[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

There is an interesting article on the golf ball in this weeks SI (written by John Garrity). The theme of the article is the frustration individual clubs are experiencing with the manufacturers and the ruling bodies, and they are now discussing taking actions into their own hands. The chairman of ClubCorp, Hootie Johnson, Ernie Ransom, Sandy Tatum, Jack Nicklaus, the CEO of Acushnet and Barry van Gerbitg are among those quoted. It's an article I don't think you would ever read in a golf magazine.

Ransom and Tatum claimed Pine Valley and Cypress Point were obsolete.

[Tom]

Do you have a link for it - is it online yet?

[Rory C]

I agree that the liklihood of seeing that article in a golf magazine is slim.  Given the relationship between SI and Golf Magazine, I was surprised to see it in SI.  Wally's comments on behalf of the ball manufacturers were particularly offensive.  

[SL_Solow]

I was particularly suprised to learn that Myopia is no longer in existence.  Notwithstanding a clear lack of historical perspective, the article is worthwhile

[Rick Shefchik]

Well, again the question needs to be asked: Obsolete for whom?

I've got a 3.3 USGA index, finely honed by managing to shoot one 72 each summer at my home course, and keeping my worst scores at 85 or lower. I theoretically represent the upper 3 percent or so of America's golfers. I've never played Pine Valley and Cypress, but I can promise you those courses are not obsolete for my game.

Are the club members tearing up Pine Valley and Cypress?

Competition Ball for the pros (and those of us who choose to play it), Top Flite XL 3000s for any and everyone else.

Rick

[THuckaby2]

Wish I could find that article... I can't find it on line and I don't get SI any more.

But anyway, I am with Rick here 100%.  As a similar but less skilled golfer than he (current 3.7, honed in the same manner by the rare hot putting day and not posting enough rounds to get those off the last 20 quick enough), I am here to say that I have played Cypress and the only thing obsolete for me there might be some golf balls I buried at sea short of 16 twenty years ago.

Competition ball for the pros, yes indeed.  Of course such idea makes WAY to much sense to ever be adopted.

TH

[TEPaul]

We can say whatever we want about the problems of distance today and who it might effect and who it might not but when people like those mentioned start to get concerned about things, whatever their reasons may be, something will probably happen somehow with the ball or equipment eventually!

Obviously there needs to be more influential people involved than just those mentioned but they have a way of generating their own "critical mass" of influential opinion and then things will start to happen because they're the ones who have the most influence on those that make the decisions!

But that influence has to be qualified today far more than yesteryear. Those people mentioned have influence with people of the regulatory bodies. In the past they had influence with the people of the regulatory bodies and the decision makers of the manufacturers too but not today with the manufacturers!

The attitude of the manufacturers is what has really changed dramatically in golf today from yesteryear! In the past everyone knew each other and they got along to a large degree. But the attitude, aggressiveness, adverserialness, disrespectfulness of the manufacturers today towards the regulatory bodies would make the relationship of manufacturers to regulatory bodies of yesteryear look like one of loving blood brothers.

A man like Eli Callaway's approach to the long term best interests of the game was about the absolute pits, but someone like Wally U is scarcely better!

Ordinarily I wouldn't really know something like that, only sense it, but last year I ran into one of the fairly long time players in the golf manufacturing business and on this subject he said in his career in the business the difference in the  relationship of the manufacturers to the regulatory bodies compared to yesteryear is like night and day. He even said the difference in the relationships of the manufacturers toward each other compared to yesteryear is like night and day.

This appeared to be a very resilient man but he said it's truly shocking what a dog eat dog world the golf equipment manufacturing business has become today.

[guest]

Once again Tom Paul's post above hits the core of the issue here regarding technology vs. continuity in the history of architecture

What is the more important the game or the dollar?

As long as the relative advantage for the longer hitter is maintained, teh two sides can be simultaneously satisfied.  Perhaps..

After all to quote the "sm" of the USGA a few years ago "For the Good of The Game".  This encompasses the preservation of the historical playing fields in my interpretation.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guest:

I can't recall anyone ever suggesting that the relative advantage for longer hitters not be maintained.

The problem we have is confusion over the difference between relative length (rewarding longer hitters) and absolute length (making the playing field bigger).

Equipment manufacturers are actively promoting such confusion with their suggestion that golf architects irrationally oppose building ever longer golf courses.  Leading journalists, e.g., Golf Digest's Ron Whitten, contribute to the confusion by suggesting that the golf technology arms race is "progress".  Even prominent golf clubs like Augusta National fuel the problem by suggesting that spending millions to revise a golf course is a "logical" response to out of control technology.

[JPM]

For any of you thinking about subscribing to Sports Illustrated, make sure you request the "Golf Plus" edition.  Each week for those receiving SI, there is generally about 8 to 12 additional pages devoted to golf.  The usual newstand copy does not include the "Golf Plus" section, to the best of my knowledge.

[Paul Richards]

JPM:

That is correct.  The newsstand copy does NOT include
Golf Plus, which usually is a very interesting read.

[SL_Solow]

The Chicago Tribune no the back page of the spots section carried along article about the problem of increased distance caused by technology with emphasis on the possibility of a competition ball.  When the issue gets that type of attention it shows that there is at least some recognition that a problem exists which is more than we could have said a little while ago.  Perhaps a few more of these and the USGA might get the courage to do something.  I know one member on the appropriate committee who told me a couple of years ago that he was using the same forged blades he had bought 15 years ago when he was approx 30 yrs old and was now hitting them further.  He attributed this counterintuitive result entirely to ball technology.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()