Old Golf, New Golf

[Geoff_Shackelford]

There was a thread a while back on the new version of the game versus the old one. I wrote a piece for the LA Times on this subject that finally appeared today. In light of Gary Player's unbelievable about face (he was pro competition ball, watch Callaway shut him up on that too), thought you all might find it of interest. It has some talk of architecture and the overall numbers in the game, where it's headed, etc... Warning: it's long, but there is one insertion by the editor that is like something out of a Dan Jenkins's You Gotta Play Hurt...most of you will have no trouble catching it!  
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-000059048jul19.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsports

[George Pazin]

As usual, another entertaining article.

What perplexes me most about the competition ball idea is the unwillingness by anyone to even give it a try. If it were to somehow turn out to be bad(can't really see how, but just for the sake of argument), it would be quite simple to go back to the current situation. Conversely, the alteration of old courses and the construction of new monsters are much more drastic measures that seem to be undertaken at the drop of a hat.

I guess the dollars of the equipment manufacturers rule, but I really don't even see how scaling back the ball would hurt them that much, either. They'd probably receive a short term positive with people trying out the new competition ball, with those playing strictly recreationally still being able to buy the current balls that they've invested so much $$$ in.

Go figure.

[aclayman]

Geoff-
If those numbers are correct demand has leveled and supply is rising.  Is The comeupance of the "new golf" at hand?

Will return on investment be lower than expected?

Will there be whining? u bet.

[Lou_Duran]

Excellent article.  I wonder how much thought has been given by the NGF and other groups concerned about golf's stagnant growth to the impact of unrestrained
advancements in technology on the game.

As the writer aptly noted, longer golf courses to accomodate the greater distances that the ball travels cost much more to build and to maintain.  This means that dues or green fees have to go up, mandatory riding as a revenue generator becomes a greater temptation to the operators, and the speed of play suffers.  Throw in the astronomical cost of the technologically advanced equipment, and one has to wonder why golf has not followed tennis's sharp downturn.

Curiously, with all the equipment improvements, it is my understanding that that the handicap of the average golfer has not changed appreciably in 30 years.  And with a driver now priced at $400+, and balls at $3 to $5 each, one would think that the manufacturers are getting rich.  In fact, with the exception of Callaway and Acushnet/Titleist, most are having a hard time turnig a profit.

Dealing with GCA, I read an article or interview some time ago where Tiger was asked about how he liked a certain classic course, its features, and the different shots that it required.  His surprising response was that he didn't really focus on any of that.  Instead, he looked to certain distances to carry the ball and played directly to those points.  As in the present game of tennis, for the most part, Tiger plays the power game where strategy and shot variety are not frequently displayed (though Tiger does exhibit great versatility when he blows his wedges 20+ yards over some greens).  

While progress cannot be stopped, I do hope that golf's governing bodies resolve their differences soon and come up with some solutions.  A uniform tour ball is but one answer.  Limitations on equipment should also be pursued aggresively.  Also, addressing the other barriers to entry, namely high costs (dues, green fees,and manadatory riding),will require a creative, herculean effort by the industry.  I am not holding my breath, but I do hope that something meaningful is done for the long term betterment of the game.

[tridley]

Lou,
I recently read another one of your post and realized you were a member at GSW.  I have been over there for the past four years.  I would to join you someday, I could use a few swing tips!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

George,
It is a "very simple scenario" as Nicklaus said, but the manufacturers are scared that they would be unable to market their product any longer with a tournament ball. Which is nonsense of course, they would be adding another product to the shelves. But since they are necessary to manufacture such a ball, they won't do it until they can see it working to their advantage, which is never in their view. Perhaps a coalition of short, old classic club courses will get together and offer to buy enough competition balls to make it worthwhile for them to manufacture a few! I know some 6200 yard clubs with no room to grow that are getting anxious about how their course is perceived and how it plays.

Adam and Lou,
The numbers don't lie. The National Golf Foundation has been trying (almost desperately) to get its message across, but the golf business doesn't seem to listen. I don't think the NGF understands that the length "expansion" has and will continue to get in the way. The real problem on the development side comes from cities and counties, who think they need to develop "championship" courses instead of par-3's, executives and driving ranges.
Thanks for reading the article,
Geoff

[aclayman]

I find it sad that even when an opportunity to be altruistic or philanthropic arises, most of these cities and counties act even greedier than their private sector competition. Farmington N.M. excepted