[V. Kmetz]

The recent threads, like many threads about Equipment, all offer reasoned, if unpragmatic, opinions about what's to be done, and what's to be done in the interim.


But none of these ball rollback offerings are going to take root without a reconciliation of the game's equipment economic market and course standards that don't have to slave to prodigious straight hitting not available when designed.


For me that reconciliation is to bifurcate the game into two (2) markets:


1. OPEN: Where equipment standards are limited and most anything goes, played under streamlined rules and procedures (OBs, hazard drops, lift/clean, lost ball, touching line of putt, anchoring, ready golf, croquet putting, etc). Here you carry one handicap number - your Open handicap.


2. TOURNEY: Where standards of ball are rolled back and homogenized off one patent/process issued to any manufacturer who wishes its brand customers to have them, randomly tested to a pre-determined tolerance of variance. I don't know enough about club performance technology to know what standards ought to be addressed in this half of the bifurcation.  Here you carry another (higher) handicap, playing under USGA/R & A rules largely like today's.


This is a win for the leading/traditional/historic venues who will not need to take on new artifice to host championships. It's a win for the game's appeal and consequent economic stability as most will play under Open rules, which will be a faster game and an easier game, with an exotic addition of the boundless hot equipment to fascinate. And perhaps most practically, it's a massive win for the business (at least the ball-making) of the game as they have an extended market of hot equipment to innovate and peddle in the the OPEN side, and the ability to keep their branding relationships and profile secure on TV on the Tourney ball side. Plus the amount of innovation, competition and small business health opportunities that might arise regionally among any interested parties who work on making the hottest of the hot, most durable, most custom OPEN ball are much fuller.


And then there's the "about time"  sense of the thing too...bifurcation... In any sport I can think of the game is/has been whacked up with different rules and different procedures of play than the one above and below it...by age, by talent, by practicality. Even the greatest pickup basketball games are not the same as a high school game...a college game...a pro game... there's no referee, no foul shots, no clocks, play to 11, 15, 21, no foul outs or technical fouls, often played by fewer than 5 aside...If people had to get all those things in place to play basketball, playground courts would be bull-dozed. But it's still basketball and most everything that is good or fun in basketball is found in the pickup game with all but the public nature of the higher levels.


cheers   vk

[Kyle Harris]

The game is already more-than-bifurcated.

Stroke Play
Match Play
Stableford Scoring

Your analogy regarding pick-up/High School/College/Professional ball is misplaced and has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with format. The differences are more akin to my above list than the type of ball or equipment used. Consider replacing pick-up/High School/College/Professional with Junior/High School/Club Level/Local Golf Association/Tour or some other such benchmarks. The continuum is in intensity and relative skill, not in the equipment used.

The rim is still 10 feet high in all those formats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cdc13CU9Fc

[V. Kmetz]

KH (and all)


My analogy may be misplaced (because in golf you don't competitively vie for the ball) but


1. How can you cite 3 formats, not "levels" or "divisions" of the game, and say that I am the one misplacing? Stableford!? That is entirely artifice and pure "format," the most artificial product of a scorecard ever made.  I don't even have to know I'm playing it to win it...I can just turn in my card and let the shop kid tell me what my Stableford score was.


2. How can you say that successive levels of most every sport are not played with different equipment, a difference that factors enormously in the nature of the sport at that level?...aluminum bats anyone? wider goal posts/hash marks in college to pros? ever hold the NFL's duke as opposed to NCAA 1 - A football? It's one reason why they measure hands at the combine. The homogeneity at any one level is not the point...it's the lesser homogeneity across different levels and formats of play was the point.


3. What about the rest of it, the game analogy was only one part of what I laid out... what about the wins, the saving of courses from par-defending disfigurement, the expanding of market for manufacturer's, the likely spur of entrepreneurial pursuit to meet the unchained half of the market?


What is so wrong with this concept, so harmful, damaging, unsporting or anything else...what?


cheers   vk

[Kyle Harris]

VK,

I think the problem with attempting to find an analogue for golf with other games like Basketball or with other games like Baseball (and they themselves are inherently different, more on that in a bit) is what you and Tom Paul usually not in that in golf the ball is not "vied for."

The field dimension example you cited about Football doesn't really hold water since different levels of golf play from different length golf courses.

Here's the problem with Baseball and I have yet to actually see someone make this point:

If the Offense has too much of an advantage, the game would never finish.
If the Defense has too much of an advantage, the "game" would never start.

Therefore, baseball has to tread a fine line of balance between an interesting offense and effective defense since no clock governs the pace of the game, nor does baseball have rules like cricket which dictate the amount of attempts one side has.

Golf doesn't have these problems since the player is compelled to play a shot until the ball is holed/round is complete.

If we are to look at that parry/thrust between offense and defense over the years in Baseball to draw an analogy to Golf, we need to look at the similar parry/thrust in Golf over the same time-frame. The "live ball" era of Baseball is roughly a century old. In that time frame teams have figured how to play more effective defense and furthermore how to play more effective offense. Athletic conditioning has improved. Advanced statistics have allowed us to determine how to effectively put the ball in play. But both sides of the field have had swoons and resurgences as a result!

With golf, we are only now just beginning to optimize the game element of the sport and we are lagging baseball by decades.

The only answer to truly determine an exigent (need is still way way way off) for equipment bifurcation is for someone to attempt to optimize their golf game using today's standards of both swing analysis and athletic training with equipment from *insert by-gone rose-tinted era here*.

My suspicion is that with today's optimizations abilities, bifurcating the rules will be pointless. The modern Tour Player will figure it out.

Until such point, though, this discussion is all going to be grasping for straws.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

From my perspective bifurcation isn't about the game at all...it is about golf courses.  Jeepers, we all know folks bifurcate by playing golf however they please...it is natural to do so and what the hell do I care how folks play?  I agree, bifurcation is grasping at straws to preserve architecture, but to me it is worth a go.  The only other worthwhile reason I can think to bifurcate would be to make the game faster...though I have my doubts that rule changes would have much impact in this regard....but I think it is worth a go. 

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

We bifurcate the game ourselves everyday.  While some will not admit such, every group you play with has it's own set of guidelines for playing within the set body of rules.  It's always been that way and will continue to be that way.  Some roll the ball, others give  3 ft. putts, many use the leaf rule in the Fall and it goes on and on.  So there is really no need to do anything.  It takes care of itself.

[V. Kmetz]

KH, MY (and all)...


Because I agree with you both that the game has natural bifurcations (having less to do with equipment than manner of play) maybe the better specific term is an:


EQUIPMENT DIViSION?


This is just a social board of a few hundred hobbyists, so I realize the limitations of any idea/proposal/wisdom/folly made here...but when you (and anyone) view the problem of the maxi-ball (classic course disfigurement/poor economic and cultural leadership for golf-and gca) who are the actors? Who is doing what? saying no? Putting some unknown self-interested profit above the better interests we identify? Who will sue whom and file for injunctions if the USGA/R &A issues an edict for a slower ball (forget club-making for the moment)?


I don't think its the architects and their familiars...I know it's not 95% of the interested types here...I'm fairly convinced its not the classic and new classic course memberships that are in-line to host the profile events.


That leaves:
1. The professional players who may fear loss of singular competitiveness from adjustment to a slower ball
2. The leading ball-makers (and by extension their brands) who fear loss of revenues


Anticipating some combo of those two groups, I think the bottom line is that they will have to be mollified/conceded to in some way... I think a division of codified play into GENERAL/OPEN and TOURNAMENT is the least disruptive, and has a chance to actually improve the lot of all parties at the table.


But again, it's just a board and nothing one way or the other is likely to happen...perhaps a future interview can be a moderated discussion between a ball-marketer rep, a playing professional and a former USGA exec board...if I'm grasping at straws, it kind of goes with the territory of being a damn internet poster on a hobby board...what are THEY grasping at.


cheers   vk

[Kyle Harris]

VK,

I don't consider myself too much of a hobbyist

I think my problem with equipment division is that it is the lazy solution to solve a few decades of lazy golf architecture.

When adding some distance to a few hallowed layouts is a reasonable solution (and you'd be hard-pressed to tell me it isn't reasonable in most cases) while combining that with the introduction of new venues, there isn't a problem.

The true question for me on this issue is whether or not we are admitting that we don't necessarily have a problem with scoring as it is now, but rather, how those scores are attained.

Until more people take on the problem like Pete Dye by asking Tour-caliber players questions they had never been asked before I will consider the question of equipment rules to be the easy way out.

[Mike Sweeney]

We bifurcate the game ourselves everyday.  While some will not admit such, every group you play with has it's own set of guidelines for playing within the set body of rules.  It's always been that way and will continue to be that way.  Some roll the ball, others give  3 ft. putts, many use the leaf rule in the Fall and it goes on and on.  So there is really no need to do anything.  It takes care of itself.

The one thing that is always weird/unique to golf is - it is the only sport in the world were the professionals players can and do play with different balls. Yes, tennis plays with different racquets, but they use the same ball.


I know one of the state golf associations tried a standard ball at one point, but it obviously died.


The bifurcation became clear this summer as my son got into golf, real golf rather than vacation golf. Basically he has similar genes and similar build, and he hits the ball 50 yards farther than I ever did because he is a finely tuned athlete with 3 days of lifting per week, access to trainers, and years of hitting a squash ball with a wrist-lower arm snap that I never had....


But I can still smoke him in golf as he sucks more than me from 100 yards in

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,


I don't think Baseball is a good comparative, because it does have play ending mechanisms like 3 outs per inning and 9 innings per game. 


IF you want to watch a version where offense is way out of balance, watch the world slow pitch softball championships. They will hit home run after home run after home run.  But eventually a few guys hit pop outs and the game ends 


P.S.  Mike, I think that comparison is a little deceptive.  Even though each player uses a different ball from other competitors, that same player uses the same ball for the entire 18 holes...

[Kalen Braley]

VK,


I agree with your premise of this thread, but there is one fatal flaw.


If you think the equipment manufactures are going to be OK with marketing clubs and balls that the pros don't use in competition, I think thats a bit naive.  The average uniformed joe at home wants to use the same ball and driver that they just watched Tiger or Phil or Jordan work some magic with...

[Mike Sweeney]

P.S.  Mike, I think that comparison is a little deceptive.  Even though each player uses a different ball from other competitors, that same player uses the same ball for the entire 18 holes...

This is not an accurate statement:

When changing balls, the player is permitted to substitute a ball of another brand or type unless the Committee has adopted the One Ball Condition of Competition (see Appendix I; Part C; Section 1c). This optional condition (usually referred to as ‘The One Ball Rule’) is generally adopted only in events that are limited to professional golfers or highly-skilled amateur golfers. Generally, this condition of competition is not adopted in club-level competitions.
[/size][/color]
[/size]https://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=177&Rule=15[/color]

[Kalen Braley]

P.S.  Mike, I think that comparison is a little deceptive.  Even though each player uses a different ball from other competitors, that same player uses the same ball for the entire 18 holes...

This is not an accurate statement:

When changing balls, the player is permitted to substitute a ball of another brand or type unless the Committee has adopted the One Ball Condition of Competition (see Appendix I; Part C; Section 1c). This optional condition (usually referred to as ‘The One Ball Rule’) is generally adopted only in events that are limited to professional golfers or highly-skilled amateur golfers. Generally, this condition of competition is not adopted in club-level competitions.

https://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=177&Rule=15

Mike,


But what are we talking about here on this thread?  Separating Pros and high level amateurs from everyone else.  It says the one-ball rule is generally adopted at the highest levels...


P.S.  Weekend warriors use different balls when they play golf, just like they use different balls when playing pick up basketball, school yard football or baseball. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Kalen,


Sorry I was rushing earlier. I was just adding to Mike Young's point that we bifurcate the game in many ways. I was actually surprised that the USGA supports this bifurcation. I have never played at the level where a Committee imposed the one ball rule.


Not a big deal, I was just surprised at the separation by the USGA.


Fairways and greens.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,


Sorry I was rushing earlier. I was just adding to Mike Young's point that we bifurcate the game in many ways. I was actually surprised that the USGA supports this bifurcation. I have never played at the level where a Committee imposed the one ball rule.


Not a big deal, I was just surprised at the separation by the USGA.


Fairways and greens.

Its all good Mike,


I was also thinking the pros would be so dialed in with thier ball, they wouldn't' want to switch between holes even if they could...


I admit, I frequently break the rule inadvertently if I lose a ball during a hole! 

[Sean_A]

Back in the day I knew Brits (the rule didn't apply in Britain...at least at club level, but I want to say the rule was particular to the USGA...not sure though) who played soft balls downwind and hard balls upwind. 

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

I read a very wise comment during a discussion about the ban of anchored putting: "No one I know ever quit the game because it was too easy."


Dialing the ball back won't happen because there is not a group of owners of the various venues that make up a league, etc. and can band together to set a standard for play.  The only owner(s) that do have the power to do something with respect to the golf ball is the Masters and so far they have not taken it upon themselves to do something about it.  I would speculate that perhaps those at ANGC believe that the Masters will always be a significant competition no matter what is done with the ball or equipment. (The course will always be the shortest of the major venues.)

[Cal Seifert]

An alternate way to look at it is why not just make a cut off right now for the balls abilities. No balls played under USGA, R&A, etc can exceed the abilities of today's prov1s.  And just let the players score however well they want.  We have become too obsessed over the notion of par.  To me this seems like a possibility but I can't imagine watching players tear up a 6700 yard course and be -35 on Sunday. Pros and cons to everything.

[jeffwarne]

An alternate way to look at it is why not just make a cut off right now for the balls abilities. No balls played under USGA, R&A, etc can exceed the abilities of today's prov1s.  And just let the players score however well they want.  We have become too obsessed over the notion of par.  To me this seems like a possibility but I can't imagine watching players tear up a 6700 yard course and be -35 on Sunday. Pros and cons to everything.

The USGA did that years ago.
They come up with certain characteristics the ball cannot exceed.
Then the manufacturers, who are better funded and smarter, find ways within those stated specifications and standards to make the ball perform better-especially for better players.
They thought they froze it years ago.


Also, and not be discounted, players are training, practicing and evolving to thrive in a bomb and wedge environment-to take advantage of equipment that allows/encourages it and courses that reward it.


So understand I'm not saying it's all equipment based, but as humans evolve, the equipment can be scaled back a lot easier than real estate and scale expanded.
(seems like a simple concept but.....egos, denial,misinformation and $$ conflicts intrude)


PGA Stadium at the time met the current technology(which when built was supposed to be the toughest course in the world)
Now the elite tear it up and the average guy suffers on what is still a brutally tough course for mere mortals....even if one plays "the right tees" ick

[Erik J. Barzeski]

An alternate way to look at it is why not just make a cut off right now for the balls abilities. No balls played under USGA, R&A, etc can exceed the abilities of today's prov1s.  And just let the players score however well they want.  We have become too obsessed over the notion of par.  To me this seems like a possibility but I can't imagine watching players tear up a 6700 yard course and be -35 on Sunday. Pros and cons to everything.

No balls played now with respect to distance violate the cut-off that we had in place in 1997, though.

The modern ball is no longer than balls that were available in 1997. People seem to keep missing that… All that the ball makers were able to do is to get some of the balata-level spin (not all of it) into a ball that performed more like a Pinnacle off the tee.

That, along with longer, lighter, larger drivers, optimization, and a better understanding of how to score in golf has created a situation where players hit it 20 yards further now than in 1997 or whatever.

But since shortly after 2000, the distance again leveled off.

To your point, there's no real way to say "expand the capabilities of today's Pro V1". What do you mean? No ball does that, really, nor can they… the golf balls we have now are about the same as the ones we had in 2008. We're not seeing even three-yard jumps from the ball year over year.

I've heard others say you've got to legislate spin, but they overlook how doing so - creating a standard for how much a ball has to spin under certain conditions - would be a monumental task if you even try to do it "fairly" as well as "completely." You'd have to define ranges for speed, the angle at which a steel plate (or something) was moving relative to the ball, the total spin output, etc. for a wide range of conditions. It'd be a mess, and the best you could probably do is to create classes of balls, perhaps - so you'd again force the better player's hand between choosing a ball with more spin on all clubs (better for wedges, worse for driver?), or one with less spin with all clubs (better for the driver, worse for wedges?).

All for, what, a tiny fraction of golfers who aren't really gaining much distance for almost two decades now? Who are still playing majors at courses that are 100+ years old? Who are still not shooting ridiculously low scores every other round?

The USGA did that years ago.They come up with certain characteristics the ball cannot exceed.Then the manufacturers, who are better funded and smarter, find ways within those stated specifications and standards to make the ball perform better-especially for better players.They thought they froze it years ago.

Jeff, please elaborate on "they make the ball perform better-especially for better players" as well as the strongly implied idea that balls exceed the standards or characteristics desired.

Because… if you're referring to the myth that balls do something special once they're "compressed" enough, that's all it is: a myth. Added swing speed continues to offer a slightly below linear relationship to distance. There's no "ball boost" if you can "get into the core" or anything like that.

==============

I'm pretty plainly/clearly on record as saying bifurcation would be BAD and would lead to a LOT of unintended consequences, would muddy the game for those near the borderline, would necessitate perhaps even two handicaps being kept… etc.

So if Jeff or someone was made Universal Czar of Golf and mandated a roll-back of balls or equipment, I'd be much more willing to support it being done across the game of golf, to everyone, than by bifurcating. As others noted, we already have bifurcation in that some people don't care to play by the rules (or make up their own), and you're welcome to play "illegal" equipment if you wish and aren't playing in a tournament that mandates "legal" gear.

That there's virtually no market for this "illegal" stuff speaks to why I think bifurcation is bad… though if Jeff got his wish as Czar, maybe that would create a market for the "illegal" stuff as golfers would get upset at having to give up 20 yards or whatever.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


I think you're missing the point here.  A ball can be designed specifically to be flight limited.  And its relatively simple to do as its been done in other sports.


Its not about drawing a line in the sand.  Its about specifically designing a ball that only goes X amount of distance for X swing speed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think you're missing the point here.  A ball can be designed specifically to be flight limited.  And its relatively simple to do as its been done in other sports.

I don't think I am, and we clearly have very different definitions of "relatively simple."

The balls that we play today would have been legal in 1997, so you can't even "roll back" to a previous standard. You're creating an entirely new standard, and the equipment makers are pretty smart - possibly smarter than whatever the USGA could come up with. Any change would favor certain types of players over others, particularly for a long time while players and companies sort out how to maximize things within the new specs.

And that's if you even see the need to bifurcate or roll back, which I don't agree has been established at all, outside of a small minority.

Its not about drawing a line in the sand.  Its about specifically designing a ball that only goes X amount of distance for X swing speed.

We have that now. A small minority of people simply don't like what those "X"s are.

[Thomas Dai]

Cool video about the ball characteristics, flight etc - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


I would agree that we have different standards.  I'm not talking about reverting to an old ball, I'm proposing to design a new ball that is flight limited via its properties, core, dimpling, etc.  And it doesn't have to happen overnight.. .they could spend a couple of years designing, testing, and tweaking in several iterations to come up with the best version before implementing.


I will certainly agree that the pros will whine, cry, and otherwise throw a tantrum, but in the end they will still play.  Do you think they will quit the tour and forgo all that money because they don't like the ball?


P.S.  I don't buy the "favor certain type of players" argument because that already exists.  Longer players currently have an advantage and would likely continue to have it with a modified ball.  Just like accuracy guys have advantages on tight tracks and good putters on courses with complicated greens.  These things will always exist in golf regardless of how far the ball flies..

[Cal Seifert]

I will certainly agree that the pros will whine, cry, and otherwise throw a tantrum, but in the end they will still play.  Do you think they will quit the tour and forgo all that money because they don't like the ball?

Not only the pros. None of the club makers will gladly start selling clubs that preform worse than the clubs they sold a year ago. I can see the banner in the store now, "NEW DRIVER! ROLLBACK TECHNOLOGY! 10% LESS distance!"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()