[TEPaul]

I keep reading all these threads on here about the distance problem--how it's going to ruin architecture, kill interest in the game--how the regulatory bodies are shrieking their responsibilities by not controlling distance etc. I happen to believe that all those things are probably somewhat true or will be sometime soon.

But the thing that makes me laugh is how interested all these architectural purists on here are about what the latest and longest ball and equipment is. And every single one of those architectural purists are experimenting with, using or fascinated by that longest ball and equipment. Why is that?

What's golf's greatest seduction? Well, obviously it's scoring as low as you can but a close second in seduction and temptation in the game of golf is hitting the ball as far as you can. It's always been that way!

If the USGA actually reins in the distance the ball is going you all who compete will play with that reined in equipment because you have to in USGA sanctioned tournaments but if you don't have to in recreational golf I believe you will be using whatever is available to hit the ball as far as possible.

It human nature--it's one of the greatest ultimate temptations and seductions in all of golf! If the manufacturers market non-conforming equipment eventually the public will buy it and you will too and you'll use it whenever you can.

Hitting the ball as far as you can has always been the second biggest seduction in golf and as Oscar Wilde said;

"I can resist anything except temptation!"

[noonan]

On the golf channel tonight Faldo hit a Haskell ball with a titanium driver....it went 150 yards....he hit a Nike ball with an old spoon.....it went 225+ yards.....he said.....it is the ball not the clubs.

Jerry

[Carlyle Rood]

I went to the practice tee on Tuesday.  I hit a range ball with my new Titleist driver 260 yards.  I hit a range ball with my old Wood Bros persimmon driver and it went 245 yards.

Faldo's test was flawed because he didn't either (a) use the same ball with both clubs, or (b) use the same club with both balls.  I'd have liked to see him hit a Titleist 90 balata and a Titleist Pro V1.  That's a little more relative than a Haskell.  He may as well have hit a featherie.

[DMoriarty]

I'd have liked to see him hit a Titleist 90 balata and a Titleist Pro V1.  That's a little more relative than a Haskell.  He may as well have hit a featherie.

Carlyle,
I have been experimenting lately with real woods (a '50's 4 wood and a 70's 1 wood) and have found that there is a huge difference in distance on solid hits, and an even bigger difference in performance on misses. (I am a hack so I am much more familiar with the latter.)  For what it's worth, I seem to hit older harder balls (top flites and pinnacles) a little further with this old equipment, compared to how I hit 4-piece balls with the same.  I'd like to see the results if someone like Faldo (who actually can hit it on the screws) tried this.  

[Steven_Biehl]

Since I can't say it any better.  Here are a few paragraphs from "The Art of Golf" by W.G. Simpson

"It is generally agreed that the keenest pleasure of the game is derived from long driving.  When the golfer is preparing to hit a far clean straight shot, he feels the joy of the strong man that rejoiceth to run a race; that is to say, the joy we have authority for believing that the Jewish runner felt.  The modern sprinter experiences none.  On the contrary, there is the anticipation, through fatigue, of as much pain as if he were ringing the dentist's door-bell.  For the golfer in the exercise of his strength there is neither pain nor fatigue.  He has the combined pleasures of an onlooker and a performer.  The blow once delivered, he can stand at ease and be admired whilst the ball makes the running.

There is no such being as a golfer uninterested in his driving.  The really strong player seems to value his least; but this is merely because so many of his shots are good that they do not surprise him.  Let it, however, be suggested that some other is a longer driver than he, and the mask of apathy will at once fall from his face, his tongue will be loosened, and he will proceed to boast.  Even when a man cannot feel that he drives quite as far as the best, his pride in his own frame is not necessarily destroyed, as by most other sports.  The runner, the jumper, the lifter of weights, even the oarsman, is crushed down into his true place by the brutal rudeness of competitive facts.  Not so the golfer.  A. says, 'I drive with a very light club, therefore admire my strength.'  B. smiles complacently, whilst you marvel at the heaviness of his-a brawny muscular smile.  Little C.'s club is nearly as long as himself.  The inference is that little C.'s garments cover the limbs of a pocket Hercules.  D. can drive as far with a cleek as common men with a club.  D. is evidently a Goliath.  The inferences may be wrong.  A. may be a scrag, C. a weed, D. merely beefy.  On the other hand, each may be what he supposes himself.  This is one of the glorious uncertainties of the game.

To some minds the great field which golf opens up for exaggeration is its chief attraction.  Lying about the length of one's drives has this advantage over most forms of falsehood, that it can scarcely be detected.  Your audience may doubt your veracity, but they cannot prove your falsity.  Even when some rude person proves your shot to be impossibly long, you are not cornered.  You admit to an exceptional loft, to a skid off a paling, or, as a last apeal to the father of lies, you may rather think that a dog lifted your ball.  'Anyhow,' you add conclusively, 'that is where we found it when we came up to it.'"

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, I don't doubt for a minute the seduction of hitting the long ball is there for all of us.  But, if the ball is dialed back and a great drive for top players now hitting it 310 becomes 275-280, and if we mortals generally hit a great drive 260 or so and with the dialed back ball it it 240... so what!  It is still seductive to hit it as far as you can maximise with just the right swing and really catching it regardless of the relative definition of long.

I think there is just as much seduction in holing it from long distance, whether a long bomb putt, or a chip in, a holed pitch, a holed iron, a hole-in-one...  

[DMoriarty]

What's golf's greatest seduction? Well, obviously it's scoring as low as you can but a close second in seduction and temptation in the game of golf is hitting the ball as far as you can. It's always been that way!

If the USGA actually reins in the distance the ball is going you all who compete will play with that reined in equipment because you have to in USGA sanctioned tournaments but if you don't have to in recreational golf I believe you will be using whatever is available to hit the ball as far as possible

Tom, you assume that reigning in the absolute distance will hurt the mass of players.  I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption.  It is entirely possible to put a tighter cap on distance without hurting the games of the masses.  Think of it this way.  Different balls are most efficient at different speeds.  For example, a few years ago the ProV1 and the Lady Precept were the two hot balls.  Both were and are USGA legal.  Those with fast swing speeds preferred the ProVI because it dramatically boosted their distance, while many women, seniors, and other slower swingers preferred the Lady, because it was more suited to their game-- it benefited them more than the ProV.  (Pete L. brought up this example a few months ago.)  

Right now, most super balls are being designed for high swing speeds, but the manufacturers have built balls that maximize efficiency at different swing speeds (remember different compressions?)  So why couldnt the USGA regulate the ball in a manner that limited the fastest swings-- without hurting those with slower swings-- by allowing a higher efficiency level at slower speeds?  This might get the manufacturers to focus their research on a broader demographic than just touring pros.    

Sure the pros and some fast swinging amateurs would be hurt by such regulation, but these are the guys who have reaped a disproportionate reward from the technology anyway.

As to your concern about people abandoning the USGA and playing nonconforming equipment:

1. I think even the most recreational golfers compete in the form of small wagers, or gentleman's bets.  I doubt many who prefer to play by the rules will be to interested competing against those that don't with people who cheat.  

2. A relatively higher percentage the bigger, better hitters compete in USGA , club, and/or other events, so they might be less likely to abandon the  rules.  Also, big hitters have a tendency to want to play what the pros play.

I wonder if the temptation of trying to drive it long might be better described as trying to drive it longer than your opponents and peers.  MacKenzies take on limiting the distance is similar to RJDaley's.  He thought distance was relative, and as long as the long hitters could still blow it well by the shorter hitters, they would be satisfied.  This, of course, would still be the case even if the fast swingers were forced to play a ball that wasn't exactly tuned to their swing.  

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom,

What do you suggest for a person in my situation?  I may not be on tour but I do play in a lot of professional event through the year (local PGA stuff, state opens, U.S. Open qualifying, mini tours, etc.).  Do you think I should stay a "purist" and let these guys hit it 30 yards by me?  I feel I have no choice but to use the latest stuff.  It's like an arms race during the Cold War.

If you tell a pro that he/she can tee off with a cannon legally, I bet 95% of the guys would use one and the other 5% would end up using one shortly thereafter.  

Jeff F.

[Chris Kane]

Jeff,
There is a clear difference between those who play for recreation and those who playing for a living.  I'd guess that Tom Paul was referring to the former in his post.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Paul -

Harvey Penick said something to the effect of "people say they are addicted to golf, but they are really addicted to hitting the ball off the sweet spot of the club". The original quotation is much more poetic. Hitting it pure is way better than hitting it long or sinking some putts to go low.

Harvey really gets the short shrift on this site. He is hardly ever quoted. He was a true poet, like JakaB. I suppose he didn't have much to say about architecture.

[ChasLawler]

DMoriarty,

I'm not sure I agree with your idea about fine-tuning a ball that reaps more reward for those with slower swing speeds as opposed to those with higher swing speeds.

As I see it, if a guy has a faster swing speed than his opponents, and he can control the dispersion on his ball, then he should be at an advantage. Hasn't being longer always been an advantage? I don't thing it would be fair to handicap long hitters by making them use a ball which flies a less proportionate distance for them.

The USGA does need to step up and do something, but what I fear will happen, is that they will put a maximum limit on how far the ball can travel, and then advancements in ball technology in the not too distant future will allow those with slower swing speeds to hit the ball the same distances as those with higher swing speeds. I think that should be a big concern. Right now the manufacturers are concentrating on how to make the ball go further for the elite players in the world. What happens when a limit is put on how far those guys can hit it, and they start concentrating on creating a ball that goes further for the shorter hitters.

I don't know a whole lot about physics, but is it totally out of the realm of possibility that in 10 years a guy with a 120 mph swing speed is hitting his ProV1x 310 yards, while his opponent, who has a 90 mph swing speed his hitting it the same distance with his ProV5xxx? This new ball won't go any further for the guy with 120 mph swing speed, but it will for a guy with a 90 mph swing speed.  Maybe it’s not possible though.

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty said;

"Tom, you assume that reigning in the absolute distance will hurt the mass of players.  I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption."

David:

No, I didn't say that---and I don't believe that. I do not believe reining in the ball exclusively for the top caliber players (in competition) or the pro players will hurt them, and I don't even believe that reining in the ball for all golfers will hurt anyone either.

You also said;

"I wonder if the temptation of trying to drive it long might be better described as trying to drive it longer than your opponents and peers.  MacKenzies take on limiting the distance is similar to RJDaley's.  He thought distance was relative, and as long as the long hitters could still blow it well by the shorter hitters, they would be satisfied.  This, of course, would still be the case even if the fast swingers were forced to play a ball that wasn't exactly tuned to their swing."

Basically, that's what I believe in. I do think the seduction of hitting the ball as far as possible ultimately probably is mostly relative to other golfers and not some absolute yardage factor.

However, if that's true and the regulatory bodies rolled back distance limitations from what is presently happening and the manufacturers completely conform to that in what they produce there is a bit of an X factor at play here that golf has never been through in its history. And that is that golf has never, that I'm aware of, actually backed up the legal distance of balls and impliments! Throughout golf's history the combination of balls and impliments has ALWAYS gotten longer and longer--never shorter. Sometimes length increased in spurts (Featherie to Gutta and certainly Gutta to Haskel) and sometimes very gradually but it has never gone in the opposite direction to less absolute distance.

In a sense it would be the first time a rollback occured and it could be likened to attempting to put the genie back in the bottle to a degree. Would golfers, all of whom had experienced greater absolute distance, struggle to enjoy as much hitting pure shots shorter distances than they had previously?

I think at the very first they probably would struggle a little because their collective memories of a greater absolute distance would be still so fresh--but I believe the true lure of relatively greater distance to other golfers would very quickly take over again and that almost all golfers would probably forget the way it once was for a time in absolute terms.

I say that because I do believe that my father and his father before him felt just as much joy in playing golf and in the distances they could hit the ball in absolute terms with the less distance producing balls and equipment of their times. But of course they never really comprehended what we can do today and what they could have done if they had our balls and equipment available to them. I remember my father marveling at how touring pro were hitting their drives into the wind on  a range and carrying the ball just over 210 yds!! And Dad really understood golf--he even worked for Spalding.  

But again, they never had the experience of actually playing with something longer than the longest legal equipment of their time and then never went through a situation of even a relative rollback!

I think a rollback in absolute distance in golf at any level would work out just fine in the long run. And in the name of preservation of architecture and possibly even the ultimate integrity of the game I think it should be attempted.

Progress and technology are not necessarily bad things in golf equipment and probably shouldn't exactly be looked at that way. But what most seem to sort of overlook is there will always definitely be some price to pay when progress and technology in balls and equipment are applied to somewhat finite playing fields. And that price will ultimately probably be a negative one. This is wholly different from the idea of progress and technology when applied to a non-finite application such as say cultural affairs!

But the rub is that one of golf's greatest seductions is that most every golfer wants to hit the ball as far as possible. We all know that manufacturers use that seduction and temptation to their advantage to market and sell balls and equipment. And we also know that any manufacturer, marketer, advertiser must IMPLY that increased distance in some sort of absolute distance terms. To do otherwise would be illogical and far too much of an obvious con-job if they actually tried to imply that all a golfer should be interested in is hitting his ball farther than his fellows players or fellow competitors. Any golfer with half a brain could instantly understand that Titleist, for instance, was not spending millions to produce balls and equipment just for him so he could exclusively hit it farther than those he played against!

Certainly with the sophistication of technology today if all balls and equipment of all manufacturers were right at some new rolled back distance limitation how could any of them logically claim that their product was longer than anyone else's? And so then how could the manufacturers really buy into the concept that what really is important in golf is not absolute distance but the fact that any golfer could hit the ball relatively farther than any other golfer?

We can see today that's still not the case with the perception of golfers. Distance is still looked at in absolute terms, not relative terms. Just look at the recent discussion on this website regarding this new Pro V1x. Most everyone who's discussing that ball on here is under the impression that that ball is longer than any other ball in ABSOLUTE distance terms!

[FORTSONATOR]

I think I have actually had this discussion with Tom over the phone and basically here is my position.

I believe in one set of rules for all golfers.  It makes the sport uniform for everyone (excluding the One-Ball rule used in many competitions) and I think gives the game some integrity.  For the average guy I don't see a problem with the ERC II or illegal balls as long as it is not in competition or scores will not be posted for handicap purposes using such equipment.

The solution in my mind is to try to create testing guidelines for golf balls that regulate exponential distance.  I know it may be impossible through reasons of physics to perfect this but I do believe we can come as close as possible.  I mean come on, we have put people on the moon and we can't figure out how to make a golf ball travel in a virtually relative way as it pertains to distance?  JakaB, who I beleive is an engineer, explained the difficulty in the physics of it but I have to believe that it can still be done.  JakaB explained to me that physics works backwards in an exponential factor as it relates to clubhead speed and carry distance of a golf ball.  This means that if someone that swings 100mph hits a certain ball 200 yards that doesn't mean that if someone swung 200mph (which is impossible by the way) would hit it twice the distance, 400 yards of the first guy.  He in fact would hit it shorter in relative terms.

I guess my point is that there has to be a curve established by some engineers or physics geniuses that would make the ball react in accordance with proper laws of physics.

I hope I didn't melt everyones brains with my ramblings.  It's a hard thing to try to explain through typing.  

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

BTW, no, I most certainly do not expect you to consider playing golf competitively with balls or equipment that is less distance producing than any of your fellow competitors. For me to ever recommend such a thing would be ridiculous.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's say it were possible to drive the ball 400 yards.  Ok...might be fun to do...granted.

How about 500 yards?  600?  A mile??

At what point would it become less of a "seduction" and more of an annoyance?

At the point where the distance the ball travels is no longer conducive to the environment it's being played on, or to put it another way, when the distance the ball travels is out of balance with the framework of the environment (course) it's being played on.

It seems to me that the top players are getting to this point.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Or put another way, how happy would you be driving the ball 500 yards if your playing partners drive it 600?  

[ForkaB]

Mike

One of the key receptors which contributes to the pleasure of a long drive is located in the optic nerve--seeing it landing and then bounding onwards.  Past 300 yards or so this gets more and more difficult to achieve, so I for one will not be happy when my drives start breaking the 400 yard barrier.

PS--The Irish have a great solution to rolling back distance--they measure all their courses in meters..........

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich.

They don't, it's in metres!

[Lou_Duran]

The desire to hit the ball long is universal.  The youngest of kids and the oldest of men are out there hoping to gain (or regain) those additional yards.  It may be just be me, but I find that my interest and preoccupation with hitting it long is directly related to advancing age and my inability to do so.  Yes, I can still hit my PowerBilt persimmon and Titleist balata far enough to get by.  But the occasional drive with a ProV1 off my GBBII's sweet spot allowing me a chance to reach a par 5 in two provides great thrills.  Please, USGA, TEP, and others, don't take that away from me!  If you need to, BIFURCATE!

[JakaB]

I played a course yesterday at 6269yds with hickory that I usually play at 6861yds with modern....to my great surprise and delight the landing areas were in the exact same locations...hit a couple of fairway bunkers..most approaches were from the 180 to 115 range...just a perfect day....including this discovery.

THE INCREASE OF WIDTH......how do the exact same landing areas become wider.....the angle of the dangle of a 200yd drive with a spoon is so much less dispersed than a 260 yd drive with a 580 that the game becomes easier....shorter = wider...wider = easier....easier = ?   I can promise each and everyone of you that if you buy a set of hickories ...move up two sets of tees....your scores will go down...I just can't promise if this is what you really want.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I'm with you on the one set of B&I rules and regs for everyone in golf. It doesn't appear to have hurt any golfer heretofore so why would it now?

I'm certainly no tech person or physicist but if in fact there has been some sort of unusual separation in relative distance at different player levels or even swing speed levels recently compared to the past one certainly needs to know exactly why to create a logical solution to the problem.

I don't pretend to understand it all but I suspect the major reason this happened generally falls under the technological definition of "optimization" that appears to be a new technological application that has taken place in the last ten years.

Certainly this involves some combination of technological symbiosis between club and ball but I suspect the majority of it might just be the optimization of the golf ball.

Either way or whatever combination produced this distance spike or relative distance separation between player levels or swing speed levels should be determinable by simply using a baseline year--perhaps 1976 or 1986 or 1996 and just analyzing with test protocols what technically took place following that time that changed things from the way they were then.

If that was done properly consideration could be given to simply returning to the technical particulars of that time. And this doesn't even mean technology could not improve things somehow just not in the same way that it has in the last ten or so years.

My sense is that good players probably gave up a lot more potential distance using the old soft balls compared to the hard balls than most realize. But why did they all do that? Simply to gain far more control at the green end!

That certainly never meant back then that good players could not use the hard balls--they just never did because ultimately they all felt it did them no good score-wise despite perhaps remarkably increased distance potential.

I see no real reason why golf's regulatory bodies could not just legislate rules and regs back to that rather interesting ball choice which golf seems to have lived with just fine for many many decades.

When manufacturers figured out finally how to combine those two distinct choices in balls into one things started to go awry and real distance separation (with control) took place in the last ten or so years.

If this really is so-called "optimization" the solution would simply be to reverse that "optimization" through B&I rules and reg legislation back to a particular baseline year.

Regarding golfers such as John Daley or Davis Love or Tiger Woods or a Hank Kuehne and the rather rude shock some of the regulators apparently felt watching them hit the old soft balls should not be a concern at all. For some physical reason golfers such as those were simply able to generate more clubhead speed than others. And regulators have never been concerned about controlling the distance any golfer swings a golf club unaided by pure technology.

But on the other hand the idea of using really advanced technology to optimize various swing speeds to achieve some kind of added equality of result is most definitely what the regulators are interested in preventing and always have.

That is nothing more than buying a golf game, and although probably not that possible it's not a direction golf regulators want to see equipment and the game ever go in.

One set of B&I rules and regs worked just fine once and probably the best way to make it do that again is to attempt to legislatively return balls to a time when it did.

Obviously the exact technical way to return to that time would be to figure out as accurately as possible just how far below the ODS limit (which has been in effect for years) those soft balls that all the good players used actually were.

[Mike Benham]

Scoring low is the #1 seduction ... more golfers brag (and lie) about there handicap then anything else.  Yes, they may exaggerate the length of their drives or just missing birdiy putts but it comes back to what your shot or what's your handicap ...

The #2 seduction is playing the same equipment as the Professionals, or the perception that they are playing the same clubs, balls, etc.  Many years ago, two-piece balls such as Top-Flite, Pinnacle and Molitor were longer balls than the Titleist Balatas or other professional balls on the market.  Distance didn't matter then because you were playing the same clubs and balls as the professionals.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, how about the thought that one begins to routinely hit the ball 300 with drives on firm and fast even routinely bounding to 340+, and most of the courses you play have atleast 9 par 4s of 375-420.  And all of the par 5s are reachable with irons.  How seductive is that?  Driver-wedge over and over. I think it would become boring and cause you to loose interest in the game.  Playing golf where birdie becomes par and par is thought of as bogey is like shooting fish in the barrel.  It is like Saddam fishing with dynamite.

[ForkaB]

Actually Bob, on the course I played last week they had metres on the scorecard but yards on the tee boxes.  It took me 12 holes of hitting short to realize that the 150 markers in the middle of the fairways were metric.....

[Mike Benham]

Playing golf where birdie becomes par and par is thought of as bogey is like shooting fish in the barrel.  It is like Saddam fishing with dynamite.

We are assuming that, for the normal golfer, just because they hit the ball 20 yards farther, that they are actually making more birdies .

The old axiom of "Drive for show, putt for dough" still holds true.

Has any of us become better golfers, measured by lower handicaps, because we are hitting the ball farther?  Seriously think before you answer that one ...

Or are we becoming better golfers because the clubs we hit are more forgiving than before ... those who played at Pajaro a month ago?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()