[Mark_Huxford]

Going off something Jeff mentioned about the Robert Trent Jones renovations for Oakland Hills and the '51 Open, and how it sparked the quest for "The Longest Ball" that is such an issue in golf today;

What would be the effect of the USGA saying enough is enough now and putting a limit on the length of a golf course if they
can't do anything about the ball?

It seems to me that in golf we try and change the "stadium" rather than changing the "javelin". It cost my home club many thousands of dollars to add 220 yards onto the course this year and they ruined parts of it in the process. It must be costing clubs worldwide billions.

If courses were limited to 7,200 yards at sea level and scaled up a little to account for altitude, the latest balls would make the game a joke a lot sooner, but won't they do that eventually anyway? The way I see it courses being too short affect only a small percentage whereas the cost of the game affects us all.

Golf ball makers are like Formula 1 teams and the R&A and USGA are like the FIA in motorsport. Every few years the FIA change the capacity of the engines or the width of the tyres in an effort to reduce cornering speeds and improve safety. Within a season though the teams have found ways to get back to the laptimes they were doing before or even improve. You can't stop technology.

In 1926 Robert Hunter wrote in The Links about a championship course being 6,300 yards and how he lamented length above quality even at that distance. Today the last major championship course was 7,300 yards and within 20 years it may have to be 8,300. Why don't we quit while we're behind?

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark:

The danger is that clubs, designers and developers might then try to do all sorts of goffy things to defend against "driver, wedge".

On balance, I think either limiting the overall distance standard or introducing a competition ball would make more sense.

Wouldn't it be great if the big boys hit drives around 260 yards and needed long irons or fairwoods into 450 yard par fours?

We need to do more to highlight the cost of the golf technology arms race.  We need to put alot more pressure on companies like Callaway and Titleist to be more innovative and lower the costs of playing the game.

[Mark_Huxford]

Ideally yes Tim, but are we even looking like getting there? My idea is to show the futility of the current situation to more golfers and to keep the cost of the game in check in the short term.

As courses move the bar up in length to match the distance the ball is travelling few people notice what is truly going on.
What's required is a climate where most players want the ball rolled back dramatically like Athletics did with the javelin.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Baseball's governors somewhat successfully limit equipment technology in order to preserve some integrity in thier sport as well. You're certainly not going to see aluminum bats in the major leagues anytime soon.  

Why is golf afraid to do the same?

Mark's right. The modern ball goes really, really far for a few of the top players. It's effect the average golfer less. Yet, professional golf drives development, and with that we can expect to see 8,300 yard golf courses in the next few years, if something isn't done about the ball.

The biggest problem stemming from increased distance are the increased costs associated to it: land purchases, course construction and maintenance, renovations, green fees, equipment, etc. Everything in the game becomes more and more expensive as the ball goes farther and farther.

That's the saddest result of the R&A's and USGA's apathy.

Yes, the R&A and the USGA NEED TO stop the "Arms Race". And the equipment manufacturers have to snap out of it and assist in doing what's best for golf in the long run. What's best for golf in the long run is what's best for their companies too.

The spirit and integrity of a centuries old game CANNOT be sacrificed for the short-term financial gains of equipment companies and their investors. That's childish.

So is the USGA's fear of an expensive legal battle. They've got the money. Use it. No, better, use the money to become better communicators on the issue; with both equipment manufacters and the general golfing public. Most golfers do NOT understand the implications of a longer ball on the game. That's the USGA's fault too.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Huxford/Jeff Mingay:

I'm delighted with your comments. It does seem clear that people aren't aware how catering to a very small minority is increasing the cost of playing golf for the vast majority.

Moreover, equipment manufacturers are consciously running advertising campaigns to obscure and confuse the issue.

We ought to take every opportunity we can to raise people's consciousness on this issue.  The golf technology arms race makes no sense whatsoever.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Where's USGA advertising campaign (to make sense of the issue)?

As I mentioned above, the USGA people have to become more effective communicators. They have to become as effective in marketing the USGA -- their responsibilties, causes and intentions -- as the equipment manufacturers are in marketing their products.

To paraphrase Ely Callaway, it's all about smoke and mirrors.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Well, in the USGA's case, it's all about truths.

[Dan Herrmann]

I thought this was a brilliant idea - put a limit on the total length of a course if the USGA is afraid to limit the ball due to legal issues.

[Bill_McBride]

I thought this was a brilliant idea - put a limit on the total length of a course if the USGA is afraid to limit the ball due to legal issues.

What do you think, 6,800 yards?   

[Dave Doxey]

It's up to members of cubs to decide if the cost of redesigns are worth it. They have to decide whether to chase equipment advances or not.  They decide what's best foe club members.   Let the free market sort it out.

Governing bodies will never roll back balls or clubs.  There's too much money at stake, and money is what decides.

Comparing to baseball is not valid.  How much money is involved in the baseball bat market, vs golf equipment?

If the USGA/R&A were to do a roll back, equipment sellers might invent their own game & rules.  See recent Taylor Made support for  "Flog" or "foot golf" and the whole "Top Golf" franchise.

There's too much money involved in equipment.

[Mike Bowen]

Dave,

There is already limitations on equipment.  To say the "free market" is silly when you speak of a highly regulated sport. 

[Mike Bowen]

The explosion of distance was timed perfectly with an explosion of golf course construction.  Correlation or causation is a whole other discussion.  If there was not this explosion of new courses something would have been done already.  What percentage of 7000+ yard courses were built in the last 20 years.  With the drastic decline in course construction, this topic will begin to heat up.

[Tom_Doak]

It's up to members of cubs to decide if the cost of redesigns are worth it. They have to decide whether to chase equipment advances or not.  They decide what's best foe club members.   Let the free market sort it out.

Governing bodies will never roll back balls or clubs.  There's too much money at stake, and money is what decides.

Comparing to baseball is not valid.  How much money is involved in the baseball bat market, vs golf equipment?

If the USGA/R&A were to do a roll back, equipment sellers might invent their own game & rules.  See recent Taylor Made support for  "Flog" or "foot golf" and the whole "Top Golf" franchise.

There's too much money involved in equipment.

This seems to be the comeback to everything in the world nowadays:  we can't change, because some of the "haves" would lose out on some of what they have.  It seems to hold sway in politics and big business, and between them, that's pretty much everything, except for one's personal choices.

If you want things to change, start there.  Don't build 7500 yard golf courses, or add back tees to the courses we have.  Don't watch tournaments played on 7500 yard courses.  Don't buy from Taylor Made, or from the USGA, or from anyone else that supports the push to lengthen golf.  Encourage others to boycott them.

The USGA could be leaders on this, instead of followers, if they wanted to.  The evidence suggests they don't really want to.  I think it has to do with money -- they don't want to risk their own big fat endowment, the one that guarantees the salaries of all the guys who would make such a decision.

Equipment sellers might invent their own game and rules?  They're going to give up on a game that has tens of millions of players, to try and invent a new one?  Get real.  They might try to sell illegal equipment -- that wouldn't be much of a stretch for the Chinese, who make all the equipment already.  And if they do, it's up to you to stop it.  It's a lot less expensive to tell your buddy you won't play him and his illegal driver, than it is to buy one yourself.  

[Frank Giordano]

TD,

You're a subversive, but in the very best sense of the word.  I admire your courage in telling truths that none of the "haves" in the USGA care to hear and few of your prospective clients, professional colleagues, or GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM peers, wed as they are to the "let the markets direct" creed, can imagine.  Right now we have one ball in all the major sports; all the pros play the same football, basketball, baseball, etc.  Kids in sandlots, in schools and colleges play with different equipment, to help them play more like the pros; that's fine for the 99%ers.

But must the performance standards of the "tail" -- the 1% of tour pros -- wag the whole dog-gone game of golf into the muck?

You are not a voice crying in the wilderness; keep your ideas coming, and keep articulating the options true golfers have in their fight against those financial interests that would subvert our game.  Maybe the guys here at GolfClubAtlas.com, who serve on green committees at home, will think twice about lengthening their courses again. 

Yesterday, on the course here in Pinehurst, a fellow player told me to look at a few websites that sell illegal equipment, places where I could find balls that travel farther.  I told him I don't have a smart phone and I didn't, in any case, want to emulate one of my patron saints, Arnold Palmer, in his weakest, most shameful moment.  Couldn't tell if my illogical reply registered.

[Jud_T]

I agree that it's silly to call a regulated sport like golf a free market.  However I think that market forces may start helping in this regard.  The average baby boomer is 64 years old.  Your average 64 year old golfer who drives the ball 200 yards has no interest in tees beyond 6500 yards and most will probably be happier around 6000.  Combine this with the fact that most have less for retirement than they thought they would and I'm guessing that a lot of back tees at expensive 7000+ courses aren't going to need a whole lot of divot mix any time soon.

[Mike Bowen]

Further to Tom's point about manufacturers making illegal equipment if the powers at be roll things back; how many manufacturers are currently making illegal groves?  How were the sales numbers for the Callaway ERC 2?

[Peter Pallotta]

This made me think of the steady decline in volunteerism and civic engagement in all aspects/areas of life. (I think the decline happens to coincide with the professionalization of almost all aspects/areas of life.)  70 years of continual (and unprecedented) economic growth in the west has led to a preoccupation with finances and a heroin-junkie-like desperation for ever-more economic growth, both personal and collective -- and little time or energy or genuine interest left for any kind of community service.  And thus the ills of careerism (e.g. at the USGA), and the demands for exponentially growing corporate profit (e.g. at TaylorMade). Can you imagine if the USGA was entirely staffed and run by volunteers instead? The processes and considerations and priorities and decisions of those volunteers would, I think, be vastly different than they are today. The same with government bureaucracies (such as the one I work in) -- where careerism makes senior officials seemingly blind to any ethical or even practical considerations other than what is expedient i.e. what their political masters of the day dictate, and thus what will ensure their continual career advancement. This thread reminds me that I need to start taking my own spending decisions and life choices much more seriously, and making those with much greater integrity.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Can you imagine if the USGA was entirely staffed and run by volunteers instead? The processes and considerations and priorities and decisions of those volunteers would, I think, be vastly different than they are today.

Peter:

The sad thing is, not so long ago, the USGA was, indeed, run mostly by volunteers.  There were not many salaried positions at Golf House.  Then they decided they needed to build a "war chest" to stave off lawsuits from equipment manufacturers -- which led to staffing up, building an office building, investing their endowment -- and ultimately, having too much at stake to risk a lawsuit with the equipment manufacturers!

[Pat Burke]

Edit,

Lost my decoder ring

[Ryan Coles]

The ironic thing is most pro's would support a roll back. Almost universally they think technology benefits their peers more than them individually.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Further to Tom's point about manufacturers making illegal equipment if the powers at be roll things back; how many manufacturers are currently making illegal groves? How were the sales numbers for the Callaway ERC 2?

Callaway lost 57.6 million in driver sales in 2003 when measured against it's 2002 numbers, a 19% drop off. They gained in all other categories.

There aren't any illegal grooves for the vast majority of players, at least until 2024.

[Pat Burke]

The ironic thing is most pro's would support a roll back. Almost universally they think technology benefits their peers more than them individually.

I think that most would agree that an overall roll back would help golf courses, and the game
of golf.  
It would impact the "business" of golf.  Clubs, balls, egomaniacs.  Not sure that should matter or not.

Roll back, selfishly ok for me as a player.  Roll back across the board no problem if I vote.
I don't want separate clubs/balls for "tournament" golf.  I think Would create too much chaos to set
the dividing line on what level it starts.

[Tom_Doak]

The ironic thing is most pro's would support a roll back. Almost universally they think technology benefits their peers more than them individually.

Yes, but nearly every player is on the payroll of one of the equipment companies, who will urge them to vote "no" by threatening their contracts.  That's why we are where we are.

[Jim_Kennedy]

One of the nice features of CT golf is the distance issue passed us by. Now, you can say the state is golf poor, yadda, yadda, yadda, but there are only 8 courses out of some 170 that tip out over 7,000, and a few of those make it by less than 100 yards. There are a handful or so reaching 6900, a few over 6,800 but the majority are 6,700 or less.

No problem here. 



 

[Paul Gray]

Tom Doak,

Well said and well done for not being scared to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy for someone like me because I don't rely on the industry for pay cheques.

This repetitive fall back of defending the position of the 'haves' is something which has been on my mind a lot recently as it does indeed seem to be a tried and tested formula for those that hold sway. Simply accuse someone of being anti capitalist, anti freedom or anti whatever other libertarian ideal you chose to throw in and apparently the opponent is then required to either concede defeat or declare elegance to Karl Marx via a Mccarthy trail.

What happened to the notion that a sport should have a governing body which should be free to make decisions for the greater good of that game which might actually conflict with the ideals of naked consumerism? And when did even suggesting simply that become controversial or quirky or idealistic left wing bullshit?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()