the advertisers' products.
Dan
-
Dan - you're right, and indeed that's what drives me the most crazy (as a reader and writer both), i.e. there is no need for so many poorly written "articles" - most of them no more than barely concealed company press releases with quotes and stats already built right in; it often feels like the GD writers haven't even changed the font, metaphorically speaking, of their source material. And why? Well, only laziness and/or a corporate decision not to take the risk of offending even the touchiest of potential advertisers can explain it.
Peter
-
Dan - you're right, and indeed that's what drives me the most crazy (as a reader and writer both), i.e. there is no need for so many poorly written "articles" - most of them no more than barely concealed company press releases with quotes and stats already built right in; it often feels like the GD writers haven't even changed the font, metaphorically speaking, of their source material. And why? Well, only laziness and/or a corporate decision not to take the risk of offending even the touchiest of potential advertisers can explain it.
Peter
I don't have direct experience with GOLF DIGEST, but the other magazines I'm familiar with have ALL been terribly afraid of offending potential advertisers and very cozy with them.
Of course, it's not as bad as in Washington, D.C.
-
These are great points. The article did not sit too well with me for some reason, and your comments are helping to realize why I was disturbed by it. I want them to roll back the ball, and play tournaments on classic courses. Unfortunately I am way too naive and trusting, because as with health care, compromised changes only make the problems worse.
-
Tom - you have much more experience in this (i.e. with magazines that is, not with cozying up to advertisers) than I do. But while I can understand the wide-spread 'fear', I really can't understand the form its taken and how it manifests -- i.e. it's as if magazines go out of their way to actually create opportunities/articles through which to show how afraid they are. It's as if you went into a meeting with a potential client and, wondering if you'll impress him and win the job, decide to bring in golf architecture books by Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus just to prove how much you care/afraid you are of not impressing him. Both on principle and in terms of (long term) practicability, this just seems crazy!! "So many, I had not thought the equipment companies had undone so many."True, not as bad as Washington -- but I used to hold writers up to higher standards than politicians.
Peter
-
My thought is if they do take on the ball (which I personally think they should aggressively do) it will not be effective. The groove rule has not changed anything except make wedges look uglier. What any of this has to do with H2O is beyond me.
-
They've dropped the hint a few times. They coyly tell a group “not to say anything”, but we all know that they need the idea to be "leaked" allowing for some feedback too. The theory is that under the guise of "Sustainability" they will take on everything from water, to the use of fertility and pesticide first to establish the moral high ground. And then come back and say rolling back the ball will take on the economic sustainability of the game. It won't change a thing, the equipment companies will go to court regardless.
Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.
What’s interesting is this would actually cost "me" work and affect my practice since it would remove the need for lengthening and addressing architecture left behind by technology. And I’m "still" good with that. The game is bigger than the USGA, golf equipment companies, architects etc.
I want to write “just do it,” but perhaps that’s not the best thing to conclude with. ;D
-
I want to write “just do it,” but perhaps that’s not the best thing to conclude with. ;D
Or, you could wonder what will be "the #1 ball in golf" after the rollback. ;)
-
I want to write “just do it,” but perhaps that’s not the best thing to conclude with. ;D
Or, you could wonder what will be "the #1 ball in golf" after the rollback. ;)
Wouldn't Titleist make more money marketing a whole new set of golf balls? And if they did not have the best product they would just buy the company and/or the patent. Unless of course Nike beat them to it..........
-
Wouldn't Titleist make more money marketing a whole new set of golf balls? And if they did not have the best product they would just buy the company and/or the patent. Unless of course Nike beat them to it..........
More money? Only if there were more golfers.
The leader in market share never ever wants to upset the status quo by changing the rules. Acushnet have always been the guys dragging their feet the hardest on the ball issue and would likely be the first to sue if they thought it was going to cost them market share. You are right that they are positioned to still be #1 with any ball spec, but that's still not as safe of a position as they're in today.
Of course, it's just like everything else in America ... we can't do anything to address any of our problems, because some big company might make less than they do now.
-
Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.
Ian
What do you play with now, and if it isn't hickory shafted clubs and Spalding Dot golf balls, why not ? Don't mean to sound cheeky, but if you mean that pressure should come from the consumer then why wait for any court case.
Niall
-
Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.
Ian
What do you play with now, and if it isn't hickory shafted clubs and Spalding Dot golf balls, why not ? Don't mean to sound cheeky, but if you mean that pressure should come from the consumer then why wait for any court case.
Niall
I'm with Ian. I will not play any ball from a company that opposes a ball roll back in court. And it doesn't matter what other equipment I use, because, this is a ball issue. The only other thing that matters is that I won't play Ping irons, because what they did before in court on the groove rule.
-
Yes it is most defintely a ball issue to me too.
-
Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.
Ian
What do you play with now, and if it isn't hickory shafted clubs and Spalding Dot golf balls, why not ? Don't mean to sound cheeky, but if you mean that pressure should come from the consumer then why wait for any court case.
Niall
That was my thought as well. Many golfers who want the rollback are some of the weakest willed people I know. They talk out of one side of their mouth while reaching in the their wallet to buy the latest and greatest. This would already be a non-issue if golfers put their money where their mouth is many years ago. Of course, its much easier to blame someone else and expect someone else to instigate change. My verdict, when golfers care enough about the issue to allow their so-called competitive edge to take a hit by altering their purchasing habits, things will change.
If the pro tours were smart (practically anything would help make their product more viewable) they would instigate the change and force the USGA to either challenge manufacturing companies or accept defacto bifurcation. Augusta is in the same unique position in having the power to force the USGA's hand. Still, I think the biggest problem with the distance issue is the reaction of those in charge of courses. Folks still haven't learned, after 100 years, that you can't combat better equipment with added yards. Its just a shame that so many fall in step with those clubs which host pro tours.
Ciao
-
Sean,
your argument is the same as that used by most of the big corporations i.e. 'we (big corporations) only follow and fulfill the demand of the supplier'. This is of course absolute rubbish as it is not the consumer developing new products and then lancing an advert campaign to create demand for the new product.
Whether we like to admit it or not most people will by what they are told and accept the bogus claims of manufacturers even though they as a user do not really believe the claims. As to the point made about not switching, you can only chose to stay with a product if the manufacturer still produces them. Even if Ian wanted to play with a Spalding Dot he would have major trouble finding them. I loved the Ford Capri. It is the best affordable car ever produced and was still very much in demand when Ford STOPPED producing them. It had nothing to do consumer demand. The same goes for any product. There is no such thing a consumer demand shaping the market, it is marketing. This is what the marketing manager of any company will tell you ;D and I bet you won,t find a single 'consumer demand' manager to contradict them ;)
Jon
-
Jon
Jeez - your argument is a sad indictment of golfers. At least I hold out hope that golfers will think for themselves - eventually.
Ciao
-
Jon
Jeez - your argument is a sad indictment of golfers. At least I hold out hope that golfers will think for themselves - eventually.
Ciao
How so Sean?
How can the consumer not been able to buy the product that he likes because it is not produced be seen as a ' sad indictment' on them? As I said this goes for most products not just golfing ones, so I was not singling out the golfer in particular.
Why do you think the tour pros should make a stand and bite the hand that feeds them by apposing industry or by trying to force the USGA to alter the rules that have nothing to do with them? The USGA is an amateur body not a professional one which would be the PGAs and PGA Tour. I do agree with you that ANGC could have a tournament ball though but in the end it is down to the USGA and the R&A to sort this out.
Jon
-
Interesting reading this topic. I have been a subscriber to Australian Golf Digest for about 10 years. There is some quality articles but there are some sad indictments on golf. I sarcastically live in anticipation in finding out who are the biggest advertising spenders each year also disguised as the so called hot list.... Never seen a Miura or an Epon in there!
On the topic of controlling equipment, this is something I do not support at all. You see if a corporation or an individual could be bothered to invest valuable time and financial resources in developing, selling, advertising and satisfying customers (this last point is a mute point), then good on them let them. Cause if it's not spent on our great game of golf they will spend that on another sport like tennis, sailing, soccer, formula one, swimming, polo whatever so just feel blessed that they chose golf. Makes our game better, more valuable and more enduring. Look at the sports that do not get those dollars, squash, volleyball, darts, tenpin bowling....
As for the so called classic courses being ripped up by pros and elite amateurs, go ahead! The fact that the majority of golfers will struggle to par half the holes let alone shoot under par means the courses are fine as they are. Adding yards does not compensate for having to fade or draw a drive. Well placed bunkers and green complexes take care of the long hitters. You still have to putt the ball into the cup. No super duper driver or ball does that for you. The player holder the putter does that.
Let us sit back and enjoy golf pros shooting the odd 59 and celebrate it. Let's not stymie progress. Look at Americas Cup sailing, they have embraced the tech race as has other sports. This protecting par for 144 players that play a pro tournament each year is rubbish.
If Gary Woodland and Jamie Sadlowski were winning every tournament at -64 each week then we have a distance problem and our golf courses are too short. Fact is guys like Tom Watson contend for the Open championship, Fred Funk wins a Players Championship etc etc. It's not a distance problem it's a whining problem we have on our hands!
As for calling for the Ford Capri to comeback... Wow! Petition the white house for that one!
-
If it really is the ball that is the problem, why not make the ball bigger. Yes add another 25% diameter to the ball. This will slow the ball in the air by adding drag hence reducing distance. At the green, a larger ball will make putting easier I assume as it will break less on a slope... Have to test that theory... It may make putting more difficult as trying to slot a larger ball into the same sized cup is theoretically more difficult. Would make watching the game easier for spectators as a larger ball is easier to see. Risky shots through trees have a higher chance of hitting trees etc
Only change to courses is to make the pin 50% thinner to let the ball fit between the cup edge and flag for the odd albatross or eagle...
Ball makers however maybe presented with an opportunity to put more in the ball. Larger size means also the ability to load more technology into the ball. Taylormade will make a 52 layer ball no doubt. Bigger ball may go straighter too as less side spin could be imparted... All questions to ask a physics professor.
Other option is make professionals play with non dimpled balls. Shorter drives, putts that break like billiard balls and roll 40 foot past the hole, back spin is a thing of the past..
-
As for calling for the Ford Capri to comeback... Wow! Petition the white house for that one!
Sid,
I never called for the Ford Capri to comeback so you have obviously misunderstood my point ;) The point I was making is many would have us believe that existing products are removed from the shelf as there is a lack of demand. This is plainly not true and the case of the Capri is a good example.
Jon
-
Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.
Ian
What do you play with now, and if it isn't hickory shafted clubs and Spalding Dot golf balls, why not ? Don't mean to sound cheeky, but if you mean that pressure should come from the consumer then why wait for any court case.
Niall
I'm with Ian. I will not play any ball from a company that opposes a ball roll back in court. And it doesn't matter what other equipment I use, because, this is a ball issue. The only other thing that matters is that I won't play Ping irons, because what they did before in court on the groove rule.
This is, of course, empty sanctimony. For reasons discussed here a million times, there won't be a "roll back" because there isn't anything to roll back TO. There will be bifurcation or there will be no change on the ball, period.
However, I think a better way of looking at the anchoring rule is that it may be part of a very measured and long range move by the USGA to go to a bifurcated ball rule, which would seem to be the only solution. First were grooves, which ARE bifurcated and will be for at least another decade. I think it is very possible that the anchoring rule will end up being permanently bifurcated in some way or another. Once the golf world has gotten used to the idea, a bifurcated rule for the golf ball is a much smaller step.
But since we are making empty promises, I'll take my vows. Not only will I continue to play ONLY Ping clubs (since Ping has forced the USGA to be more diligent in the use of their authority AND the fact that Ping was right), but I will vow here and now to ONLY use the golf ball of any manufacturer(s) to take the USGA to court when your mythical roll back is contested. I also promise to ride my unicorn to the golf course, and tilt at a few windmills on the way.
-
I've been playing with the same "set" of clubs for pretty well the last decade excepting a couple of changes here and there. None of them were new when I bought them and further more I tend to use lake balls a lot (God bless American golf course architecture). Maybe I'm doing my bit for the roll back programme without even knowing it !
Niall
-
If USGA used grooves and putters to "test out the rollbacks" for other more significant changes, they are idiots as all that has proved is that equipment changes do not make ANY difference.
The problem with club changes like grooves is that they thought it would result in significant difference in scoring, but the effect has been nil to negligible. The groove changes had absolute no impact whatsoever. You won't see any statistical difference after the belly putter is banned either. All this has proved to others is that equipment rollbacks are waste of money and time.
If they really want to preserve the game, they should have used the effort to rollback the ball distance, because that is the only thing that really matters. But for some reason, they went the other route and they won't have enough momentum after these debacles to make any changes that will have any real impact.
Just idiotic...
-
Of course, it's just like everything else in America ... we can't do anything to address any of our problems, because some big company might make less than they do now.
next to impossible, all about the money :(
-
If USGA used grooves and putters to "test out the rollbacks" for other more significant changes, they are idiots as all that has proved is that equipment changes do not make ANY difference.
The problem with club changes like grooves is that they thought it would result in significant difference in scoring, but the effect has been nil to negligible. The groove changes had absolute no impact whatsoever. You won't see any statistical difference after the belly putter is banned either. All this has proved to others is that equipment rollbacks are waste of money and time.
If they really want to preserve the game, they should have used the effort to rollback the ball distance, because that is the only thing that really matters. But for some reason, they went the other route and they won't have enough momentum after these debacles to make any changes that will have any real impact.
Just idiotic...
Not to test roll backs. To ease toward bifurcation. And maybe not idiotic at all.
-
Not to test roll backs. To ease toward bifurcation. And maybe not idiotic at all.
Why is birfurcating the rule that results in absolutely nothing, but have significant financial impact for players a good thing? If that is what they wanted to test, why didn't they choose something that nobody cares about like grounding the club in sand after a shot?
-
Not to test roll backs. To ease toward bifurcation. And maybe not idiotic at all.
Why is birfurcating the rule that results in absolutely nothing, but have significant financial impact for players a good thing? If that is what they wanted to test, why didn't they choose something that nobody cares about like grounding the club in sand after a shot?
[/quote]
Richard,
I never said it was a good thing (or a bad thing, for that matter). I suggested that getting the world of golf used to bifurcation gradually might be a strategy of the USGA, and that the ball could be the end game of that strategy. IF that is the strategy, then what better than a "rule that results in absolutely nothing" to give everyone a secure feeling about different rules for the pros vs. my Saturday morning points game?
And who says nobody cares about grounding a club in the sand after a shot? The rule only applies if you leave the shot in the bunker and have another bunker shot coming, in which case the rule is very consistent by preventing you from testing the surface. In any event, that is not an equipment rule, which is the whole point about bifurcating the ball.
-
The whole concept is based on seeing how much heat they get. I think the USGA felt confident it could handle the grooves in a court of law, and feels good about anchoring too. They do not feel as confident about changing the ball allowances. Its like tv pushing the limits of the censors. They did not go right from Ozzie and Harriet in the same bed to what they show today. They did it a little at a time. I agree though the grooves and anchoring rules have not, and will not change scoring respectively.
-
Of course a roll back in the ball won't change scoring either. It will open up more of the classic venues if they do it right.
-
The problem with "seeing how much heat" theory is that now they have created a precedent where a proposed equipment change did not lead to any of the "benefits" that USGA stated as the goal for making the change.
Now, the manufacturers will be free to plea to the courts that USGA is implementing changes that will result in absolutely no impact to the game while causing undue hardship (in millions in lost golf ball sales) for the manufacturers. I would think based on the groove change precedent, most judges will be very open to that argument.
You should always lead with your best shot.
-
The problem with "seeing how much heat" theory is that now they have created a precedent where a proposed equipment change did not lead to any of the "benefits" that USGA stated as the goal for making the change.
Now, the manufacturers will be free to plea to the courts that USGA is implementing changes that will result in absolutely no impact to the game while causing undue hardship (in millions in lost golf ball sales) for the manufacturers. I would think based on the groove change precedent, most judges will be very open to that argument.
You should always lead with your best shot.
Manufacturers won't be able to claim lost sales because it hasn't happened and won't. They have sold MORE clubs due to the groove rule, not less. They would sell MORE balls with bifurcation/tournament ball rules, not less.
If the ball were to be bifurcated (which, by the way, I oppose) many golfers would buy at least some of both balls. There is no reason to believe that ANY golfer would buy fewer golf balls.
On the other hand, the fantasy "roll back" that is so popular on this site (and which I also oppose and also consider impractical if not impossible) might very well cost the manufacturers sales. A ball that flies shorter distances makes the game harder and might well lead to fewer rounds played and lower sales. This is on top of the fact that the manufacturers would have to completely retool their production processes, something that would NOT be true of bifurcation/tournament ball rules.
-
I agree with A.G.’s arguments although I’m uncertain the USGA and R&A are clever enough to maneuver this as path to bifurcation regarding the tournament ball. His other points are solid: amateurs buy whatever ball they want; tournaments, clubs, tours, or Augusta can choose the tournament ball as a rule of competition. The ball manufacturer won’t have to retool to make the tournament ball because there will be no market demand for it. Pros don’t buy balls. Every other pro sport has an official ball. Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?). If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls. Might actually sell more balls. The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball. The endorsements will just shift to equipment: if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball? Problem solved. Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation. The pros play a different game. Don’t change the courses, change the ball. Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros. Let everyone else have fun.
-
Every other pro sport has an official ball. Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?). If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls. Might actually sell more balls. The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball. The endorsements will just shift to equipment: if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball? Problem solved. Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation. The pros play a different game. Don’t change the courses, change the ball. Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros. Let everyone else have fun.
Dave:
Agree.
I have pointed it out many times before in this debate, but there are a lot of new faces here who can't remember back to the 1970's, so I'll say it again ... they've changed the ball before, quietly and effectively, in my lifetime. Until the mid-1970's, the 1.62-in "small ball" was the law of the land everywhere outside the USA. It went 20-30 yards farther off the tee than the 1.68-in ball of the same era. But the pros didn't like having to swtich balls when they played overseas ... so the R & A changed the ball spec JUST FOR COMPETITORS IN THE OPEN AND AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIPS, to the US standard 1.68-in ball.
Nobody screamed bloody murder about bifurcation. The manufacturers didn't care, since they were making both balls already [and if that's bifurcation, it's been around since the 1920's].
The genius of the move was that by making the small ball illegal for the Amateur instead of just the Open, they sowed the seeds of change. Anybody who wanted to play in the Amateur championship needed to switch ... and those players started clamoring for the ball spec to change further down the chain of important events, so they wouldn't be at a disadvantage. By the mid-1980's, many club players still played the small ball, but it was gone at the elite level. I don't know when it was discontinued altogether, but it had been pretty much abandoned by then anyway.
The only difference between then and now was that the Tour players SUPPORTED the change because they didn't want to adjust back and forth between two balls. Now, of course, the Tour players do NOT support the change publicly, because they are being paid a lot of money by the manufacturers to endorse certain balls that sell like gangbusters to the public, and they're afraid their endorsement money might be curtailed if that ball is made illegal for tournament play.
None of this has anything to do with overall golf ball sales -- we will all continue to lose balls at our normal clip. :) The argument is all about market share and protecting the market leader.
Don't change the courses, change the ball.
-
Wasn't it Nicklaus who proposed just having a barrel of the same golf balls on the 1st tee?
-
I agree with A.G.’s arguments although I’m uncertain the USGA and R&A are clever enough to maneuver this as path to bifurcation regarding the tournament ball. His other points are solid: amateurs buy whatever ball they want; tournaments, clubs, tours, or Augusta can choose the tournament ball as a rule of competition. The ball manufacturer won’t have to retool to make the tournament ball because there will be no market demand for it. Pros don’t buy balls. Every other pro sport has an official ball. Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?). If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls. Might actually sell more balls. The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball. The endorsements will just shift to equipment: if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball? Problem solved. Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation. The pros play a different game. Don’t change the courses, change the ball. Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros. Let everyone else have fun.
Dave,
The reason I think that the USGA/R&A MAY have gotten more clever is because they have gotten much, much more cautious after the Ping lawsuit fiasco. The moral of that story (in addition to not arguing engineering with engineers!) is to go slow and perform due diligence before taking action. I think the USGA also understands that while they are and have been THE governing body of golf in the US, there is absolutely NO guarantee that they always will be such. And so they move slowly...
One of two things is true about distance in golf, IMO. Either it is now essentially capped, in which case there won't be bifurcation of the ball, which I think the USGA would much prefer, all other things equal. Or, alternatively, thre are still distance gains out there, in which case the only answer is to bifurcate the ball. In that event, the measured approach taken in the groove rule and now anchoring may have paved the way.
If I had one wish for this board, it would be that I never had to read the words "roll back" again. It is inaccurate history, a silly and shortsighted philosopy, and horrendous business/economics. Other than that, it's a terrific idea! ::)
-
Wasn't it Nicklaus who proposed just having a barrel of the same golf balls on the 1st tee?
He would say that, since he played the worst ball on tour for most of his career ;D
-
Don't change the courses, change the ball.
AMEN!
-
AG, you can't have it both ways. Either manufacturers are going to lose sale and will sue, or manufacturers won't care and won't bother.
If USGA is not worried about manufacturers suing, why do you even bother with groove changes that resulted in absolutely nothing? The only equipment change worth doing is the ball limitation. I don't understand why you want to jeopardize that by spending time on something that has no effect on the game but makes your legal position more tenuous. That is just dumb.
-
Don't change the courses, change the ball.
AMEN!
Nigel:
I stole that line from Dave McCollum, who posted just above me. And I think I've heard it before that. I get too much credit for everything.
-
Two things you can count on. There will no bifurcation and no 'barrel of balls' on the first tee at professional golf tournaments. Marketing and sponsorship for golf equipment only work when the paying public can, to all extensive purposes, buy the same equipment as used by the pros.