[Tom_Doak]

Tom’s post reminded me of when Jack Nicklaus drove the 18th at St Andrews (1970?). Does any know or remember if/how the R&A reacted to that? Did it have something to do with the change away from the small/British ball?

Mostly, I think the change resulted from another Nicklaus-related item:  the growing tendency to play iron shots by yardages as he did.  The American pros had historically come over and played the small ball for The Open, but they were getting more uncomfortable with that because they had to recalculate and adjust all their iron distances for a different ball.  So they started pressuring the R & A to make the change if they wanted more Americans to come over.


That's exactly why it would be so hard for The Masters to implement their own ball, as some people have fantasized.  It would be very hard for the players to switch balls and try to play by yardage -- ESPECIALLY at Augusta, where a yard or two of carry is sometimes the difference between birdie and double bogey.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I understand that Dustin Johnson used a Trackman to dial in his exact yardages with all of his wedges and I am confident that players at that level can adjust - they certainly do that when they are at various elevations.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom’s post reminded me of when Jack Nicklaus drove the 18th at St Andrews (1970?). Does any know or remember if/how the R&A reacted to that? Did it have something to do with the change away from the small/British ball?

Mostly, I think the change resulted from another Nicklaus-related item:  the growing tendency to play iron shots by yardages as he did.  The American pros had historically come over and played the small ball for The Open, but they were getting more uncomfortable with that because they had to recalculate and adjust all their iron distances for a different ball.  So they started pressuring the R & A to make the change if they wanted more Americans to come over.


That's exactly why it would be so hard for The Masters to implement their own ball, as some people have fantasized.  It would be very hard for the players to switch balls and try to play by yardage -- ESPECIALLY at Augusta, where a yard or two of carry is sometimes the difference between birdie and double bogey.

Don't the players have to deal with this issue every time the leave the shore and play above Denver?

EDIT: I.e., What Jerry said.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: I understand that Dustin Johnson used a Trackman to dial in his exact yardages with all of his wedges and I am confident that players at that level can adjust - they certainly do that when they are at various elevations.

Jerry:


I'm not saying they couldn't do it ... I'm sure they would do okay.  But would anyone want to deal with that in the few days leading up to a major championship?


Plus, not all of these guys are automatons.  Some of them rely on their feel, and no matter how much your caddie does the math, when a shot looks like 140 but plays like 160, it's going to mess with a lot of them.


I believe there are a lot of players who skip events in Denver because they don't like trying to adjust their games [for one week only] to the different elevation.  The International always had trouble getting the stars to play.   And it's one reason the USGA is not too keen to go back to Cherry Hills.  [The other reason ... if you think you can't make a course long enough for the pros, try doing it at 5000 feet!]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To me, the lessened entertainmant value of smashmouth golf will eventually cost pros money.

That's never been proven. I think it's a "golf snob" (i.e. all of us) type of feeling more than anything. Maybe the average golf fan wants to see pros smash it far and they want to see them spin it right around (or in!) the hole. They don't appreciate a 4I off a hanging lie to 35 feet. That's for us to appreciate.

Dave Doxey, +1.

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

How are you going to stop guys from swinging faster?

Safety. A hit on the noggin etc hurts/causes damage. Hurt/damage means compensation and fees and hassle. A rolled-back considerably softer ball wouldn’t do as much hurt/damage.

Actually a softer ball can cause MORE damage. It "sticks" longer and transfers more energy. The firmer balls bounced off. They tried "softer" baseballs in Little League and found that more injuries and more severe injuries were the result.

[Sean_A]

To me, the lessened entertainmant value of smashmouth golf will eventually cost pros money.

That's never been proven. I think it's a "golf snob" (i.e. all of us) type of feeling more than anything. Maybe the average golf fan wants to see pros smash it far and they want to see them spin it right around (or in!) the hole. They don't appreciate a 4I off a hanging lie to 35 feet. That's for us to appreciate.

Of course it hasn't been proven.  How do you prove anything with cause and effect in tv sport spectating?  All I am saying is tv golf is becoming more and more one dimensional.  I wonder what the percentage is of hard core fans have stopped watching tv golf because it is dead boring.  I strongly suspect that number will correlate with the down numbers...and there aren't consistent fans coming in to fill void.  Eventually, the tour will try something different.  At the moment, the attempt is to bling up tv golf or make folks pay extra vis SKY etc (which is really about blinging up coverage).  I don't think this will work, but it could be that nothing will work in terms of trying to get people to watch every week.  When I was a hard core fan there was a big break from tv golf...not so much these days.


Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Of course it hasn't been proven.  How do you prove anything with cause and effect in tv sport spectating?  All I am saying is tv golf is becoming more and more one dimensional.

To you. All I'm saying is that we don't know, and that a 4I from a hanging lie to 35 feet is not exactly exciting golf to many TV viewers, just a small percentage who can appreciate that kind of shot.

[Matthew Essig]

Geoff Ogilvy was asked a question about bifurcation or a ball rollback during his press conference at the Australian Open.


Here's his insightful response:


https://twitter.com/NoLayingUp/status/933438531107561472

[jeffwarne]

.

[jeffwarne]

Anything that increases the length of time it takes to listen to a golf story which includes how someone played is a very bad thing. Example...What did you shoot becomes what did you shoot using which ball and so on and so on. How about just shooting me instead.

another indisputable argument for bifurcation.......

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

TV golf has always been boring. You seem to not remember the wonderful meaningless views we used to get of a golf ball flying through air shot from the blimp. They could have rerun the same footage every time as a view of a ball suspended in air is totally informationless.

Now we have shot tracker, which IMO infinitely improves the coverage over the blimp, TV golf has improved.

[Garland Bayley]

... How about just shooting me instead.

What an inspired thought, Barney.
Keep up the good work.

[jeffwarne]

I'm opposed to bifurcation, and don't really care what 0.001% of the world's golfers

I just don't see the point. There's so much to lose in bifurcating.

P.S. Don't tell me wedge grooves are bifurcated. Ams haven't been able to buy a non-conforming wedge for like seven years now, and virtually all wedges used by any serious players are using the same conforming grooves as PGA Tour players have to use. If you're using a pre-2010 wedge… the grooves aren't giving you an advantage anyway because they're really old. 

What exactly are you afraid of losing in bifurcating?
I'll go first
By NOT bifurcating,  I'm afraid of losing classic courses for competition (Merion, Pebble etc.-replaced by unwalkable abominations 8-10 miles long) and others as they no longer host majors and slip into irelevancy in the eyes of paying members(Inwood, Siwanoy, Engineers etc.) and replaced by modern monstrocities.
I also miss the days when an elite professional could hit the ball farther, but play the same tees as a club champ yet showcase his skills, rather than the two being on tees 50-60 yards apart on every hole.
I also miss seing a great player work the ball, and have to really work to control the spin and trajectory in the wind, but mostly I miss seeing a pro hit something besides to a wedge.
I'm also afraid by not bifurcating, we will see endless proposals on competition courses  that don't address the length issue (deep rough, narrow fairways, less clubs, more stupid groove changes etc.) and that these proposals to courses will catch on and make a course "better"(oops already happened-see Bethpage etc.) leading to even slower rounds


ummmm grooves are bifurcated-you can argue all you want whether it matters or not- but pre 2010  grooves are grandfathered for most play until 2024 -yet a different  set of rules are used for most elite competitions as a condition of competition (bifurcation)

[Mike_Young]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

[Jon Wiggett]

Of course it hasn't been proven.  How do you prove anything with cause and effect in tv sport spectating?  All I am saying is tv golf is becoming more and more one dimensional.

To you. All I'm saying is that we don't know, and that a 4I from a hanging lie to 35 feet is not exactly exciting golf to many TV viewers, just a small percentage who can appreciate that kind of shot.

I would think the second shot to the 13th at ANGC fits the bill spot on looking back a couple of decades ago. Now it is likely to be a much shorter shot.


Sean,


spot on. TV/ professional tour golf is becoming more one dimensional. The result of equipment that guarantees straighter and longer shots maybe?


Jon

[Sean_A]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

Mike

In my bifurcation system the elite player using the rollback ball doesn't keep a handicap...these guys are top ams and pros.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

My regular playing partners range from +4's to 18's. I'm having trouble figuring out how we can remain competitive golf buds if a number of us play different balls. Do you really want to shut out the finest players in your club from the handicapped events?


Is it just me, or is the acceptance of 18 handicappers into the daily games of low cappers a modern phenomenon? I simply don't remember hacks and sticks playing in the same groups 30 years ago. It just feels like the two ball system will devide us once again. Yeah, and just as I'm becoming a hack. I'll miss hanging out with the popular kids.

[jeffwarne]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

you mean the one where guys take 6 footers all day, drop balls when lost or OB, roll it in the fairway, show up at a Member -Guest as "aboutta an 18"------the same one where the best players negotiate the shots on the first tee anyway because they know the current system is a joke.

[Jerry Kluger]

I was fortunate to attend the Thursday Masters this year and spent a good deal of time where I could see approach shots into 15 as well as the 16th. On Thursday there was only one player that we saw hit the green in two on 15 as it was playing into the wind.  On the other hand, I believe that Garcia reached it in two on Sunday with an 8 iron. I would venture a guess that the members of ANGC preferred how it played on Thursday as would have Mackenzie.

[Peter Pallotta]

"...I also miss the days when an elite professional could hit the ball farther, but play the same tees as a club champ yet showcase his skills, rather than the two being on tees 50-60 yards apart on every hole...."

Jeff - not an exact parallel, but have you ever seen that old episode of (I think it was called) "Champions Golf" -- it was from the mid 60s, and was a match that had Arnold P and Gary P up against Ken V and Byron N

Now, Mr Nelson was one of the greatest of all time, and so on the one hand it didn't surprise me that he played as beautifully as he did...more than holding his own. But on the other hand, it was really striking -- there was a man in his mid 50s who hadn't played regular competitive golf for at least two decades, in the midst of three men in the absolute primes of their careers...and yet if there was any significant difference in the distances that he & they hit the ball, I couldn't see it.

Just as you say: the ball (mostly, I believe) and clubs back then did give an advantage to the longer hitter, but not exponentially so ...15-20 yards, not 50-60 yards

(Same as with a much older Sam Snead playing a very young Jack Nicklaus at Pebble Beach...judging from what they hit coming into greens, the then strongest, longest and best player on tour had maybe 1 club less - e.g. a 6 instead of a 5 iron -- than the old veteran)

It was fun to watch, plain and simple, and a more interesting game

Peter   

[jeffwarne]

"...I also miss the days when an elite professional could hit the ball farther, but play the same tees as a club champ yet showcase his skills, rather than the two being on tees 50-60 yards apart on every hole...."


Jeff - not an exact parallel, but have you ever seen that old episode of (I think it was) called "Champions Golf" -- it was from the mid 60s, and was a match that had Arnold P and Gary P up against Ken V and Byron N


Now, Mr Nelson was one of the greatest of all time, and so on the one hand it didn't surprise me that he played as beautifully as he did...more than holding his own. But on the other hand, it was really striking -- there was a man in his mid 50s who hadn't played regular competitive golf for at least two decades, in the midst of three men in the absolute primes of their careers...and yet if there was any significant difference in the distances that he & they hit the ball, I couldn't see it.


Just as you say: the ball (mostly, I believe) and clubs back then did give an advantage to the longer hitter, but not exponentially so ...15-20 yards, not 50-60 yards


(Same as with a much older Sam Snead playing a very young Jack Nicklaus at Pebble Beach...judging from what they hit coming into greens, the then strongest, longest and best player on tour had maybe 1 club less - e.g. a 6 instead of a 5 iron -- than the old veteran)


It was fun to watch, plain and simple, and a more interesting game


Peter   

Rest assured Peter, it's way more than just the ball, but the ball can be the fix-allowing current clubs.


This is the part that those who did not witness it firsthand miss.
Power was an awesome thing to behold-and was revered-and there were bombers,
but it was not the ONLY way to play.


I guess the naysayers needed to "see it to believe it."


What interests me is where fellow PGA professionals will line up on this.
With Wally and the $$ ? or in the interests of the GAME rather than  the business.


Wonder how my members would react if I didn't sell Titleist anymore?
I canceled Taylormade a few years ago when Mark King went nuts with his stupid ideas and every three month driver introductions.
The game's gotta be placed ahead of the "business" or there will be neither.

[Mike_Young]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

you mean the one where guys take 6 footers all day, drop balls when lost or OB, roll it in the fairway, show up at a Member -Guest as "aboutta an 18"------the same one where the best players negotiate the shots on the first tee anyway because they know the current system is a joke.

Yeah, that's the one except now one guy will be playing with a limited ball and asking for more shots vs the slope and the other is playing with a jacked up ball but not telling anyone...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Apologies for the multi-quoted post. Sneaking in a little time before the festivities today.

By NOT bifurcating,  I'm afraid of losing classic courses for competition (Merion, Pebble etc.-replaced by unwalkable abominations 8-10 miles long) and others as they no longer host majors and slip into irelevancy in the eyes of paying members(Inwood, Siwanoy, Engineers etc.) and replaced by modern monstrocities.

They still host majors at Pebble. They just had one at Merion. And the Old Course, and Oakmont, and Pinehurst, and Oak Hill, and… Bethpage, and… it's a long list. I don't care that, for example, Whistling Straits hosted some majors. I'm glad it has. Not all majors need to be contested on 80+ year old courses. I think it's nice to get some new courses in there, and if some older ones fall off… so be it. In 50 years Whistling Straits may be a "classic" course.

I also miss the days when an elite professional could hit the ball farther, but play the same tees as a club champ yet showcase his skills, rather than the two being on tees 50-60 yards apart on every hole.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. That's a 1000-yard difference.

ummmm grooves are bifurcated-you can argue all you want whether it matters or not- but pre 2010  grooves are grandfathered for most play until 2024 -yet a different  set of rules are used for most elite competitions as a condition of competition (bifurcation)

My point is that nobody's still playing those wedges. Nobody stockpiled them. Competitions among high-level amateurs have the rule in place as a Condition of Competition. The rule was effectively bifurcated for about two years after 2010. Long enough for everyone to replace their wedges with newly conforming ones.

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

Two slopes and two course ratings. And since we're rating tees for both men and women (and with the Longleaf system, that's now up to seven or eight sets of tees)… it gets tedious. 7 or 8 tees, two balls, two genders… That's 28 to 32 sets of course ratings and slopes for a golf course.

I would think the second shot to the 13th at ANGC fits the bill spot on looking back a couple of decades ago. Now it is likely to be a much shorter shot.

My point was that while you and I might appreciate the shot, perhaps the vast majority of golf viewers just want to see a ball hit bounce, spin, and roll really close to the hole. Maybe they don't care if the club says "8" or "4" on the bottom.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


We have a member of our club who has played in a couple of Masters, was once top 30 on the money list and now has his amateur status back. I enjoy an occasional round with him despite he being 10 shots a round better than me. He beat me by a stroke in our member/member one year no thanks to him. I choked like a dog. Can't you see how I will lose this pleasure if a two ball system is introduced? Isn't the pride of losing a fair match one of the joys of the game?

[Sean_A]

I would think the second shot to the 13th at ANGC fits the bill spot on looking back a couple of decades ago. Now it is likely to be a much shorter shot.

My point was that while you and I might appreciate the shot, perhaps the vast majority of golf viewers just want to see a ball hit bounce, spin, and roll really close to the hole. Maybe they don't care if the club says "8" or "4" on the bottom.

If declining tv viewers is an indication of how people view the game, maybe your premise is incorrect.  We won't know for sure because a large segment of golf fans have already stopped watching tv golf.  I have no proof, but my theory is that basically folks of roughly my age stopped watching and nobody filled the gap.  It is more than simply the one dimensional style of golf....it is that this single minded approach to golf severely limits the possible candidates of characters.  The swings look similar.  The clothes look similar.  The courses look similar.  These are trends that started back in the 70s and have progressed more down the one line pipe ever since.  Sport has to have something to sell and without characters it is far harder.  But with similar approaches and backgrounds, it is more difficult for characters to emerge.  These days we have faux characters that are plugged in.  Come on, Ricky Fowler etc? Even the dead boring Jack Nicklaus was more interesting...at least he won tons of tournies.  I am telling ya, tv golf is in serious trouble and needs a huge shake up.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()