Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mac Plumart on January 04, 2012, 06:53:18 PM
-
I am a big fan of Ian Andrew and I check his blog out quite frequently. I saw this post today...
http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-technology-progress.html (http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-technology-progress.html)
In this post, he states that the growth of the game stagnated with the introduction of the Pro-V. Interesting concept and post. I thought some of you guys would enjoy it.
-
I love Ian's comments in general on GCA.com...but that's quite the stretch in trying to show causality all based on one golf ball.
How about the fact that wages in America have been stagnate and dropping over the last 10 years?
Or that the average person works nearly 10 hours more per week?
Or the invention of other fantastic time wasters like the internet, MMO gaming, smart phones, Video on Demand, etc?
Or that other basic living costs like rent, healthcare, gas prices, grocery prices have sky-rocketed in the last decade?
Or that most households now have dual and triple income earners just to compensate for the above?
People just plain don't have near the same time and choose not to spend money on golf...especially in light of the other cheaper and more readily available distractions.
P.S. And this doesn't even get into the fact that distance increases have been pretty much nil for 90%+ of golfers. We still hit it the same crummy distances that we were 10-15 years ago...even if we do hit it slightly straighter.
-
It has been posited on this website earlier that the ball would have a negative effect analogous to the negative effect that technology advancement in tennis had.
To the extent that there are some added costs for some larger courses, I agree with Ian. However, I see the obscene prices on the clubs to have a larger effect.
-
Growth in what sense?
I think that Tiger's arrival had a tsunami-like effect from 1996-2000, perhaps even 2005. The young'uns that were swept along by his wave, to borrow someone else's notion, then found they had neither the time nor the money to keep playing this game. I believe that the "growth" of the game may have been overstated then.
-
Kalen,
I read A Short History of Progress this week.
It talked a great deal about "the progress trap" where technology often has unexpected and unwanted repercussions.
That was the influence on the piece, along with a running dialogue with Tom Dunne about alternatives for growth in the game.
I think your entirely right with all your observations, but I think the ball has played a role too. The piece was not designed to place all the blame on the ball, but to point out the unexpected consequences that the ball has created. I wanted to show how easy it would be to reduce one of the contributing factors to the rising costs in the game.
-
I think if people read the linked post, Ian makes his case quite clearly that it is a piece of the puzzle and it has certainly had unintended consequences. I thought the piece was well-written and makes a great point...in an almost indisputable way.
Ian, it was never my intention for you to have to defend it. I am sorry if people didn't read it and posted about it anyway. My apologies, perhaps I should have never posted the link. I, quite frankly, just thought it was really well done and directly applicable to the world of architecture.
-
Kalen,
I read A Short History of Progress this week.
It talked a great deal about "the progress trap" where technology often has unexpected and unwanted repercussions.
That was the influence on the piece, along with a running dialogue with Tom Dunne about alternatives for growth in the game.
I think your entirely right with all your observations, but I think the ball has played a role too. The piece was not designed to place all the blame on the ball, but to point out the unexpected consequences that the ball has created. I wanted to show how easy it would be to reduce one of the contributing factors to the rising costs in the game.
Fair enough Ian,
I would certainly agree that its potentially played a role in whats happened over the past 10-12 years. It certainly has been odd how much money has been spent on lengthening courses that certainly didn't seem to need it.
-
Mac,
Thanks for posting the link, I enjoyed reading Ian's post, very interesting.
Mark
-
Ian, A short history of progress is a GREAT book... maybe our government should read it but that's another issue.
On this discussion, I'd like to propose light at the end of the tunnel:
"The world of golf course design and the world of golf in general is in difficult times currently. The number of rounds stagnates or is going down; mainly due to the cost of the game and the time it takes to play it. Golf course architecture has partly been responsible of this situation. The basic point of its mission: to present courses that allow the appreciation of the game par the greatest number, ideally everybody has been forgotten.
The good news is, by changing our approach in golf course architecture, it is possible to change the result. The golf course architect is a vector of change; he can change the current situation by its design decisions and his efforts in educating golfers...."
It's part of my list for the new year on my blog.. feel free to read the list, (the english part is after the french one)
http://binettegolfarchitecture.blogspot.com/2012/01/liste-de-nouvel-new-years-list.html
-
Ian, it was never my intention for you to have to defend it. I am sorry if people didn't read it and posted about it anyway. My apologies, perhaps I should have never posted the link. I, quite frankly, just thought it was really well done and directly applicable to the world of architecture.
Mac,
No sorry is required at all.
If you want to post the whole thing for ease of discussion - go ahead - I'm fine with that.
Kalen,
I think there are holes in my arguement too. :)
-
Ian,
I enjoyed your article. Do you think that producing a ball that also flies lower and runs harder would help grow the game by encouraging firm course conditions that require less water (and might encourage slightly slower green speeds which could also ease the maintenance burden)? This is truly a question, by the way. I know nothing about this kind of stuff.
-
I would say I agree with Ian's arguments about the ball...
but I'm not sure the PRO V1 made the game easier... maybe only for the best of the best, but for the average guy, 10 yards longer (if that) is more than often 10 yards further in the woods.
A question: Wasn't it the architect responsability to at least inform the developer of the impact of building a 7200 yards course.
Since it impact the building cost, buying land cost and maintenance cost on the long term, in a way that course influence the sustainaility of its investment... I would think it is. The owner is still free to built a 7200 yards course after the architect's advice.
-
I read the articulate but rather brief post and would have to agree that the pro v has had a big effect on the game, especially as it relates to the need to lengthen golf courses. But this blurb ignores so many other factors (clubs, player conditioning, economic issues) that the main point is somewhat diluted. I would be interested in a more comprehensive analysis by Ian, should he be interested.
-
i agree with alot of what Ian says about the effect that the PV1 has had on lengthening golf courses and the additional costs involved with that. but,one thing that i do not think has been proven is that the cost of golf has risen. i got into the golf business about 20 years ago and the price for a round of golf at a public or resort course in my area has hardly changed in those 20 years.
when you factor in inflation over the past 20 years, the price to play golf has probably gotten lower.
-
Mac,
The game came to a screeching halt on 9/11/2001. Every project in my neck of the woods ( there were several from guys like Fazio, Nicklaus, and even Ivan Lendl was trying to build a course) either came to an abrupt halt or were shelved until a later date.
The ball may have had some influence but the era of the CCFAD predated the PROV1 era by quite a few years.
edit: read the essay twice before posting :)
-
P.S. And this doesn't even get into the fact that distance increases have been pretty much nil for 90%+ of golfers. We still hit it the same crummy distances that we were 10-15 years ago...even if we do hit it slightly straighter.
Kalen
Your not the one telling Ian to make a course longer
The point of many threads is you have nothing to do with the game - that is a big problem
Cheers
-
What if, as is the case with at least one noted American designer, your fees are based on the overall cost of the build? Thus bigger, longer and more expensive puts more money in your pocket, thus the architect is very keen on the 7400 yard beast.
I would say I agree with Ian's arguments about the ball...
but I'm not sure the PRO V1 made the game easier... maybe only for the best of the best, but for the average guy, 10 yards longer (if that) is more than often 10 yards further in the woods.
A question: Wasn't it the architect responsability to at least inform the developer of the impact of building a 7200 yards course.
Since it impact the building cost, buying land cost and maintenance cost on the long term, in a way that course influence the sustainaility of its investment... I would think it is. The owner is still free to built a 7200 yards course after the architect's advice.
-
I could not agree more re the negative effects of the ball on golf but I think there is an argument that this started way before the Pro V
It was the ultimate manifestation of the technology but didn't it start with the 1985 Spalding Tour Edition?
I used that ball for a bit - it was horrible ball - and Greg Norman won the 86 Open with it and probably lost the 86 PGA because of it when he spun it off the 18th green at Inverness.
It was the first ball to spin but not cut and that was the key breakthrough.It allowed all players - hackers to pros- use the same ball for the first time ever. Before then the average player using a balata ball would have needed 6 a round because every time you thinned it you cut it.
From there it took 13 years about to get the spin rates down so the ball was ideal for pros - and it has only improved from there.
And, to the delight of the manufacturers, it cost less to make because it was just a glorified Pinnacle - no winding and no balata.
-
Robert: You're asking a great question.
The "fee based on percentage of the cost" is not an ideal format because the client often feels you're not trying to give him the cheaper answer to a problem.
Should part of the architect fee be paid as a partnership action on the project to insure long term solutions ?
It's a debate that is pertinent in more than golf course architecture. I should apply for a MBA I guess
-
Even if the ball is the major reason for the cost increase in golf (which I disagree with - the major reason is greed), the solution is fatally flawed. The courses are already built! Its not like we are now plowing ahead at 300 courses a year in the States. The solution, if there is one, has to be much more radical. That said, many believe for the golfer, these are the best times in many a year - count me as one of these. Its only those in the industry who really worry about this stuff. Not to be harsh, but those in the business had unrealistically good times for quite a while. Those in the game should have known the importance of housing to the game and how we always have boom and bust in this sector. It was up to them, just like any other business (or government for that matter), to read the writing on the wall and figure out how to kick on when things were inevitably going to turn tough.
Ciao
-
I very much support Ian's view that what amounts to the golf technology arms race makes no sense.
We don't need ever longer golf balls and ever longer courses. The essence of the game is the balance between player skill, technology and the playing field. Making everything bigger and longer doesn't make them better; it just forces money to be spent trying to maintain the balance.
I grew up playing golf at Pelham Country Club, a relatively short, quirky course that has no claim to fame other than being the site of the 1923 PGA, but that was before the New England Thruway was built forcing a redesign.
Back in the 1960's Pelham had a lot of grumpy old men who really didn't like kids being on the golf course. So, I used to find different places on the course to just sit and watch play.
My family moved away from Pelham and it would be about 35 years before I would go back and visit. Most striking to me was a new tee built way back up on a hill on the 4th hole - a bit like those crazy new tees Oakmont built a few years back.
Anyway I played dumb with the greens keeper and asked why this new tee was built. He explained that it was needed to make clearing the hazards in the landing area a challenge.
The hole had no such problem in the 1960s.
Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.
-
Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.
Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player. There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion. Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways. The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters. It's much more user friendly. With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today. The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls. The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls. Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend. It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.
Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.
-
Growth in what sense?
I think that Tiger's arrival had a tsunami-like effect from 1996-2000, perhaps even 2005. The young'uns that were swept along by his wave, to borrow someone else's notion, then found they had neither the time nor the money to keep playing this game. I believe that the "growth" of the game may have been overstated then.
Ronald
To my way of thinking Tigers influence in "growing the game" and the subsequent "decline of the game" due to his indiscretions is one of the biggets golfing myths ever. As ever Kalen's post suggests, the growth or otherwise of the game, however you want to measure it, is primarily due to the prevailing economic climate pure and simple. In Tigers absence, those kids you refer to would have been idolising someone else. The important thing is that the economic climate gave them the opportunities to play.
Niall
-
Niall,
While there is no doubt that Tiger opened up the game to a huge chunk of fans who were otherwise "unengaged" with the game, one would have to concede that the economic climate is a bigger factor on the direction that the game has gone. I would take some issue with an implication in your post, however. If you are inferring that Tiger's "indiscretions" have driven the new fans from the game, I think you would be wrong. Just look at the difference in television ratings if Tiger is involved in a tournament. Look at the crowds at the tournaments that Tiger plays in. As one example, last year at Firestone, Tiger's following was 20 or 30 times larger than Phil Mickelson's. The high minded moralists are well within their self-appointed rights to cast opprobrium on Tiger for his philandering ways, but there's no way that his troubles have materially depleted the enormous following that he has.
-
Terry
To be clear, what I was trying to say was that the ups AND downs of Tiger have little or no bearing on growth/decline of the game. Growth/decline is primarily a function of economics.
Niall
-
to connect the ball with Tiger...
the media always said Tiger was dominant because of his length, selling the point that longer is better...
the truth is:
Tiger was dominant because he was the best putter from inside 10 feet in the world. Combined with his solid short game where he would put almost everything inside 10 feet... it was a lethal combinaison..
Basically, Tiger was saving at least 1,5 strokes a round on putting = 6 strokes minimum over 4 rounds
he was basically saving 2,5 strokes a round on the short game (including putting) = 10 shots over 4 rounds...
that's the difference between winning by 3 and a tie for 30th
Length was a secondary issue in Tiger success, but was marketed as his main advantage.
-
Terry
To be clear, what I was trying to say was that the ups AND downs of Tiger have little or no bearing on growth/decline of the game. Growth/decline is primarily a function of economics.
Niall
Thanks, that means that I misinterpreted what I called an "implication" in your post. As Roberto DiVincenzo would undoubtedly say, "What a stupid I am!"
-
Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.
Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player. There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion. Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways. The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters. It's much more user friendly. With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today. The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls. The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls. Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend. It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.
Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.
Terry,
You've got it all wrong. Are you equating yourself to be the average player? I suspect you are not an average player.
The average player, unless he was rich or accustomed to wasting money, did not buy balata balls that he would cut open at least a few times a round.
The equipment companies tell you the clubs are easier to use. The average player has learned otherwise and become disenfranchised with the game and its marketeers.
Double Bogey
-
I think Ian is on to something as always. I love his stuff.
There are pros and cons of advancements in technology. For the poorer player technology seems to have helped a bit which should make it more fun and encourage more play. Mis-hit shots seem to go farther and straighter. The new balls spin less so less risk of a terrifically wayward shot. I am not sure there is a huge advantage on distance for a slower swing speed.
For the better player with a faster swing speed the ball goes way too far. It is tougher to move one quite a bit but it is easier to hit them straight on a slightly mis-hit shot (because of the spin). Personally, I think the new ball goes way too far and it does hurt the interest in the game as long irons/hybrids are a thing of the past for most low handicappers. I miss hitting a 3 iron into a par 4. Watching the PGA Tour and every approach being a short iron is pretty boring to me.
Golf has a lot of problems. Time to play and cost (especially in this economy) are big ones. Because courses need to accomodate the better player they mostly need to have the distance to be interesting and draw play (tough to design more Crystal Downs). More distance equals more cost to maintain equals more costly to the player.
Look at what is worshipped in TV Land. Bubba, Dustin, go long, etc. Luke Donald is an exception but the long ball is the draw for many. Not many people enjoy watching Corey Pavin (though I love watching him).
-
I'm in full agreement with the premise that man's ability to create technology generally outpaces our ability to understand the full implications (pro and con) of its uses. I also agree that cost is a contributing reason to the lack of growth. However, I remain convinced that time is the major factor. As a guy who has raised his kids in the pre-take junior to practice for every organized event under the sun, I think the lack of available time is eroding the capacity. The other factor is the availabilty of time to develop some ability to play the game in order to derive enjoyment. When you combine all these time demands its an unrealistic opportunity cost to many parents.
-
Robert: You're asking a great question.
Should part of the architect fee be paid as a partnership action on the project to insure long term solutions ?It's a debate that is pertinent in more than golf course architecture. I should apply for a MBA I guess
Philippe, I do have one and have thought about this often. It works in the music industry. Call it a Design Royalty. It would only have to be a fraction of a percent of the greens fee minus a portion ofthe maintenance expenses (because the architect only has influence on part of what is spent) but his design will impact maintenance expenses.
-
Golf rounds in the United States fell 1.8 percent in 2008 compared to the previous year, according to the year-end National Golf Rounds Played report. The decline is the largest since 2002 – the year following the 9-11 tragedy – when rounds plummeted 3.0 percent.
Rounds played changes year-by-year
Year Change
2008 -1.8 %
2007 -0.1%
2006 +0.8%
2005 -0.1%
2004 +0.7%
2003 -1.5%
2002 -3.0%
2001 -0.1%
There was also a recession in 2001, from March thru November.
As Rick Phelps wrote in this piece from the USGA:
"There is no disputing the fact that public golf drives the national golf economy. According to the World Golf Foundation and The PGA of America, approximately 80 percent of the total rounds played in the U.S. are played on public courses. Another surprising statistic is that 70 percent of the total public rounds are played on golf courses with a median green fee of $28. Yet in the decade from 1995 to 2005, how rare was it to hear about a public golf course that wasn’t being marketed as an upscale or high-end facility? Understandably, our competitive society was eager to plan, build, market and experience the next great golf adventure with each new project.
Perhaps we are now at a point where we need to start exploring options for building simpler, more efficient, less expensive golf facilities, whether these golf courses are smaller (i.e. less than 18 holes), shorter, more efficient (cheaper) to maintain, faster to play, less costly to build or some combination of these factors. A relatively small percentage of these types of courses have been built over the past two decades. However, a much greater volume of new development has been focused on the higher tier projects.
The majority of public golf courses built in the 1950’s and 1960’s were built very inexpensively. The focus was on machine maintenance as a priority over aesthetics, memorability and, in some cases, strategic interest. While there will always be some demand for the stunning, dramatic golf venues that we see on television or in magazines, we must balance the total volume of golf courses with a higher percentage of the inexpensive venues that drive the game. There has to be a willingness on the part of everyone involved – the owner/developer, the architect, the builder and the operator – to understand the purpose and market position of the less expensive golf facility. At the same time, from the standpoint of the user, the expectations in terms of course conditions need to be adjusted to allow the owners/operators of these facilities to function on at least a “break-even” basis. The architectural challenge is to create strategic options while eliminating design excess."
The full article can be found here: http://www.usga.org/news/2011/May/Changing-Face-Of-Public-Course-Architecture/
Add it all up; a recession in early 2001, plus 9/11 (Yr. 2002 saw a 3% drop from 2001 in rounds played), another recession in 2008, no real wage increases over the past decade, a focus on the fabulous in the decade of the '90s instead of the functional, a changing landscape when it comes to families, other attractions luring players away, and golf's failure to attract more women, youths and minorities are the more salient reasons why golf is where it is today.
If 'golf' has 100 inches of issues, the ball itself is only 1.68 of the total. ;D
-
Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.
Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player. There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion. Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways. The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters. It's much more user friendly. With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today. The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls. The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls. Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend. It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.
Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.
Terry,
You've got it all wrong. Are you equating yourself to be the average player? I suspect you are not an average player.
The average player, unless he was rich or accustomed to wasting money, did not buy balata balls that he would cut open at least a few times a round.
The equipment companies tell you the clubs are easier to use. The average player has learned otherwise and become disenfranchised with the game and its marketeers.
Double Bogey
I will NOT lose an argument to a guy with an Elmer Fudd icon! ;D
The average player may not want to update with every new style iron or driver, but he sure as heck isn't playing tour blades and persimmons anymore. I consider my self an average player, which may not be all that accurate, since I play a lot of golf and have a 10 handicap, but I certainly don't consider myself some kind of above average player. And I bought balata balls when I was a 20 handicap, like a lot of my friends, because we wanted to have some feel around the greens. I seldom made it through a whole round with a wholly round ball, so maybe I'm a pig, but I was playing balatas when my average score was in the mid 90's.
Bottom line for me is that the average player (read: not a single digit handicapper) embraces technology because it has done good things for his game.
-
Terry,
The reason most average players (around 18-20 handicap) don't play tour blades is that no one will recommend them to them nor perhaps even sell them to them if they ask for them.
I just looked on ghin.com. My lowest handicap index over the past year is 19.3. I put blades in play about 8 months ago and my handicap index currently is 19.7. When I asked professional club fitters about scientific proof that their "game improvement clubs" result in high scores, they had none. They answer that studies show that the club gets a better result with a miss hit. That in my opinion has no correlation to game improvement. I call it game rescue.
-
Garland,
They're not called "swing improvement clubs". Better results from mis-hits can lead to lower scores, which is what the game is all about, whether it's one stroke less than an opponent or one stroke less than the field.
-
Well I have read some things on this site but this has to be one to be nominated for burying one’s head in the sand.
Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player. There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion. Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways. The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters. It's much more user friendly. With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today. The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls. The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls. Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend. It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.
Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.
Technology is great if it maintains consistency but without improving performance or assistance in reducing one’s score. Utilising any outside means to improve performance no matter what sport is generally defined as cheating, but not so with some of my fellow colleagues on GCA.com. It’s the very reason golf is in the state it is, trust is fast becoming a thing of the past as many are utilising aids to enhance their score, but few are honest enough to admit it’s just plain old fashion cheating. Talk of the moral high ground, no let’s just talk about simple and plain honesty with one’s self.
If we can’t be honest on this subject and cheats resort to calling the non-cheats names like perhaps Luddites or worse, then there is indeed something rotten in golf and in the membership of this site.
You may not agree with many of my posts but my opinions are open honest and there in open print. I hide behind no one or thing certainly not a flag, but convey my thoughts and opinion to those interested enough to read them.
Tell me if I am so wrong, but why are many now turning to playing Hickory. Why are courses like Askernish, Machrie, Machrihanish, Moray, Cullen, Bora etc.etc attracting so much attention? Could it be that technology has overplayed its hands and at heart many golfers know it blatantly cheating, not just the game but worst still cheating themselves.
The moment technology is used to improve scores it has stepped over the line, alas the R&A due to their lack of experience (and I mean that most sincerely) have compounded the problem by allowing the manufacturers a say when it should be all about the clubs and golfers in particular.
I am not against technology if it makes the game more reliable for the poor golfer, but I am against it if it’s there to lower scores and dulls the experience of playing the game.
If that makes me and others Luddites then we should wear that name with honour.
Melvyn
-
Garland,
They're not called "swing improvement clubs". Better results from mis-hits can lead to lower scores, which is what the game is all about, whether it's one stroke less than an opponent or one stroke less than the field.
Would not swing improvement typically lead to a better game.
It just seems to me that artificially lowered scores through technology does not lead to a better game.
Since most people are not tour pros competing for the lowest scores in the world, artificially lowered scores go into the handicap calculation and make no difference in competitive results for the rest of the world. Artificially lowered scores simply support false egos.
-
I could not agree more re the negative effects of the ball on golf but I think there is an argument that this started way before the Pro V
It was the ultimate manifestation of the technology but didn't it start with the 1985 Spalding Tour Edition?
I used that ball for a bit - it was horrible ball - and Greg Norman won the 86 Open with it and probably lost the 86 PGA because of it when he spun it off the 18th green at Inverness.
It was the first ball to spin but not cut and that was the key breakthrough.It allowed all players - hackers to pros- use the same ball for the first time ever. Before then the average player using a balata ball would have needed 6 a round because every time you thinned it you cut it.
From there it took 13 years about to get the spin rates down so the ball was ideal for pros - and it has only improved from there.
And, to the delight of the manufacturers, it cost less to make because it was just a glorified Pinnacle - no winding and no balata.
Mike,
THank you for this post. I think you make a very good point.
-
Thanks Melvyn you've again confirmed your maniacal Luddite status. Now you can go back to your whining about how nobody wanted to talk about an article from 90 years ago. But come to think about it, your post did generate discussion about bowling. Nice contribution.
-
Thanks Terry, but far better to be a Luddite than known as a cheat. In fact a cheat knowing his game and score was not down to his ability but reliant on technology, yet not being man enough to be honest enough to admit it.
Your description of the average golfer portrays a weak and cheating individual who seems to be willing to fool himself and others. What a terrible picture you paint of Mr Average.
So in your book I can beat my father fairly because I have invested in the latest high tech equipment, seems a tab dishonest to me and why would I want to win that way. IMHO its despicable low life tactics totally unworthy of anyone calling themselves a golfer. Sorry to see you support such activities.
Melvyn
-
Of course the main problem with Ludditism is....
...where does one draw the line in the sand!!
-
Of course the main problem with Ludditism is....
...where does one draw the line in the sand!!
Yes, and also what to draw it with
-
There is no line, cheating is cheating, it’s a question of understanding that there is a difference between right & wrong.
Melvyn