[Andy]

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...

[A_Clay_Man]

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?

[TEPaul]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[JohnV]

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.)

[Rick Shefchik]

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.

[DMoriarty]

 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?

[JohnV]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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.  

[DMoriarty]

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?"  

[Doug Siebert]

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!

[Bill Yates]

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

[Andrew Roberts]

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?

[A_Clay_Man]

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.

[Robert_Walker]

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.

[Robert_Walker]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

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?

[John_Conley]

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?

[Rick Shefchik]

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.

[jas]

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!

[Robert_Walker]

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?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()