[Tony Ristola]

I've got a different take from a lot on the issue of the ERC.  It reminds me of the Campaign Finance Reform package McCain has been crying about for months.  Like McCain those shooting at Callawy are firing their ammunition in the wrong direction.

If politicians are selling out to special interests, it is the duty of those citizens to throw the bum out.  It is a sad day when free speech is restricted because politicians are corrupt.

Callaway developed a product which is illegal in North America ONLY. In the rest of the world the club is LEGAL.  If Joe Blow wants one he can buy one, but he can't use it in USGA sanctioned tournaments or handicap rounds.  If people do use them, then they are cheaters.  Isn't the bedrock of this game about honesty and integrity?  About calling a penalty even when nobody else sees it?  If you don't want to wager or play with such people, then don't, otherwise who cares?  

If the guy who buys the ERC is only playing for fun and this gives him more enjoyment, who is he or she hurting?  Nobody... actually the game BENEFITS by having someone enjoy their golf more (even if it only a placebo... which it is in the hands of the average golfer).

REAIMING THE GUNS.
I find the USGA and R&A's mixed signal on the ERC worthy of some major league carping.  You want to talk about dropping the ball and leaders who can't get their acts together... how about those at the USGA and R&A?  

How about a bigger issue... the BALL? As the game has evolved we hear nary a word on rolling the ball back, only a feeling that the USGA are timid little mice afraid of getting sued.  Who's money is it they would have to pony up anyway (if they lost)?  Who are they supposed to be representing?  The vast majority of golf clubs which span the globe, and the history and traditions of the game.  

There they are, the glorious protectors of the game, collecting dues from clubs throughout the land, throughout the world and are afraid to plant their feet and make a stand... a stand which would restore some meaning to the game... a stand which would protect the game.  Where is their spine?

Callaway isn't the problem.  Gary Player isn't the problem.  A ball called Rule 35 isn't the problem (I find it funny).  The problem is leadership.  

Who may I ask is at the helm steering this Royal & Ancient ship to safe waters, preserving the vessel so it can continue to provide a semblance of the game of even 25 years ago instead of modern rocket-ball and putting contests?  That job isn't Callaway's or any other manufacturers and it's crazy to think any of them would take up that role.  Competition has brought the manufacturers to this point (and boy do we enjoy fantastic equipent even compared to 15 years ago), and to go backwards voluntarily would be corporate suicide.

Everytime you hear a slam on Callaway, turn your attention to the USGA and R&A.  They are  supposed to be defending/protecting this great game.  Instead courses like Augusta get run through the shredder because these Ruling /Governing Bodies have failed to act.  

[Wayne_Tucker]

Dear Tony,

I happen to agree with about 99% of what you said.  I agree that people get the government they deserve, but...

I made a similar post several months ago -- the gist of which was: okay, let's be realistic, most folks already to some extent utilize non-conforming equipment and don't follow the rules to the exact and precise letter, how will banning a driver all of a sudden inspire the legion of masses to play every round of golf in strict accordance with USGA rules?

After posting this, I was insulted by someone who basically said if you don't follow the USGA and you're not 100% compliant with the rules, then they "didn't know what game I was playing".  Yeah, and if you're doing 30.6 MPH in a 30 MPH speed zone, or if you don't (in Virginia) signal at a stop sign to turn left in your halfway developed subdivision when nobody's looking, you're breaking the law.  

Like you, I believe the duty of the USGA and the R&A is to point the game in a positive direction and most importantly to uphold the competitve standards of the game.  You don't better the state of the game by trying to persuade a golf company not to sell an overhyped and overmarketed driver to some schmuck with 500 bucks burning a hole in their pocket.

The unmitigated effects of technology at the competitive and particularly professional level have done a lot more harm to the integrity of this game than your average joe blow hitting a 240-yard drive instead of a 220-yard drive.  The tour player will always capitalize on technology to a greater extent than an average player, and they will always be the ones that ante up the length, conditioning and deterioration of strategical elements of golf courses.
 
I'm glad there's someone out there that agrees with me on this issue!

[aclayman]

Once again blaming equiptment isn't quite right. Aren't most of these guys hitting blades? I want to see the records fall first before all this hyperbole is to be given more scrutiny.
And isn't it augusta's problem(decision) that they are ripping up augusta. It's their reaction to the perception.

[Daniel_Wexler]

aclayman:

So far this year Mike Souchak’s 46-year-old scoring record has been beaten twice and Anika Sorenstam has shot 59.  Last year Shigeki Maruyama shot 58 in a US Open qualifier and Duval shot 59.

Exactly which records are you waiting for?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Sorry, Duval was two years ago.  

I guess so long as it's only one sub-60 round per year, we've got nothing to worry about.

[Paul Richards]

Perhaps it's time to drag out Ron Prichards'
articles.  He makes some very persuasive
arguments about reining in the golf ball.

[ForkaB]

Adam and Daniel

What is there to worry about?  Do you worry that Dolph Schayes wouldn't get a point off of Kobe Bryant in a game of one-on-one?  Do you worry that Sergei Bubka pole vaulted 4-5 feet higher than Bob Richards?  Do you worry about the fact that today's women swimmers would beat the best men swimmers from 46 years ago?

I don't.

[Lou_Duran]

Tony, another well thought-out and clearly written piece.  Callaway provides products which consumers clearly want, and has some of the best customer service in any industry.
If we believe in capitalism and the market economy, we can't conclude that this company is the culprit.

I don't think that we can blame the tour players for using superior equipment.  Their goal is to shoot the lowest score possible. Improved physical and mental conditioning in addition to the equipment have something to do with the low scores.  It is clear that today's players are bigger and stronger than in the past.

The call for the government, the USGA and R&A, to place performance limitations on the ball makes a lot of sense to me.  Even though I am a believer in the adage that the government that governs best governs least, this is the type of situation that it/they should get involved in, regardless of the possible reaction from the industry.  I send the USGA $50 every year, and if need be, I would double that for a legal fund.  I suspect that many other traditionalists would do the same.

Finally, except for the pro and top amateur tournaments, I don't know that this is such a burning issue.  Certainly it is not new.  Dr. MacKenzie, Tillie, and many others at the turn of last century expressed concerns about how far the ball was travelling, and often built their courses with additional room for expansion (lengthening).  Most people today, even at the classic courses, do not play the tips.  And as the good Doctor noted, the goal in designing a course should be to provide the most interest and enjoyment for the greatest number of people possible.  I think that Mr. Callaway built his company around this principle, and like Dr. MacKenzie, that is why he was so wildly successful.    

[aclayman]

Rich, I won't worry one bit. My classic days are over. I am movin on to a more futuristic approach. And I can tell you that I have and always will be against any negative or restricting actions such as reigning in the ball or the club. What reallly needs to be reigned in, is man.

I remember the 80's and what I called the "run run run" method of investing. It symbolized the capital flows,mostly japanese, and it was like swarm soccer. Any of you who have seen a soccer game where the kids are too young to figure out that they need to spreadout, rather than this swarm frenzie around the ball, as it moves to and fro across the field.

Now, it appears that has happened to the game of golf. Not only with crowded muni's but as Gary Sherman points out the money is easy (cept for us, ayuh cheesehead)to obtain and there has certainly been a growth in supply. The real difference is that all the new courses are not built for the enjoyment of as many as possible as the good doctor projected. They have seemed to be triped up by a little five letter word.....anyone?

And more power to them, Just realize that when there is run in one direction as soon as the tilt button lites there will be a run run run in the other.

[Mike_Cirba]

Adam,

I understand what you are saying, but (and as Pee Wee Herman would say, it's a BIG but)...

It is possible to create a golf ball that you and I could hit 500 or more yards with a driver.  To be honest, I'm not even sure what the total distance limitation is with today's technology.  

The USGA is at a disadvantage.  They build an "Iron Byron" to test one aspect of distance, only to find that the clever engineers in MA or CA have worked around them on another angle, while staying within the testing parameters for "launch accleration".  It's a game of leapfrog, and the USGA is always a step behind.

Unless the USGA & R&A rein in the ball, or standardize the ball for competitions, we'll continue to see the emasculation and destruction of our classic courses, a more expensive game, and yes, I do worry that something will be lost.  In fact, much already had been.

[T_MacWood]

Hell, I could take Dolph Schayes -- he's got to be getting close to 80.

The evolution of the pole vault is a perfect illustration of the effect of technology -- ash to bamboo to aluminum to steel to fiberglass to modern lightwieght flexible materials. They are now considering helmets for safety reasons.

I worry when classic golf courses are defaced.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Unless you can jump like a rabid squirrel you'll never stop Dolph's two-handed overhead set shot.

[T_MacWood]

My dunking prowess isn't where it once was -- if the stars are aligned properly and the barometric pressure is just right -- I can still dunk, but only once. But dispite my diminished skill I still have descent spring and know the 6'6" (he has shrunk two inches) 75 year old Dolph would be my bitch -- plus its hard to shoot the ball with one hand on a walker.

[Tony Ristola]

Lou:  Thanks for the kind words on both posts.  I agree with what you posted and I'll add one more.  

Tour players are not only stronger today, and maximize every inch of technical improvements, whether it is bunker maintenance, fairway maint., light weight oversize clubs, etc., etc.  But instruction and knowledge of the golf swing is far superior. There are no mysteries to the swing today. Most young pro's have swings with few power leaks and robot like repetition.  As the Golfing Machine states, " power golf is good golf".

Just looking back to 1981 when Jerry Pate won the TPC and was a pretty hot item, Golf Digest's panel evaluated his swing and gave it a 96 out of 100. He had the hugest reverse pivot, stiff arms, sliding knees and hips, and a very vertical (triple shift)swing, etc., Truly a poor swing by today's standards, but he had wonderful rhythm and the gifts of youth to save him.  

Only Jimmy Ballard hit it correctly 5 years earlier when Jerry called him after he won the US Open and asked him about his swing.  Ballard's response: When you're 30 you won't find the golf ball. He was right... Pate had a shoulder injury sure, but without it I'd have bet my entire portfolio on Ballard's assessment. Ballard was about the only guy who understood the swing back then... just ask Jim Colbert.  Today there are a lot of excellent golf instructors.

[Tony Ristola]

Lou:  Thanks for the kind words on both posts.  I agree with what you posted and I'll add one more.  

Tour players are not only stronger today, and maximize every inch of technical improvements, whether it is bunker maintenance, fairway maint., light weight oversize clubs, etc., etc.  But instruction and knowledge of the golf swing is far superior. There are no mysteries to the swing today. Most young pro's have swings with few power leaks and robot like repetition.  As the Golfing Machine states, " power golf is good golf".

Just looking back to 1981 when Jerry Pate won the TPC and was a pretty hot item, Golf Digest's panel evaluated his swing and gave it a 96 out of 100. He had the hugest reverse pivot, stiff arms, sliding knees and hips, and a very vertical (triple shift)swing, etc., Truly a poor swing by today's standards, but he had wonderful rhythm and the gifts of youth to save him.  

Only Jimmy Ballard hit it correctly 5 years earlier when Jerry called him after he won the US Open and asked him about his swing.  Ballard's response: When you're 30 you won't find the golf ball. He was right... Pate had a shoulder injury sure, but without it I'd have bet my entire portfolio on Ballard's assessment. Ballard was about the only guy who understood the swing back then... just ask Jim Colbert.  Today there are a lot of excellent golf instructors.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Rich Goodale:

If Kobe dominates Dolph Schayes because of superior talent, I've got no problem with that whatsoever.  But if he's relying upon rocket-powered shoes....

Besides, as Tom MacWood correctly suggests, there is a larger issue here.  The swimmer swims faster but the pool does not become obsolete.  But golf, as we all know, is relatively unique in that it's really the playing field that provides both the charm and the challenge.  When unchecked tehnology threatens most of the better ones, yes, I worry.

aclayman:

You made reference above to wanting to see records fall before being overly concerned regarding equipment.  If not those I've suggested, I'm curious as to which records you're referring to.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Tony:

I don't altogether disagree with you're thoughts anywhere on this thread (the onus, without an ounce of question, falls upon the USGA) but with regard to issues of technique:

No doubt that many of today's players are bigger and stronger.  But there are a also a good number who aren't significantly larger than Ben Hogan, yet hit it nine miles past his very best.  Surely you're not suggesting superior technique...

[aclayman]

  I am open to changing my opinion I just don't hear any legitamate argument for limiting the ability to hit it far. I would look forward to seeing Ron Prichard's arguments.

How else can you compare the seperate eras? Bobby Jones was one of a select few who could do what he did with the golf ball. Now even Tiger Woods is suseptable to becoming just another one in the crowd. What could be fairer or more natural. The progression is logical and the argument to save the classic course implies it really isn't that classic and comes off sounding like sour grapes.  Besides It is all about the top one percent of one percent so let the PGA TOUR pay for the new land for the bigger courses, just to protect a number, or, the better yet, the hotels to put people in in such spots as Kohler and Bandon...?

[ForkaB]

Daniel

To me a "threat" to a golf course is redevelopment, as in Lido, etc., as someone once wrote a whole book about.  A 59 is not a "threat" it is an accomplishment.

When swimming records are broken, the authorities don't sit around and noodle about putting molasses or piranhas in the water, they say--"Well done."

And, sad to say, but Dolph Schayes couldn't get a point off of Kobe if he was wearing rocket shoes and Kobe was in high heels.

Maybe I'm out of sync with most of the people in this forum, but if someone were to shoot 57 on one of my favorite course, my reaction would not be "Aux barricades," but "Wow!"

[Kevin_Reilly]

"When swimming records are broken, the authorities don't sit around and noodle about putting molasses or piranhas in the water, they say--"Well done."....

and then they say "please leave your specimen in that little cup."  See Michelle Smith of Ireland a few years back.

[Dr. Feelgood]

An interesting solution: Put Dexedrene in the water and nobody will be hitting it very far.\
Worse golfing thru chemistry

[BillV]

aclayman

I think the operative here is obsolescence.  So many times at the turn of the century, courses were rebuilt.  Due to technology, we are on that verge again, albeit for 200 players as my good friend Rich Goodale alludes to refering to the rest of us as "Pond Scum".

It is more than balls, implements, conditioning, course conditioning and mental toughness.  But by limiting the ball, a handle of sorts can be gotten so that we don't obsolesce some historical courses.  

It is possible, maybe even desirable (Not to this bozo at the keyboard) for courses to go to 8,000 yards, but the game changes and not for the better. Golf becomes a longer slog for most of us as we get longer.  

Golf already has the largest playing field of every sport except some motor sports venues.  It doesn't need to be longer.  An 8,000 yard course with greens adjacent to tees will not be a 3-hour walk as my course is at 6700 when no one is in front of me!

[T_MacWood]

Adam
I don't think there is any reason why you or Rich should change your mind, why agree with the viewpoints of the relatively small group that seems to dominate this website? You and Rich speak for the majority of golfers -- when you ask what's the big deal. Golf is golf and it will all work itself out, it always does. Besides, as you have said in the past, there's no such thing as a bad golf hole or bad golf course. Technology increases are long standing reality -- its much to do about nothing.

We are a handful of devotees, whose love and appreciation for vintage golf architecture is certainly outside of the main stream. It is unrealistic to expect the average person to appreciate this art form, just as it is unrealistic to expect the majority to be connnoisseurs of fine art or wine or cuisine. Like truely great golf architecture, these art forms do not present themselves readily. You have to go out of your way to find it, you have to go out of your way to study it, to read about it, to research it,  and God knows it can be expensive. Its an unnatural obsession.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Be patient Rich.  If something isn't done about the equipment (and I don't think anyone's holding their breath), you'll be seeing that 57 real soon.

Do you actually think this is good for the game??

[aclayman]

 Daniel- I had no specific records in mind, But,the scoring records week in week out on tour don't get beat every Sunday. But I do want to know why it took 46 years to break Souchak's record.  The technology changes haven't been over night. So, why didn't it fall sooner?

I see the difference between the classic courses you make refernce to Tom, and  So, the obvious question is why do they let the primadonnas on the property? Or better idea yet, make them play your reduced flight ball, when they get there. I think the ball manufacturers would be pleased to force everyone lucky enough to play on those hallowed fairways to buy more balls. And oh yes BTW sir, your playing Merion tomorrow? you'll need a dozen of their version too. Hell, I haven't bought a golf ball in five years

As I understand it, tiger shoots 57 all the time. Just in practice, though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()