Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Geoff_Shackelford on January 29, 2003, 07:59:41 PM
-
It's fun to watch this ball/technology issue snowball so rapidly! :) Must be a fun winter in Far Hills, what with the nice weather and 400 yard drives! Wally Uhlien has to have Mickelson stop saying things like this:
"This new x-ball, if I just swing at it regular speed, I don't get much out of it," Mickelson said. "But when I go after it, I get a ton out of it. The harder I can hit the ball now, we have golf balls made for that swing."
There are more quotes from Dick Rugge and Uhlien in an interesting AP story by Doug Ferguson linked below. Of course, no real mention of the impact on architecture of the quality of the golf presented or how this makes it tough to compare generations or, well...
http://www.golfweb.com/partner/aol/index.html?http://www.golfweb.com/u/ce/multi/0,1977,6155650,00.html
-
OK, Geoff, I'm going to hit the hyperlinks but tell me first are they going to be a chamber of horrors?
-
It is becoming a chamber of horrors.
In this weeks Golf World is an article about Dan Pohl (1986 Colonial & World Series of Golf winner, lost in a playoff to Stadler in the 82 Masters) who at 47 said he can now hit it further then in 1980 when he led the tour in driving.
"I can move it out there 330 if I need to" he said. He goes on to mention how few pros use to reach certain par 5's at the TPC in Scottsdale and now they all can reach them. 40 players averaged over 300 yards last week in Phoenix.
-
Geoff:
It's quite obvious that many of us here on golfclubatlas.com "get it" - that technology is ruining the game. :'(
What do you suppose and how much long will it take for the USGA, the R & A and the PGA Tour to "get it"? ???
-
"We're trying to make the Pro V1 and the Pro V1x the Kleenex of the super premium category," Uihlein said. "That's the end game. We've got a 60 percent market share of that segment. Now is the time to strike, particularly with the regulatory bodies capping how much improvement is ahead of us."
This is a very significant statment from Wally U. It tells me:
1. He sees the end in sight in terms of improved ball performance--whether through limitations of technology or physics or the regulations of ruling bodies. Doesn't matter which.
2. He is clearly signalling to his competitors that he intends to invest heavily to insure that Titleist still is at the top when that cap in performance is reached.
3. He is also sending a signal to the ruling bodies that if they roll back the technology from where it is now, he has a claim for significant damages. This is what he is saying when he talks about the "Kleenex" analogy. If the technology is capped, and if there is no rollback, and if Titlest has a 60% share at the time of that capping, Wally will soon be rolling in money.
The saddest part of this whole unfolding drama is the fact that the technology that is driving (no pun intended) this scenario has absolutely no substantive relevance to the idiots (US!) who will be buying the ProV1whatever, lining the pockets of Titleist and possibly forcing the USGA and the R&A to go full-time into the museum business. If Mickelson can't get it to go farther with his "normal" swing, how do you suppose the rest of us will fare?
The only winners I can see from this scenario other than Titleist are the orthopedic surgeons, who will have to sort out the effects of unfit middle-aged wannabies trying to generate swing speeds of 140 mph.
Buy shares in redanman, inc. if you have any spare cash lying around after stocking up on your ProV1x's..............
-
Also, interesting quote from the article .......
"The real revolution is not distance," Rugge said. "Distance balls have been available for two decades, but tour professionals gave that up for the feel and control. Now, they don't have to give that up."
Poor USGA guys seem to be well on their way to preserving the tradition of modernizing classic architecture. Like Nicklaus said, in 50 years, they will be teeing it up from the hotel.
All the manufacturers are changing dimples, shell materials, core materials, core thickness, shell thickness, number of shells, etc., etc. year after year after year. If they roll the ball back, everyone will be scrambling like they are already scrambling to create new balls every year, year after year.
It will all be about the same and Titleist will be on top if they continue to produce and market a good ball. Some ball will always go the furthest, have the best feel, etc., etc.
-
The issue is how straight they go, not how far. Farther comes with straighter.
Paul Richards- I find it sad that you think this game is ruined. I disagree.
-
I'm highly sceptical of Mickelson's claim. We've heard this all before, and who does he work for? If an independent engineer claimed this, I'd take it seriously.
Where does this mysterious gain come from? The ball's COR doesn't change the harder you hit it, unless we're comparing the extremes: a drive with a putt. In which case, the COR is higher for the putt!
Players are notoriously bad at assessing their own games. My bet is there's virtually no increase this year, just like there was none last year. We'll see with the year end stats.
-
It seems that the ruling body of the long driving competitions hopes to shift the emphasis away from the length of the shaft, and toward how the golfers use it.
In addition to reporting that Mark O'Meara with the ProVx is almost as long as Tiger without (12/23/02), Golfweek also reported (1/20/03) that the Long Drivers of America company (which puts on long driving competitions) limited the length of competition shafts to a paltry 52 inches. This change significantly rolls back the current standard of use in competitions, which was apparently racing toward 60 inches.
"Why did he do it? To protect the future of his sport. To erase any public perception that long drivers are mutants who use fishing poles for drivers and have no similarity to real golfers. "
Needless to say, the decision was quite controversial in the burgeoning world of long driving competitions (Does anyone else sense that we may have a new Olympic sport on our hands, along with speed hot dog eating?) One competitor, who happens to be an extra long shaft user and current world champion, pitied the poor manufacturers who had invested so much in researching and making extra premium extra long shafts for these freak show competitions. . . .
The golfing world is somewhat skewed when the Long Driving ruling body is more willing to take affirmative and controversial steps to protect the game than our own USGA.
The USGA might want to consider lending the Long Driving ruling body a few ten million, so that the ruling body has a chance in the long shaft lawsuit that I imagine is right around the corner. Wouldn't want any more negative precedent out there, just in case golf's ruling lions ever find their courage.
http://golfweek.com/articles/2003/equipment/31516.asp
Speaking of lawsuits, maybe every existing golf course should band together and sue the USGA for effectively allowing the equipment manufacturers to make every course obsolete (speaking only in terms of Tour events, of course.) I am sure they could find some damages expert to testify that courses which can no longer honestly call themselves "Championship" have been significantly disadvantaged in the marketplace.
[edited to fix mixed Wizard of Oz metaphor]
-
A Clay Man,
Thank you and amen!!!
The real difference is indeed the straightness of the ball, and that's precisely why a rollback can't be done! How do you roll back to crooked?
-
You roll back to crooked by making the ball significantly lighter. Not only will it fly less far, it will also react more violently to off centre hits and you can also hook and slice it more easily.
But I do agree about the straightness issue, the most radical and effective ban would be to ban hollow heads. Can't see it happening though!
-
Uh Paul Turner, Mickelson just drove a 403 yard par-4 in competition, you really think you can fairly assess what he's experiencing with his swing and game?
I don't see his comments driven by trying to sell more balls, he was just being honest about what he gets from the ball.
Something is up and it's obvious to many more people (thankfully). This is in NO WAY GOOD FOR GOLF! And golf is the most important thing here, isn't it? Or are the tour players who play it and the companies running it bigger than the sport itself now? I suppose to many, it's more important to deny the obvious and be right, than do what's right.
-
Boy, you guys are going to sail with the USGA's sinking ship all the way to the bottom of the ocean, aren't you?
If Ernie Els hits the ball a little straighter than the mid-handicappers, it is not the end of golf as we have known it. Ernie and I can at least still manage to play the same game on the same course. But when Ernie starts hitting it half-again as far as decent mid-handicappers, and once-again or even twice-again as far as many high-handicappers, Ernie and the rest of the world are no longer playing the same game, and can no longer play on the same course.
-
Geoff
I'm not saying I can assess his game, I'm just saying his claim should be taken with a grain of salt. He'd need to do a proper trial to convince me he's gained extra distance from this new ball.
And we hear all kinds of wild claims by pros when a new bit of kit comes out. Remember Monty when he switched to Callaway claiming he'd gained 20 yards? Well of course he didn't. How about Jeff Sluman and everyone getting worked up about his jump in the driving stats in 2001? Nobody seems to notice he lost 10 yards last year. So I'm always sceptical about these individual claims, you have to look at the big picture.
I'm not claiming that the ball isn't going too far.
-
Geoff,
Other than complaining about the USGA, what is your solution, and give us DETAILS.
Thanking you in advance!
-
Robert,
Thanks for asking, but I have no details that would interest you. I am well aware of your position and respect that.
To be honest, my view on the matter has changed in recent weeks. I'm quite happy to sit back and watch this entire situation evolve. That's the solution. I used to think we needed regulation, new tests, help from Hootie, articles in the golf publications, etc..., but I no longer think that will have any impact (nor happen!). The sensiblity for what golf really is all about just isn't there in the power positions. It's a vehicle for profit, not golf. As Sandy Tatum said in his book, "When the game is properly administered, nothing is wrong with playing golf for money. The concern, however, is that the game, which has so much to offer as a game to be played for its own sake, becomes something else as it evolves primarily into a medium for making money."
Yes, by doing nothing, several classic courses will be ruined or have been, which is tragic, but that's something the USGAers will have to live with (if they really understand or care?). There are several obvious solutions, but they all make too much sense and they aren't scientific enough to ever really please all. Tournament balls, classic course balls, rollbacks, new testing that actually works, etc... None of this will happen, again, too much common sense.
By the way, do you think it's the USGA's job to share their "details?" Well, I keep checking out this link to learn more on their "Equipment" page:
http://www.usga.org/test_center/index.html
One could spend seconds, even a minute looking at this page trying to learn something. :)
Geoff
-
Robert:
Seems to me although Geoff Shackelford may be complaining about the USGA to some extent, and he probably does not have a comprehensive solution (in detail) for the distance problem that he does have the makings of a solution nonetheless.
What he is saying, at least as this distance problem is evidencing itself at the top level including the Tour level is that EVERYONE, certainly including the USGA/R&A, World tours and certainly the manufacturers should begin to both recognize and admit that fact!
I see that as not only a good place to start to find a solution but a fundamentally necessary place to start. Clearly the reason Shackelford feels this way is this distance problem is having deleterious effects on both golf architecture and golf to a large extent and will continue to have unless a solution is found to the distance problem.
If the appropriate entities are to begin to put 2+2+2+2 together to find a solution for the distance problem they must first recognize and admit to the obvious--ie, that there is a distance problem.
So far they really don't appear to have gotten to that necessary and fundamental point and that's exactly what Shackelford is saying they all need to do.
-
The hole that Mickleson drove on the fringe, #10, 403 yds, is a fairly sharp dogleg right. No matter how far the ball is traveling with the new equipment, he didn't actually hit it 403 yds.
-
Tom, yes, it does seem that only a dire situation will bring everyone to the table to solve the problem. Finchem made the first move last year, which was a big step. But it would seem to have to get worse and the problems painfully obvious before they are all resigned to doing something. The love for "protecting par" may ultimately serve a positive purpose after all. It seems low scores terrify the governing bodies more than anything else.
Still, I just don't see who is going to step up and make the case for why interesting architecture is more important to the sport than the latest ball from Titleist that keeps rendering thought and creativity irrelevant. There just isn't anyone like Bobby Jones around anymore. Nicklaus sure makes a great case in his new book, and has made some great analogies in recent years, but for whatever reason, he gets tuned out on this subject.
Geoff
-
98% of golfers love to hit the ball far, the farther the better, no matter what consequences to the game might occur;
2% of golfers care more about architecture and the good of the game than hitting the ball farther.
Horrible oversimplification as to why this problem exists, but is it correct?
This would explain why Jack's cayman ball never caught on, why he's tuned out today....
TH
-
A slight dissent.
Are non-pro big hitters hitting the ball farther and turning the great courses into pitch and putts? Are the great private clubs pitch and putts for members? I understand that the pros are murdering courses, but there is a flip side to some of the technology advances. I only took up the game in 1997, but I do think that perimeter waiting and metal woods have made it easier for me (at times) to hit the ball well and actually play, i.e., try to put the ball in specific places, try an intentional fade or hook on occasion, etc. That must help bring new players into the game. For us mediocre players, its been great, and there is no danger of me turning Blackwolf Run into a pitch and putt (although I do treasure the miracle 82 I shot from the blue tees of the river course a couple of years ago).
Jeff Goldman
-
"Nicklaus sure makes a great case in his new book, and has made some great analogies in recent years, but for whatever reason, he gets tuned out on this subject."
Geoff:
This is curious, isn't it? I've wondered about this too, for a long time, and my conclusion is that there are a number of significant people out there in golf who essentially feel the same way Jack does. I could go through the list of them but I think you know who they are anyway.
I think the problem with this apparently rather lengthy list of significant people who feel this way is just that at this point they're still making their feelings known individually and singly!
Now, if someone could just bring all of them together into a unified group I feel all together they could not help but get the necessary attention of all the appropriate entities in golf and then things would start to roll and start to happen.
Why don't some of us try to get them all together into a unified group? All we can lose is our time!
-
Jeff Goldman:
You wonder if the tour pros are the only ones turning some of these courses into pitch and putts.
I hate to tell you this but you should see some of these kids coming up through the high school and college ranks right now! It's basically disgusting how far they hit everything. I see them at the GAP events.
Pat was down here at Merion not that long ago and watched a couple of these guys, one a really top flight young am (Pa am champ) bascially make mince meat out of Merion distance-wise.
I really don't know anyone who hits it much farther than this young man but he'd just come back from the US Am where he qualified with Ricky Barnes.
He called up his Dad and said; "Dad you know me, I've never really had anyone get it much past me but this guy I qualified with was about 30 yards past me off the tee all day long."
Now that's tripley disgusting--I promise!
This is no secret! Obviously the USGA guys saw Ricky Barnes do this for 6-8 rounds at Oakland Hills!
-
Geoff,
I am glad that you remember my Gradual Distance Rollback proposal from last year. Others, including Ben Crenshaw, think my idea has merit.
I still think it is a good idea.
-
98% of golfers love to hit the ball far, the farther the better, no matter what consequences to the game might occur;
2% of golfers care more about architecture and the good of the game than hitting the ball farther.
Horrible oversimplification as to why this problem exists, but is it correct?
Tom, probably not much of an oversimplification at all. But one that might rely on a flawed premise.
It seems that assumption is that a rolling back the ball hurts the 98%, and that they would not stand for it. Now, if this were true, I would agree with your post. However, I don't think that this is necessarily the case.
As Phil's quote regarding swing speed indicates, these new balls are being designed with the professional swing speeds in mind, and the improvement they offer to the average player probably does not correlate to the improvement they offer Phil.
Like the new ballls, a USGA rollback could also be aimed at the tour swing speed. To oversimplify, just create a ball limitation where the relative benefits diminish as the swing speed increases.
This would allow the "poor manufacturers" (the ones many are worried about hurting) to redirect their constant quest for a better ball to the golfers that actually need it. Build a ball that benefits the 60-85 mph swing.
I am sure that some would object that this is unfair to the long ball hitters. I disagree. They will still hit the ball farther, but their relative advantage will be diminished.
-
Jeff,
Your argument is a legitimate part of the equation. But l'll say this. Courses are looking for length. I'm consulting on some minor bunker restoration at a Bell club and they are constantly looking for length, or fighting suggestions to expand greens that have shrunk to nothing. Why? Because the good players believe the course is too easy. Who cares right? Except that most courses listen to good players and ignore the rest. This is traditional in golf and will continue to be I'm afraid. Tour golf influences the everyday game in good and bad ways.
So the constant "progress" does affect the overall game in many different ways. Most ways are rather unfair and for silly reasons, but it does happen and will continue to.
Geoff
-
That makes great sense to me, David.
But the $64K question is, will that make any sense to the 98%?
In any case, you have made a good start, as the 98% is now down to 97.999 - you've convinced me! ;)
TH
-
Are non-pro big hitters hitting the ball farther and turning the great courses into pitch and putts? Are the great private clubs pitch and putts for members? I understand that the pros are murdering courses, but there is a flip side to some of the technology advances.
Jeff, courses certainly aren't pitch and putts for me either. But the problem is that courses are being built, and more importantly, "restored" with the professsional golfer in mind. As the distance between the pro golfer and the recreational golfer grows, it becomes impossible to accomodate both on the same course.
-
I concede the point. Even more, I have heard discussed here that sometimes club members don't want their course to have the reputation of being too easy (or having slow greens), so they are often willing to undertake renovations and (and speed up greens, which requires softening them) that may hurt original features.
Jeff
-
But the $64K question is, will that make any sense to the 98%?
I think the p.r. machines at Titleist and Nike could go a long way to selling the idea . . . if their bottom line depended on it.
I can see the Nike add now. Tiger Woods on a course with some overweight hack (me, for instance;) Tiger crushes one 300 down the middle and looks satisfied; Hack slaps one 270 with a smug look on his face. Tiger looks frustrated. Cut to long par 3; Tiger pulls a 5 iron and knocks it stiff; hack pulls a 4 iron and hits it just outside Tiger. Tiger scowls and shakes his head. Cut to black screen with white lettering, and swoosh. "The new Nike Rec 4. Distance that will make even a Tiger sweat."
-
That's perfect, David. You sure you aren't an ad exec? ;)
TH
-
My suggestion above might also go a long ways toward cutting down any perceived damages these companies might dream up in the inevitable lawsuit that would follow the roll back.
Arguably because these companies receive the vast majority of their income from the recreational golfer, a limit that might actually help the recreational golfer would be difficult to characterize as bad for business.
-
I still think that it really comes down to the fact that only players generating clubhead spead in the 120 MPH range are seeing real benefit, so the answer to me is to roll back to a 1994 type ball that all manufacturers can produce(spec wise). Let the PGA Tour start it, and then see if the USGA will follow suit for US AM and other events. I like the idea of the average 15 handicapper using whatever he wants, but events played at a professional level, or perhaps even at the highest amateur level, have some standardized ball, just like baseball with aluminum versus wood bats...
-
Fellows:
Other than speculating on ways that the manufacturers might factor in diminishing distance return over 109mph for the long hitting pros and such so as not to affect the rest of the 98%, just consider this.
Certainly this is a bit of a simplification but some tech people seem to starting to agree with this. Some have even said that when the USGA created the present ODS back in 1974 they factored in some kind of discount factor that it would take golf balls a number of years to reach the 109mph ODS limit for distance production at the "pass/fail" line of app 296 yds! Some say we're actually just getting there now.
That doesn't sound too logical to me somehow. Why would it take the manufacturers about 20 years to get to the ODS "pass/fail" limit of 296yds? Certainly the manufacturers were not unaware of that factored in distance discount, if it were true which it probably isn't.
The truth is these pros today could probably hit a 1975 pinnacle in the exact neighborhood of what they're hitting their present balls in (despite Shivas's personal stats).
The way the manufacturers did this is pretty simple. They combined the pinnacle into the old tour pro soft ball by what's now called "optimization".
The regulatory bodies did not have to worry about distance problems with that 98% back in 1974 and they don't have to worry about distance problems with that 98% now.
So if they don't want to hurt the 98% by rolling back ODS then don't roll back ODS.
Just ask the manufacturers (actually demand of the manufacturers) that they basically DEoptimize the golf ball which probably in effect was no more than those manufacturers finally figuring out a way to combine (unify")the old soft feel ball with the pinnacle.
The solution here would simply become "DEoptimization" or "UNunification" (of the pinnacle and soft ball) because none of any of these various balls have ever been over the ODS line anyway. In essence this would be the new legislation and ODS would not have to be touched.
You can call the solution a Tour competition ball or whatever, but in effect all it would really be is about the same thing as the old Titleist balata. Regulate that DEOptimization or "UNunification" with rules and regs and that's the solution forever!
Then the tour players could have a choice (just like they used to). They could use the soft ball or they could hit a ball that felt like the old pinnacle that goes a lot farther. They didn't hit that thing back then and then wouldn't do it now or in the future.
This is all basically just regulating a return or rollback of the golf ball manufacturing world to what it was about ten years ago which was basically two vastly different types of ball and the "DEoptimization" rules and regs becomes the only new wrinkle in overall ODS! Back in 1974 there were no ODS rules or regs that the manufacturers could not combine, optimize or unify the two types of ball into one and there's nothing like that now. But there needs to be!
Getting the manufacturers to do this might be sort of tough but if they agreed to those new "DEoptimization" rules and regs (super simple rollback) actually doing it technically would be a super snap!
I know I've said this before on here but where does this recommendation fall apart?
-
TEP: the only stumbling block I see to this very well-reasoned proposal is how do you measure the "deoptomization" factor of this ball? Can "softness" be measured?
I'm not saying it can't, only asking. If it can, than this seems to be one hell of a good solution... although you would still have the same legal issues (potential lawsuits by manufacturers) as any change to the equipment rules is going to have. I'm just gonna punt on that and assume such can be overcome.
TH
-
I agree with Dave that the root of the problem is that the ball manufactuers have concentrated all their efforts into making their premium brand fly farther for the elite golfer with highest swing speed. Think about it, can you remember a golf ball commercial that touts the benefits of any ball for the below average player? One of the most popular balls of the last 2 years was the Precept Lady, which accidentally found favor, after someone started hitting his wifes and noticed it went farther for him too! Manufactuers only jumped on the band wagon after the fact.
Maybe it's time that the regulators say that they will no longer allow balls to be taylored to specific swing speeds. All balls will need to be tested at 80, 110, and 140 mph, and the performance has to be linear, i.e., there will be the same distance seperating each of the test drives. Surely they would then have to redesign the ball so it doesn't go as far at the 140 mph speed and help its' 80 mph performance. This would seem to be an easy point to sell, the longer hitters will still be longer, the ball will perform equally for all classes of player, a noble aspiration. And as Dave mentioned the manufactuers can finally put their best minds to work on making us hacks longer, and therefore close the distance gap by pulling us towards them.
-
TomH:
Unfortunately I'm a dunce on technology issues. Clearly you're asking how can you get the genie back in the bottle?
I don't know--all I know is there's a solution to any problem if everyone wants there to be which starts by recognizing and admitting there is a problem.
How can softness be measured? I don't know. Or even if it could how could it be measured in relation or in combination to the distance any measurably soft ball goes?
Is it possible for the regulatory bodies to simply analyze the entire evolution of "optimization" (both in R&D and manufacturing) that began about ten years ago and then just simply ban the whole process of "optimization"? Maybe instead of not only testing future balls for distance they can just break them open also and analyze their compositons and if they conform to composition standards in relation to their distance standards.
But I don't really know TomH. But I do believe solutions to those sorts of problems could be found.
I believe it so much I'd like to now propose that you and me get some grub money up and buy ourselves as many balata tree plantations in Indonesia as we can get our hands on!
-
Shivas;
In some kinds of problem solving I'm always looking for what I call "similarities of interest".
You appear to have idenified some "similarities of interest" between the regulatory bodies and Wally. Could be a pretty powerful combination to get things to begin to roll BACK. Who cares what they're separate motives are? All that matters is that the end result is the same! Christ, this could be wonderful! Some manufacturer decides to sue the USGA and that manufacturer immediately gets hit by a massive countersuit from Titleist!
Somebody should call Wally and tell him; "Wally, have I got an idea for you!"
Do you want to call him or should I?
-
But I don't really know TomH. But I do believe solutions to those sorts of problems could be found.
I believe it so much I'd like to now propose that you and me get some grub money up and buy ourselves as many balata tree plantations in Indonesia as we can get our hands on!
Sounds good to me, TEP. I believe there must be an answer to this also, just thought I asked you cuz you so frequently have these things perfectly worked out!
Long live balata!
TH
-
Clearly noted in this thread is the straighter AND longer issue, where the strategic choices that the architect put before the players, even at the level of longer-hitting 3-4 handicappers, are now simple carries or blow-it-over-the-trees corner cuts.
Golf is still golf, that is, a game of temperament, not one of wits, and a 5-footer for a half at dormie-1 is not aided too much by the equipment, but the strategic thinking asked of the players by the architect is getting irrelevant because the choices are easier to make.
The reason I lost interest in tennis was that it became just a power game and the finesse was hard to spot in between the grunts and smashed overheads. Golf is headed into the same problem.
-
TEPaul, an interesting proposal but I think it has some problems.
1. As Tom H mentioned, quantifying your plan into a reasonable standard might be difficult.
2. Even if you could quantify it, unless your plan went so far as to dictate exactly how the ball was built, the companies will likely find a way around your limitation, just as they have the ODS.
3. Also, if the USGA dictated exactly how the ball was built (making a competition ball without calling it so) the ball companies would not likely take it well. It is one thing to say, "Do whatever you want so long as your ball cannot go any further than X yards under Y conditions." It is quite another to say, build the ball exactly this way, or we will not allow you to play our game. For one thing, I think the latter is much more susceptible to lawsuits. (For example, I imagine the small ball manufacturers would view such a draconian rule as locking the market share status quo into place, and unreasonably favoring the large companies by eliminating all future competition and innovation.)
4. Lastly, whether you call it a competition ball or not, your suggestion would create a separate set of rules for the pros.
I do agree, however, that the goal of any plan should be to find as many "similarities of interest" as we can amongst the parties. But I don't agree that we should count on Titleist seeing it our way, and defending reform in the courts. When Titleist starts jumping to the defense of the USGA, we have a potential conflict of interest/antitrust problem on our hands.
-
Dave Moriarty:
I agree with you on #3.
For comparison's sake, when the California Air Resources Board wanted cleaner burning gasoline, they just published the specs gasoline must meet, reducing acceptable limits of chemical properties deemed harmful to the environment.
They never told oil companies HOW to meet the new specs. CARB just said somehow it must be done.
The difference here is that golf ball manufacturers simply need to revert to older, cheaper manufacturing standards. It is not the least bit difficult to do.
Oil companies, on the other hand, needed to invest lots of money and stretch the limits of oil refining technology to produce cleaner fuels.
-
Pete L, we are definitely on the same wave length here. I actually took a Lady Precept paragraph out of my post to keep it from being confusing.
One of the things that I like about this approach is that it has the potential to keep the advantage of length, while at the same time curving the disproportionate advantage that the current equipment is giving long hitters.
Tim, that is a good example of the kind of approach I am talking about.
Not sure the old companies would back up to old production methods, though. I tend to look at as an opportunity for the companies to use their technology and R and D to meet the limitation while still distinguishing themselves and while still benefiting their players and customers. In short, it keeps the possibility for competitiveness and innovation open.
-
Think about this - when Phil Mickelson can drive a 403-yard par 4 like he did at the 10th at Phoenix, most every course is obsolete!
-
Paul:
Theoretically most every other course would be obsolete but not actually, unless Phil joins most every other course.
-
Tom:
Then let's change that to read:
>Think about this - when Phil Mickelson can drive a 403-yard par 4 like he did at the 10th at Phoenix, most every tournament course is now obsolete!
:'( :-[ :P :'(
-
How far did Phil hit his 4 drives on 10 at Phoenix last year?
-
Geoff,
It was about a year ago that some were stating that the ball had maxed out. One year later, it's going farther.
Articles in recent publications seem to indicate that research that can improve golf balls is ongoing and that new materials are being developed which may allow the ball to be propelled even farther.
The PGA has some vestigal restrictions from the Ping lawsuit.
I doubt the manufacturers are going to endorse flat or diminished sales, hence, a USGA competition ball, that filters down to regional, state and local golf associations and into the golf clubs themselves, seems like the only viable alternative.
This method would seem to avoid costly litigation because only competitors in USGA events would be required to play this ball. If regional, state and local golf associations followed the lead, gradually, more and more play would gravitate toward the competition ball. If clubs adopted the USGA competition ball for club tournaments the cycle would be complete.
It wouldn't be a quick fix, but a practical one, over time, with the desired results, without the legal headaches.
After the introduction of the USGA competiton ball, the PGA Tour COULD adopt the same ball for tournament play.
And even if they didn't, so what. They're haven't played with the same balls as the public since..... forever.
ANGC could also adopt the USGA competition ball for play at The Masters.
Wishful thinking ? Yes, but it just might be possible, over time.
-
There is a fear, often expressed here, that a Competition Ball would mean that the pros and the rest of us are playing a different game.
Aside from that fact that I believe all serious competitive golfers, from tournament-quality amateurs down to ambitous junior golfers, would quickly switch to a tournament ball, I really can't see a problem with two sets of rules. Titleist, Callaway, Nike and the other ball manufacturers would continue to manufacture millions of non-Competition balls each year for the 98% of players (to use Tom H.'s figure) who care more about how far their drives go than they do about the good of the Game of Golf.
The ball manufacturers could still claim to make the Longest Ball. They could still pay gobs of endorsement money to Brad Faxon and Esteban Toledo for wearing their corporate logos -- even though the public would clearly understand that the Titleist Faxon and Toledo play is a throttled-back version of the Titleist sold over the counter.
Would the game truly suffer under this scenario? More than it is suffering now?
-
Geoff,
It was about a year ago that some were stating that the ball had maxed out. One year later, it's going farther.
Articles in recent publications seem to indicate that research that can improve golf balls is ongoing and that new materials are being developed which may allow the ball to be propelled even farther.
Back the first paragraph with some FACTS.
Where are these articles?
-
more proof that the pro's are hitting it too far from GolfWorld:
>Tee Shots
Forty players averaged over 300 yards off the tee at the Phoenix Open. Forty. Four-oh. Jay Williamson pumped it out there 303.6 yards. Skip Kendall's measured drives were 301.4. "It seems like everybody is hitting the ball 10 million miles," said John Huston. Indian Wells, one of the courses in this week's Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, measures 6,475 yards. This equates to multiple 59s. The weapons inspectors will start showing up at Pebble.
-
the problem, guys, is that you've GOTTA have one set of rules.
I -- an avowed pansy-assed copout compromiser -- have just one question: Why? Why have you GOTTA have one set of rules?
Please answer Rick's questions, while you're at it:
"Would the game truly suffer under this scenario? More than it is suffering now?"
-
There may or may not be anything to this but I thought it was sort of interesting nonetheless.
In the 1993 Rules Book and Decisions Book under the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) App.III(e), the wording is thus;
"A brand of golf ball, when tested on the apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards plus a tolerance of 6%. The 6% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved".
I calculate the average maximum distance at a 4% tolerance to be 291.2 yards.
The wording in the 2002-2003 Rules and Decision books on the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) reads thus:
"The combined carry and roll of the ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the United States Golf Association, shall not exceed the distance specified under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the United States Golf Association."
I'm quite certain there're a number of you tech minded people out there who might wonder why any mention of actual average maximum distance has been removed from the book and who also might be interested in getting a look at the ODS standards that are on file from 1993 to present and seeing exactly how they compare.
I expect to be up at the USGA anyway to do some research on architecture and maybe I'll just pop on over to the test center and see what I can see. But even if they told me the technicalities of ODS from then to know I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
Unfortunately, there's sort of vague question in the back of my mind, though, asking if they understand it completely. There was a contributor on here recently, though, who appears to know what goes on up in Far Hills who mentioned they have some very smart tech minds up there so maybe we should all continue to have faith.
-
;D
I'd love a look at the usga data. Can't see any of this long hitting ending, so I say max it out titleist, pinnacle, robin hood! deoptimization or competition ball ??? harrrrrummmmph! Get real. You can't stop innovation any more than capitalism. And there'll always be those who bomb it over the dogleg traps or trees, if the risk reward equation is right.
I don't play with the pros or their quality of equipment, i don't work 8 hours a day at golf, i'll rarely play any of their manicured go farther set-up courses.. why should I really care how far they hit it? Still like to watch them swing on TV, and will do so in person if given a chance.
I don't hit it very far because of a bad shoulder, but I enjoy the short game. I also don't buy golf balls,.. find way too many while just walking (love those cart path only days, and hunting for those white five dollar bills if there's time)..
If a golfer in Chicago can hit to a three shotter in two, more power to them or an amatuer destroy an aged icon of usa golf, enjoy it.. the king is dead, long live the king..
MIckelson and his pro buddies have to compete at an extremely high level, with extremely high stakes, and I can't believe there's not some gamesmanship going on out there in any statement made by them. If they think its going farther and there's some circumstantial evidence to associate with, let them them prove it makes a difference in the $ and win columns. ernie did it for a couple of weeks, but lost one because of poor driving, course management and putting,.. go figure, humans are still playing the game of golf.
-
I just read some incredible stats about Phil's performance at Phoenix.
-- On Sunday he hit an 8-iron second shot to the 13th, a 595-yard par 5.
--On the 438-yard 18th, he had 76 yards to the front of the green.
-
"On a local radio show Andrew Magee lampooned the USGA for its technology tests. He later recanted, but THE FACT REMAINS EVEN THE LADS ARE WONDERING WHERE THIS IS GOING AND WHEN WILL IT END."
So it's not just us on GCA that are upset with the technology issue, it's the boys on the Tour as well.
-quote from GolfWorld
-
Add Gary Player to the list. Yesterday he was sitting in the booth with the guys covering the Seniors (or "Champions") event in Hawaii, and he said, "The ball's going too far, everyone knows it, and everyone knows something's got to be done about it," or words to that effect.
If you don't mind seeing Tom Kite hit all four par 5s in two shots, then you don't have a problem with the game as it's being played now on the pro tours. I don't think that's golf.
Competition ball, or roll back the ODS. One or the other. Player's right -- something's got to be done, and (almost) everybody knows it.
-
Rick:
You are right on when you said:
>Competition ball, or roll back the ODS. One or the other.
>Player's right -- something's got to be done, and (almost)
>everybody knows it.
It seems everyone is aware of it and knows about it. The question is when are the USGA, R & A, and the PGA Tour going to do something about it? ??? ???
-
from Jan 31st GolfWorld, in the Tee Shots column, Tim Rosaforte says,
"Still think the driving distance averages were overhyped in Hawaii? Think wind and roll distorted the figures?
Apparently it wasn't just an 'island thing.' Two players averaged more than 300 yards at Kapalua, and eigth at Waialae.
FORTY hit that mark in Scottsdale, with the field averaging 301.3.
To those who still believe the ball isn't going farther, maybe we can get a more accurate reading when they're driving par 4s this week at Indian Wells."
-
Dan Pohl, ex-PGA Tour leading-distance driver, even says in another Rosaforte article that these guys are hitting it too far:
"Pohl sees some of the players averaging more than 300 yards - 40 such pro's reached that figure last week - and waves a red flag. 'Something is wrong,' he said, 'if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'
He compared how the par 5s were played at the TPC of Scottsdale this year against his era. The third hole, for example, was reachable in the '80s and '90s by 'only a handful of guys.' Last week players were reaching the 554-yard hole en masse. 'There were 15 guys who could reach the par 5s,' Pohl said. 'The Phil Blackmars and the Dan Forsmans were the long drivers. Jay Haas was not knocking it on the par 5s, but he is today. Same with a guy like Fred Funk. They're making the par 5s obsolete."
-
Paul Richards quotes Dan Pohl saying:
'Something is wrong if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'
Anybody have such numbers? My understanding is that the pros’ club-head speed is much faster than in years past.
He compared how the par 5s were played at the TPC of Scottsdale this year against his era.
I’ve watched a lot of pro golf in my life, and I can’t think of a single lay up shot that really made me sit up and notice. The most memorable were probably Chip Beck and David Toms. I can think of a number of drives, approaches, tee shots on one-shot holes, pitches, chips, sand shots and putts, but not a single lay up that amazed me. There sure are a lot of people who miss the pros laying up. What is there to miss?
I’m not a fan of par. It’s a silly number for competitions where you are not competing against par. For an imaginary number it has caused countless harm to the game.
But why not change it for the pros? Holes 300 yards and under would be considered par-3s and holes greater than 300 are par-4s. Most courses would be par-68. Wouldn’t that make everyone happy with considerably less expense, including lawyer fees? How many would be bothered to learn than Mike Weir was victorious at the Bob Hope Classic averaging two shots under par per round?
Dan King
"Watching Chip Beck play the last four holes of the Masters, one sensed he was trying to win the tournament's coveted Green Vest."
--Ray Ratto (San Francisco Examiner columnist, on Beck playing cautiously in the last few holes of the 1993 Masters despite being only a few shots behind eventual winner Bernhard Langer)
-
;D
Multiple players over 300 yards! How horrible! It sounds more like parity coming to the game. And did I miss something, didn't VJ win there in Phoenix, not MIckelson? Why should only a few be able to blast that far? Can we only handle having a few "favorites" in our mindsets?
I never remember Pohl, Blackmar and Forsman dominating any number of golf events.. Blackmar barely won the Shell Houston Open one year, mainly by not chipping it into the water on 17 at the TPC in a treacherous hill side shot from behind the green.
Do we forget about the dark side of this length?
-
Dan, whenever I read your recent posts on technology and length, I keep thinking back to your recent positon on walking vs. riding.
If I recall correctly, when it comes to walking, you are concerned for the greater good of the game, and think that the rampant use of carts is damaging golf architecture. Yet, when you discuss length and technology, you don't ever seem to consider the threat that ever increasing length poses to past and present architecture.
Sure, the new technology doesn't ruin any courses for you and me. In fact, it just might make the game more fun for the two of us. But, unfortunately, very few architects, developers, and greens committees are building or renovating courses with you or me in mind. They are building tracks that they hope will be "championship" courses to challenge, in theory, the best of the best. In short, much like the cartballers, these monster hitters are ruining golf course architecture for the rest of us.
I wish I was a master of quotes like you, so I could pull up a certain MacKenzie quote from Spirit of St. Andrews. While discussing how increasing technology and distance were damaging the game, the good Dr. commented that he used to be able to play a match with his friends in a little over two hours. At the time he wrote the book, the new technology and distance had slowed rounds down so much that he could barely complete a match in 3 hours! How long do you suppose it will take to walk a round on a course that plays at over 8000 yds?
-
I am curious how much the conditioning of the fairways the pros play affects the distances they are achieving. When the pros ball lands its bounces like it just landed on a runway, and I don't think it has much to do with their launch angle or trajectory. I know the ball IS going further irregardless of conditioning, but I wonder how much effect the "concrete" the balls are landing on affects all this.
-
Eddie
Not a fan of firm conditions? ::)
-
Paul Richards quotes Dan Pohl saying:
'Something is wrong if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'
Anybody have such numbers? My understanding is that the pros’ club-head speed is much faster than in years past.
Whether the average player on tour today has more clubhead speed is irrelevant to Pohl's point that some of the SAME GUYS that couldn't reach that hole in the 80s are doing it today. Not many people have more clubhead speed in their 40s than they did in their 20s -- and no, some buddy who took lessons and improved his swing isn't the same thing as a tour pro finding a way to generate more clubhead speed without compromising accuracy. Many of them scale back their clubhead speed after a few years on tour to increase accuracy.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if guys like Haas and Funk do generate a few mph more clubhead speed today than they did back then, but that'd be mainly due to big headed drivers being more forgiving and today's ball taking less spin (both back and side) off the driver than it did back then. Instead of taking their 85% swing most of the time, maybe they can take their 90% swing now and hit the same number of fairways.
-
DMoriarty writes:
If I recall correctly, when it comes to walking, you are concerned for the greater good of the game, and think that the rampant use of carts is damaging golf architecture. Yet, when you discuss length and technology, you don't ever seem to consider the threat that ever increasing length poses to past and present architecture.
I don't see the connection. I've also never said that their needs to be some sort of Draconian rules change to deal with the cart-ball problem. I think it is in the process of taking care of itself.
One of the things I'd like to see is a more distinct separation between the pro game and all the rest. I keep hearing that it is important we keep one set of rules, but I've never heard a convincing reason why. I hear a lot of wannabe pros who like to compare themselves to their heroes, but other sports have handled the separation fine with no loss of fan interest.
The need for length is fictitious. It is a very small percentage of golfers who have outgrown most courses. From what I've seen it is much less than .01 percent of golfers who are hitting the ball out there more than 280 yards.
If I want to build a recreational baseball park I have no reason to worry about Barry Bonds or Randy Johnson. If either were to ever stop by and play they are going to demolish the park. I can live with that.
There are numerous easier, cheaper methods to fix the pro game. I'm amazed that so many people are obsessed with the ball with no consideration for other fixes.
The people on this group pushing for a reduced-distance ball haven't done any studies or made any attempt to get any information beyond the anecdotal. I challenged people concerned about the ball to go out to any course and count how many people are hitting it past 280 yards. Nobody has made any attempt to gather numbers. Supposedly there is this huge problem with people now so long that courses have lost their challenge, but yet there is no data to back it up.
But, unfortunately, very few architects, developers, and greens committees are building or renovating courses with you or me in mind. They are building tracks that they hope will be "championship" courses to challenge, in theory, the best of the best.
And with the economy now in the toilet, there is a damn good chance they are going to go under along with the cart-ball courses. It's Darwinism at work. There have been a lot of stupid ideas in golf over the years, luckily the USGA and R&A haven't had knee-jerk rules changes every time someone comes up with a new stupid idea.
I wish I was a master of quotes like you, so I could pull up a certain MacKenzie quote from Spirit of St. Andrews.
See below quote.
While discussing how increasing technology and distance were damaging the game
During Mackenzie's life time there were no ball restrictions. Now there is. Mackenzie's wish came true. Yet we are playing rounds that are taking a heck of a lot longer than three hours.
Doug Siebert writes:
Whether the average player on tour today has more clubhead speed is irrelevant to Pohl's point that some of the SAME GUYS that couldn't reach that hole in the 80s are doing it today.
If there swings changed, why would it be irrelevant? The PGA Tour® has made their course setup much more consistent since the 80s. Players can swing away with little or no fear. They get consistent rough and consistent sand in the hazards. They have wedges that can bail them out of any sort of trouble they might get into. Pros used to lay up to specific distances, now they can swing away and choose from one of their four wedges.
Instead of taking their 85% swing most of the time, maybe they can take their 90% swing now and hit the same number of fairways.
And if they don't hit the fairways and greens, it's no big deal. The rough and hazards are identical every weekend. If the hazards are reduced and they have enough clubs to not have any distance issues, why would any pros now hold back?
If the concern is the pro game: make the course setup more inconsistent; reduce par; reduce the number of clubs they can use; be specific about lofts they are allowed to use. All of these solutions are cheaper and easier to implement than changing the golf ball.
I'm still wondering what would be so terrible about eliminating the concept of par-5s for the pros? Who is going to miss the second-shot lay up?
Dan King
"Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours."
--Alister MacKenzie
-
I've also never said that their needs to be some sort of Draconian rules change to deal with the cart-ball problem.
What would be Draconian about tweaking an existing rule that might not be working as it was intended?
One of the things I'd like to see is a more distinct separation between the pro game and all the rest. . . .
So would I, but this is not going to happen. I am trying to look at this problem from the perspective of what is actually happening, whether or not it is contrary to what we'd like to see.
There are numerous easier, cheaper methods to fix the pro game. I'm amazed that so many people are obsessed with the ball with no consideration for other fixes.
I don't give a damn about fixing the pro game. My concern is preserving the courses on which the pros might occasionally play.
The people on this group pushing for a reduced-distance ball haven't done any studies or made any attempt to get any information beyond the anecdotal. I challenged people concerned about the ball to go out to any course and count how many people are hitting it past 280 yards.
This study would be completely beside the point, since the courses are being altered with the Pro game in mind, not the rec game in mind.
It's Darwinism at work.
Natural selection is a slow and tedious process. I am afraid your evolutionary cure won't come to pass until after the last of the classic courses have long passed away.
There have been a lot of stupid ideas in golf over the years, luckily the USGA and R&A haven't had knee-jerk rules changes every time someone comes up with a new stupid idea.
This makes sense only if we first establish that the idea is stupid.
During Mackenzie's life time there were no ball restrictions. Now there is. Mackenzie's wish came true. Yet we are playing rounds that are taking a heck of a lot longer than three hours.
Quite an oversimplification, dont you think? I think that MacKenzie might have been "wishing" for a ball restriction that actually limited the distance the ball flew back when a long course was just over 6000 yards. It isn't quite accurate to say that MacKenzie got his wish, is it?
-
I do not think a good player loses clubhead speed until he is really, really, old.
Does anybody here recall what Sam Snead's clubhead speed was in his prime, and what it was when he was the oldest winner in the TOUR'S history?
Did his distance match up with the younger players?
-
Regarding the comment on tight, lower cut fairways, I believe that most of the changes in distance from 1956 to early 1990's were due to better fairways, lower cut/tight fairways, generally prepared firmer. However, golf course conditions probably peaked with regards to "lower cut" in the early/mid 90's, so the last 6-7 years have been pure "ball" in my opinion. I think it is time for a rollback, at least at the top end of the spectrum, but would be okay with everyone rolling back, as I am not sure the 15 handicapper who can hit is 225 with metal/graphite and a pro v1 is much shorter with old technology due to clubhead speed. I think we REWARD those who DO HAVE more clubhead speed, but just need to make a 300 yard drive a BIG ONE again.
-
On one of those challenge golf series playing on the golf channel, snead was hitting it 290+ against bob hope... back in the 60's
-
You've got to admit that although these guys today are definitely carrying the ball a good deal further than they used to the overall yardage distances we'e been seeing in the last few weeks on tour (and quoting the actual yardage distances in horror) has had a more than considerable amount of rollout! Don't tell me that's wrong because I've been watching it with great interest and trying to determine the extent of it. Some of those drives have been rolling maybe 40-50-60-70 or more yards. Anyone ever wonder how Bobby Jones (a known long driver) got his drives out there over 300 yards and more occasioanlly?
-
Probably the more applicable horror today is these tour pros now are hitting their irons about 3-4-5 irons longer and a good deal higher than the did in the old days.
The problem with the drives today I call the "one way stretch" and courses that are old can get lucky if they have available tee elasticity. The thing that's impossible, though, is the other end of the hole--approach to green! That's what I would call the "two way stretch" and clearly that isn't elastic at all. Not unless you can somehow move the green farther from the generally designed LZ and we all know that creates a downright architectural tragedy.
This is another good case for the fix being just ball related and not equipment related. Afterall how much of something like COR could a solid iron have?
-
Tom,
Graphite Shafts, Longer shafts, Less loft on equivalently numbered irons, perimeter weighting that guarantees more solid contact that allows for players to be less afraid to swing harder. None of these have anything to do with the ball, but can all produce iron shots that go farther than before. And lets not even get into the weight room, shall we? Or better technique.
Andy,
Given the above and all the changes we've seen in drivers how can you say it is just the ball?
By the way, what happened to all the 59s that everyone was predicting for last week. We couldn't even get a 60 out of these guys. I thought there were good. ;)
There are so many factors that are causing the extra length that I have a hard time hearing everyone just blame the ball.
By the way shivas, Ernie's 342 yard average was for Sunday. He was considerably shorter the rest of the week (around 305 I think ::) And given the amount of roll they were getting at Royal Melbourne, I'm not really that surprised.
-
John V:
It was wet and windy the first two days of the Heineken. That surely cut down on distance -- just as the wind Sunday at the Hope made the scores go up.
I don't think anyone is claiming the ball is the only reason the pros are reducing 7200-yard courses to pitch-and-puts; I think what's being said here is that changing the ball would be the easiest way to get the game back into adjustment.
-
JohnV, I only focused on the ball because I think it would be easier to regulate a "tournament ball" than to face the lawsuits from the manufacturers if the clubs were touched. I believe it is the easiest way to address the issue. I am ALL FOR players shooting lower scores by being more physically fit, better instruction, and better conditioned golf courses, just like the 4 minutes miles, achieved in 1954 continued to be lowered. Can't stop progress, but the ball does seem to be a good way to have some restraint...
-
Paul- Did Lefty win in Pheonix? No, so why is it such a big deal what he hit into any hole.
The Hope finish was interesting for a couple reasons. One; It seemed eerily similar to last years finish with a ball in the water on 18 deciding victory. Wier's decision to not play the cut shot(severe downhill lie) over the water was where Berganio's downfall fell. But, the evidence that the ball was negligable came way before that starting with DiMarco's snowman and Lumpy's foozeling of what should've been a 5 iron, wedge no brainer. Instead he asks his caddie how far to the bunker too late. Point being one still must think and deal with the pressure of leading on Sunday no matter how far you hit.
The only ones having to play 12,000 yard courses will be the top 1%. The tour needs to do thier own building of courses to adequatly reflect the widening of the gaps in abilities. Not to mention put food on the tables of all the poor architects out there. Ayuh?
-
That's right--most people are recognizing that there may be a number of contributing factors but that the ball could be the simplest way to fix the extreme distances generated lately. Better that way than to get into all the technicalities of equipement since most was the "I" side may be sort of maxed out anyway.
As for the athletes being bigger and stronger, the USGA has never ever said that's something they ever would be interested in regulating to affect distance. That's just the golfer unaided and his increasing skill level. To whatever degree that is making the ball go farther the regulatory bodies aren't really interested in. They just don't like the concept of the theoretically constant athlete being completely aided by technology. At least that's the way they term it.
As for things like the distance dilemma though one would have to think what's going on with the Senior tour though would be the best evidence that technology has far more of an effect than they would like it to.
-
And lets not even get into the weight room, shall we? Or better technique.
JohnV: I think you've hit on something here!
For the good of the game, let's ban the use of the weight room, or any exercise routine more regimented than a nightly stumble from bar to bed. While we're at it, let's impose a minimum body fat level at 15% and require the players to drink at least one case of beer a week. Instead of fancy sponsor-pro dinners, every night we can have a open pit pork roast where the pros mingle with the real fans. We can enforce a curfew requiring all Tour players to stay up at least until midnight, 2 A.M. on the weekends. Requiring everyone to smoke on the course might be too draconian, so those that do not wish to smoke on the course will be given the option of drinking heavily at the turn and on the back nine.
As far as technique goes, I think a few well-placed bone breaks would cure some of these silky smooth swings, and return a little character to the golf swing. Plus, this would take the game more multicultural by allowing us to get more Italians directly involved in the game.
Just think, we could bring back character to the courses and players in one fell swoop.
-
Tom,
So what happens if we take the ball back so far that we take away some of the hard earned skill and physical stature that caused the increase in length. Isn't that unfair to the guys who worked so hard? How can you measure what percentage is due to the ball/club and what is due to the player? Have Tiger, Ernie and Phil go out an play with old balls just to see how far they would hit it and then scale it back by that much?
By the way, the USGA's theoretically constant athlete known as Iron Byron isn't hitting it any further than he did before, unless you think that the USGA is lieing and letting balls go through that violate their ODS. All changes are due to increases in ability and Instruments, not the ball (other than the fact that all balls go to the max whereas the soft balls the pros used didn't before.)
-
John V:
You can't take away anyone's skill or physical stature. If pro golf went to a Competition Ball, Tiger, Ernie and the other long hitters would still be the long hitters, thanks to their skill and phsycial ability. And they'd still outhit most amateurs (including me) who used the current balls.
If all golf balls were restricted or rolled back, Tiger, Ernie and the other pros would still outdrive the rest of us by 100 yards. No one wants to limit their relative distance to the rest of the pack. No one could.
-
How can you measure what percentage is due to the ball/club and what is due to the player?
Why do we have to fix the problem in the same proportions as the cause? It doesnt really matter what led to the problem, we just have to find the simplest solution to fix it. The ball seems simplest, since some regulations already exist.
By the way, the USGA's theoretically constant athlete known as Iron Byron isn't hitting it any further than he did before, unless you think that the USGA is lieing and letting balls go through that violate their ODS.
I think this has more to do with the possible shortcomings in of the USGAs method of testing. In a driving contest between Tiger and Iron Byron, who would you take?
-
Why do we have to fix the problem in the same proportions as the cause? It doesnt really matter what led to the problem, we just have to find the simplest solution to fix it. The ball seems simplest, since some regulations already exist.
Because if you took away some of the yardage that a player gained because of his increased strength or swing, you would be failing to reward him for his abilities. If you just arbitrarily roll back the ball some percentage as many here have argued, you would be penalizing the guys who worked hard to get better. Sure they would still hit it further than the others, but not by as much, which might take away one or two clubs worth of advantage on the second shot that they rightfully earned.
The only way I can see to do this would be only switch the club on the Iron Byron to a more modern one without changing the speed of the swing. See how far the balls go and decide if you need to change the ODS because of that new club, do it. That way you would only be changing the factors that can be purchased off the shelf and not the hard work.
I think this has more to do with the possible shortcomings in of the USGAs method of testing. In a driving contest between Tiger and Iron Byron, who would you take?
Obviously I'd take Tiger, although IB is probably straighter, but that is irrelevant. The USGA hasn't changed their testing methodology or the maximum distance that a ball can travel. Therefore, the fact that players swing faster and use fancier clubs that propel the ball further is the primary reason the ball goes farther.
Give Tiger today's clubs and a 1980 version ball. Do you think he would be that much shorter? I don't.
There are way too many variables in this equation for the simplistic solution of just arbitrarily rolling back the ball.
-
"Tom,
So what happens if we take the ball back so far that we take away some of the hard earned skill and physical stature that caused the increase in length. Isn't that unfair to the guys who worked so hard?"
JohnV:
That's such a good and fundamental question--certainly not one that could have an easy answer.
But we can't forget to look carefully at what golf really is or probably should be. As Malcolm Campbell said;
"It opens up the joys of the great outdoors, the chance to pit one's skill against nature, an opponent and one's self."
So as such, most particularly relative to 'an opponent', golf can be looked at very much in a relative sense, so what does it matter really how far the ball goes (within reason)? Each golfer regardless of the skill level he's developed today should not really lose anything or even have it altered when you look at what he can accomplish relative to another golfer. In other words Tiger may only hit the ball 280 but he should not lose or have altered that percentage advantage he now enjoys relative to his opponents.
-
Because if you took away some of the yardage that a player gained because of his increased strength or swing, you would be failing to reward him for his abilities. If you just arbitrarily roll back the ball some percentage as many here have argued, you would be penalizing the guys who worked hard to get better.
John, you really lose me here. The relative strength of the golfer compared to all other golfers will not change one single bit. We would not be weighing select golfers down like we do horses. So long as they are all playing a ball that qualifies under the same rule, what is the problem?
Under your reasoning, it would be unfair to hold tournaments at sea level or at extremely humid, "heavy air" courses, or at courses with wet or uphill fairways, because at those courses the strong, strapping young professional would not able to fully utilize the absolute distance (as contrasted with relative distance) to which you seem to believe his increased strength entitles him.
Sure they would still hit it further than the others, but not by as much, which might take away one or two clubs worth of advantage on the second shot that they rightfully earned.
I don't know what you mean by "rightfully earned." Are you suggesting that there is something inherently fair about the current technology so that a certain increase in strength exactly equals a properly proportionate increase in advantage? What is this proper proportion and how do you calculate it? Were golf courses inherently unfair to strong players in the days before manufacturers could precisely tune equipment to a professionals' swings to maximize his advantage? Why wouldnt this still be true with different technological limitations?
What if golf is currently inherently unfair because the guy with a minimal increase in strength gains a huge advantage over others who are only slightly weaker? What if, with today's technology, as strength increases linearly, advantage increases geometrically, thus disporportionately advantaging the stronger golfer? Isnt this what is happening in golf today?
The USGA hasn't changed their testing methodology or the maximum distance that a ball can travel. Therefore, the fact that players swing faster and use fancier clubs that propel the ball further is the primary reason the ball goes farther.
Do you think it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the USGA rules that equipment manufacturers have managed circumvent the rule to build a combination of equipment that "propels the ball further" than the USGA limitation?
There are way too many variables in this equation for the simplistic solution of just arbitrarily rolling back the ball.
Who says rolling back the ball would necessarily be "arbitrary?"
-
I'm still wondering what would be so terrible about eliminating the concept of par-5s for the pros? Who is going to miss the second-shot lay up?
Forget the lay up, Els hit an 8 iron into a 550 yard hole last week. Shouldn't reaching par 5s at least require a harder shot than a long par 4 required in the past? No one will remember a great shot like Hogan's famous 1 iron (hit on a par 4, of course) No one wil be using clubs that long except on a 650 yard hole!
-
Just to add a different twist to the whole technology discussion, check out the article I wrote regarding technology and what I believe its effect will be on the pace of play.
http://www.ngcoa.ca/shtml/golf_business_magazine/online/2001winter/contents.shtml
Bill Yates
www.pacemanager.com
-
shivas,
www.pgatour.com.au
records that Ernie Els hit the ball 317 for the week at Melbourne. Does that tour measure in yards and meters. I know the courses and in Australia are marked in meters but does the tour measure in meters.
Ernie's drives were 290 305 347 276 345 290 370? 315
Average 317.3 yards of meters?
-
No one will remember a great shot like Hogan's famous 1 iron (hit on a par 4, of course)
I will remember Beemer's 270 yd fairway wood at Hazeltine to the par 5. His walking while encouraging it was priceless. Oh yeah, beating Tiger didn't suck.
-
Those statistics are in yards.
Interestingly, Ernie's average last week was 3.5 yards shorter than Stephen Gallacher's average at the same venue last year.
-
I have been told that Hogan was actually hitting a 2 iron (mid iron) in that famous picture at Merion.
Also, at the 1989 Amateur, most players were hitting middle irons on their approaches into 18.
-
I don't know where I'm going with this other than the obvious -- 8 irons are too easy. Long clubs and chipping are hard. Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.
Obvious to you, and obvious to me -- but not yet obvious to those who make the rules and run the Tours.
When will it be obvious to them?
-
Shiv:
Selective memory. You probably also remember Aoki's WEDGE into 18, Lowery making an albatross after sinking a WEDGE for eagle, Tiger playing the roll on #4 with a WEDGE in his final match at the U.S. Am when they played the TPC, Justin Rose holing a pitch with a WEDGE on the 72nd hole en route to finishing 4th, and Larry Mize holing a pitch with a SAND WEDGE against Norman on #11 at the Masters.
Similarly, you may remember the guy (Lowery again?) holing a DRIVER by caroming off a player in the group ahead on a par 4, Tiger's DRIVER shots in 1997 leaving PW into the #15 at the Masters, Woods and May also cutting up fairways with DRIVER in their epic duel at Valhalla, Daly using a "bulletproof" (it really wasn't) Kevlar DRIVER to waltz to a win at Crooked Stick by blasting past all of the trouble, or Mickelson hitting Wedge to all 4 par 5s at Gaillardia because of his DRIVER and its ability to pound Pro V1s up to 75 yards past Fred Couples.
You could go through with putts as well. Truth is, I think you can remember whatever you choose to. There are just as many great shots hit with those clubs as there are with others.
Interesting note: John Daly won two majors with two drivers only memorable for being so forgettable! Where are they now?
-
I take your point, John, but if you want to stack the two lists of shots side by side, I'm voting for the Shivas Group.
-
This is a very intersting discussion that teeters back and forth on the hope that the governing bodies of golf will eventually take heed. While I too am quite concerned with the whole issue of technological advancements creating obsolescence from some storied golf courses, I have to side with Shackelford to some extent on this one. The governing bodies of golf do not inspire confidence in me, or many others for that matter. Should you be so fortunate to have the opportunity to sit with those bow tied, pompous bureacrats at the USGA you too may realize that hanging your hopes on a modicum on intelligent thought from them is wishful thinking. Obviously golf is a business run by those companies and entities who profit from the game - and as such money talks. To think otherwise given the current situation is naive. Time and time again the USGA has had opportunity to step forward and do the obvious/right thing. Then as if to prove that the distance controversy is mythical they set up Bethpage course so stupidly that few pros could even reach some fairways!
-
jas,
You left out the RandA did you not?
Does wearing a bow tie make me pompous?
Am I even more pompous if I wear a bow tie that I tied myself?