Interesting comment by Mickelson

[Geoff_Shackelford]

It's fun to watch this ball/technology issue snowball so rapidly!  Must be a fun winter in Far Hills, what with the nice weather and 400 yard drives!  Wally Uhlien has to have Mickelson stop saying things like this:

"This new x-ball, if I just swing at it regular speed, I don't get much out of it," Mickelson said. "But when I go after it, I get a ton out of it. The harder I can hit the ball now, we have golf balls made for that swing."

There are more quotes from Dick Rugge and Uhlien in an interesting AP story by Doug Ferguson linked below. Of course, no real mention of the impact on architecture of the quality of the golf presented or how this makes it tough to compare generations or, well...

http://www.golfweb.com/partner/aol/index.html?http://www.golfweb.com/u/ce/multi/0,1977,6155650,00.html

[TEPaul]

OK, Geoff, I'm going to hit the hyperlinks but tell me first are they going to be a chamber of horrors?

[Joel_Stewart]

It is becoming a chamber of horrors.  

In this weeks Golf World is an article about Dan Pohl (1986 Colonial & World Series of Golf winner, lost in a playoff to Stadler in the 82 Masters) who at 47 said he can now hit it further then in 1980 when he led the tour in driving.  

"I can move it out there 330 if I need to" he said.  He goes on to mention how few pros use to reach certain par 5's at the TPC in Scottsdale and now they all can reach them.  40 players averaged over 300 yards last week in Phoenix.

[Paul Richards]

Geoff:

It's quite obvious that many of us here on golfclubatlas.com "get it" - that technology is ruining the game.


What do you suppose and how much long will it take for the USGA, the R & A and the PGA Tour to "get it"?

[ForkaB]

"We're trying to make the Pro V1 and the Pro V1x the Kleenex of the super premium category," Uihlein said. "That's the end game. We've got a 60 percent market share of that segment. Now is the time to strike, particularly with the regulatory bodies capping how much improvement is ahead of us."

This is a very significant statment from Wally U.  It tells me:

1.  He sees the end in sight in terms of improved ball performance--whether through limitations of technology or physics or the regulations of ruling bodies.  Doesn't matter which.

2.  He is clearly signalling to his competitors that he intends to invest heavily to insure that Titleist still is at the top when that cap in performance is reached.

3.  He is also sending a signal to the ruling bodies that if they roll back the technology from where it is now, he has a claim for significant damages.  This is what he is saying when he talks about the "Kleenex" analogy.  If the technology is capped, and if there is no rollback, and if Titlest has a 60% share at the time of that capping, Wally will soon be rolling in money.

The saddest part of this whole unfolding drama is the fact that the technology that is driving (no pun intended) this scenario has absolutely no substantive relevance to the idiots (US!) who will be buying the ProV1whatever, lining the pockets of Titleist and possibly forcing the USGA and the R&A to go full-time into the museum business.  If Mickelson can't get it to go farther with his "normal" swing, how do you suppose the rest of us will fare?

The only winners I can see from this scenario other than Titleist are the orthopedic surgeons, who will have to sort out the effects of unfit middle-aged wannabies trying to generate swing speeds of 140 mph.

Buy shares in redanman, inc. if you have any spare cash lying around after stocking up on your ProV1x's..............

[john stiles]

Also,  interesting quote from the article .......

"The real revolution is not distance," Rugge said. "Distance balls have been available for two decades, but tour professionals gave that up for the feel and control. Now, they don't have to give that up."

Poor USGA guys seem to be well on their way to preserving the tradition of modernizing classic architecture.  Like Nicklaus said, in 50 years, they will be teeing it up from the hotel.

All the manufacturers are changing dimples, shell materials, core materials, core thickness, shell thickness, number of shells, etc., etc. year after year after year.  If they roll the ball back, everyone will be scrambling like they are already scrambling to create new balls every year, year after year.  

It will all be about the same and Titleist will be on top if they continue to produce and market a good ball.  Some ball will always go the furthest, have the best feel, etc., etc.

[A_Clay_Man]

The issue is how straight they go, not how far. Farther comes with straighter.

Paul Richards- I find it sad that you think this game is ruined. I disagree.

[Paul Turner]

I'm highly sceptical of Mickelson's claim.  We've heard this all before, and who does he work for?  If an independent engineer claimed this, I'd take it seriously.

Where does this mysterious gain come from?  The ball's COR doesn't change the harder you hit it, unless we're comparing the extremes: a drive with a putt.  In which case, the COR is higher for the putt!

Players are notoriously bad at assessing their own games.  My bet is there's virtually no increase this year, just like there was none last year.  We'll see with the year end stats.

[DMoriarty]

It seems that the ruling body of the long driving competitions hopes to shift the emphasis away from the length of the shaft, and toward how the golfers use it.  

In addition to reporting that Mark O'Meara with the ProVx is almost as long as Tiger without (12/23/02), Golfweek also reported (1/20/03) that the Long Drivers of America company (which puts on long driving competitions) limited the length of competition shafts to a paltry 52 inches.  This change significantly rolls back the current standard of use in competitions, which was apparently racing toward 60 inches.  

"Why did he do it? To protect the future of his sport. To erase any public perception that long drivers are mutants who use fishing poles for drivers and have no similarity to real golfers. "  

Needless to say, the decision was quite controversial in the burgeoning world of long driving competitions (Does anyone else sense that we may have a new Olympic sport on our hands, along with speed hot dog eating?)  One competitor, who happens to be an extra long shaft user and current world champion, pitied the poor manufacturers who had invested so much in researching and making extra premium extra long shafts for these freak show competitions.  . . .

The golfing world is somewhat skewed when the Long Driving ruling body is more willing to take affirmative and controversial steps to protect the game than our own USGA.

The USGA might want to consider lending the Long Driving ruling body a few ten million, so that the ruling body has a chance in the long shaft lawsuit that I imagine is right around the corner.  Wouldn't want any more negative precedent out there, just in case golf's ruling lions ever find their courage.  

http://golfweek.com/articles/2003/equipment/31516.asp

Speaking of lawsuits, maybe every existing golf course should band together and sue the USGA for effectively allowing the equipment manufacturers to make every course obsolete (speaking only in terms of Tour events, of course.)  I am sure they could find some damages expert to testify that courses which can no longer honestly call themselves "Championship" have been significantly disadvantaged in the marketplace.


[edited to fix mixed Wizard of Oz metaphor]

[A.G._Crockett]

A Clay Man,
Thank you and amen!!!
The real difference is indeed the straightness of the ball, and that's precisely why a rollback can't be done!  How do you roll back to crooked?

[Paul Turner]

You roll back to crooked by making the ball significantly lighter.  Not only will it fly less far, it will also react more violently to off centre hits and you can also hook and slice it more easily.

But I do agree about the straightness issue, the most radical and effective ban would be to ban hollow heads.  Can't see it happening though!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Uh Paul Turner, Mickelson just drove a 403 yard par-4 in competition, you really think you can fairly assess what he's experiencing with his swing and game?  

I don't see his comments driven by trying to sell more balls, he was just being honest about what he gets from the ball.

Something is up and it's obvious to many more people (thankfully). This is in NO WAY GOOD FOR GOLF! And golf is the most important thing here, isn't it? Or are the tour players who play it and the companies running it bigger than the sport itself now? I suppose to many, it's more important to deny the obvious and be right, than do what's right.

[DMoriarty]

Boy, you guys are going to sail with the USGA's sinking ship all the way to the bottom of the ocean, aren't you?

If Ernie Els hits the ball a little straighter than the mid-handicappers, it is not the end of golf as we have known it.  Ernie and I can at least still manage to play the same game on the same course.   But when Ernie starts hitting it half-again as far as decent mid-handicappers, and once-again or even twice-again as far as many high-handicappers, Ernie and the rest of the world are no longer playing the same game, and can no longer play on the same course.

[Paul Turner]

Geoff

I'm not saying I can assess his game, I'm just saying his claim should be taken with a grain of salt.  He'd need to do a proper trial to convince me he's gained extra distance from this new ball.

And we hear all kinds of wild claims by pros when a new bit of kit comes out.  Remember Monty when he switched to Callaway claiming he'd gained 20 yards?  Well of course he didn't.  How about Jeff Sluman and everyone getting worked up about his jump in the driving stats in 2001?  Nobody seems to notice he lost 10 yards last year.  So I'm always sceptical about these individual claims, you have to look at the big picture.

I'm not claiming that the ball isn't going too far.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
Other than complaining about the USGA, what is your solution, and give us DETAILS.
Thanking you in advance!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,

Thanks for asking, but I have no details that would interest you. I am well aware of your position and respect that.

To be honest, my view on the matter has changed in recent weeks. I'm quite happy to sit back and watch this entire situation evolve. That's the solution. I used to think we needed regulation, new tests, help from Hootie, articles in the golf publications, etc..., but I no longer think that will have any impact (nor happen!).  The sensiblity for what golf really is all about just isn't there in the power positions. It's a vehicle for profit, not golf. As Sandy Tatum said in his book, "When the game is properly administered, nothing is wrong with playing golf for money. The concern, however, is that the game, which has so much to offer as a game to be played for its own sake, becomes something else as it evolves primarily into a medium for making money."

Yes, by doing nothing, several classic courses will be ruined or have been, which is tragic, but that's something the USGAers will have to live with (if they really understand or care?).  There are several obvious solutions, but they all make too much sense and they aren't scientific enough to ever really please all. Tournament balls, classic course balls, rollbacks, new testing that actually works, etc... None of this will happen, again, too much common sense.

By the way, do you think it's the USGA's job to share their "details?" Well, I keep checking out this link to learn more on their "Equipment" page:

http://www.usga.org/test_center/index.html

One could spend seconds, even a minute looking at this page trying to learn something.  

Geoff

[TEPaul]

Robert:

Seems to me although Geoff Shackelford may be complaining about the USGA to some extent, and he probably does not have a comprehensive solution (in detail) for the distance problem that he does have the makings of a solution nonetheless.

What he is saying, at least as this distance problem is evidencing itself at the top level including the Tour level is that EVERYONE, certainly including the USGA/R&A, World tours and certainly the manufacturers should begin to both recognize and admit that fact!

I see that as not only a good place to start to find a solution but a fundamentally necessary place to start. Clearly the reason Shackelford feels this way is this distance problem is having deleterious effects on both golf architecture and golf to a large extent and will continue to have unless a solution is found to the distance problem.

If the appropriate entities are to begin to put 2+2+2+2 together to find a solution for the distance problem they must first recognize and admit to the obvious--ie, that there is a distance problem.

So far they really don't appear to have gotten to that necessary and fundamental point and that's exactly what Shackelford is saying they all need to do.

[JS]

The hole that Mickleson drove on the fringe, #10, 403 yds, is a fairly sharp dogleg right.  No matter how far the ball is traveling with the new equipment, he didn't actually hit it 403 yds.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom, yes, it does seem that only a dire situation will bring everyone to the table to solve the problem. Finchem made the first move last year, which was a big step. But it would seem to have to get worse and the problems painfully obvious before they are all resigned to doing something. The love for "protecting par" may ultimately serve a positive purpose after all. It seems low scores terrify the governing bodies more than anything else.

Still, I just don't see who is going to step up and make the case for why interesting architecture is more important to the sport than the latest ball from Titleist that keeps rendering thought and creativity irrelevant. There just isn't anyone like Bobby Jones around anymore. Nicklaus sure makes a great case in his new book, and has made some great analogies in recent years, but for whatever reason, he gets tuned out on this subject.

Geoff

[THuckaby2]

98% of golfers love to hit the ball far, the farther the better, no matter what consequences to the game might occur;
2% of golfers care more about architecture and the good of the game than hitting the ball farther.

Horrible oversimplification as to why this problem exists, but is it correct?

This would explain why Jack's cayman ball never caught on, why he's tuned out today....

TH

[Jeff Goldman]

A slight dissent.

Are non-pro big hitters hitting the ball farther and turning the great courses into pitch and putts?  Are the great private clubs pitch and putts for members?  I understand that the pros are murdering courses, but there is a flip side to some of the technology advances.  I only took up the game in 1997, but I do think that perimeter waiting and metal woods have made it easier for me (at times) to hit the ball well and actually play, i.e., try to put the ball in specific places, try an intentional fade or hook on occasion, etc.  That must help bring new players into the game.  For us mediocre players, its been great, and there is no danger of me turning Blackwolf Run into a pitch and putt (although I do treasure the miracle 82 I shot from the blue tees of the river course a couple of years ago).

Jeff Goldman

[TEPaul]

"Nicklaus sure makes a great case in his new book, and has made some great analogies in recent years, but for whatever reason, he gets tuned out on this subject."

Geoff:

This is curious, isn't it? I've wondered about this too, for a long time, and my conclusion is that there are a number of significant people out there in golf who essentially feel the same way Jack does. I could go through the list of them but I think you know who they are anyway.

I think the problem with this apparently rather lengthy list of significant people who feel this way is just that at this point they're still making their feelings known individually and singly!

Now, if someone could just bring all of them together into a unified group I feel all together they could not help but get the necessary attention of all the appropriate entities in golf and then things would start to roll and start to happen.

Why don't some of us try to get them all together into a unified group? All we can lose is our time!

[TEPaul]

Jeff Goldman:

You wonder if the tour pros are the only ones turning some of these courses into pitch and putts.

I hate to tell you this but you should see some of these kids coming up through the high school and college ranks right now! It's basically disgusting how far they hit everything. I see them at the GAP events.

Pat was down here at Merion not that long ago and watched a couple of these guys, one a really top flight young am (Pa am champ) bascially make mince meat out of Merion distance-wise.

I really don't know anyone who hits it much farther than this young man but he'd just come back from the US Am where he qualified with Ricky Barnes.

He called up his Dad and said; "Dad you know me, I've never really had anyone get it much past me but this guy I qualified with was about 30 yards past me off the tee all day long."

Now that's tripley disgusting--I promise!

This is no secret! Obviously the USGA guys saw Ricky Barnes do this for 6-8 rounds at Oakland Hills!

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
I am glad that you remember my Gradual Distance Rollback proposal from last year. Others, including Ben Crenshaw, think my idea has merit.
I still think it is a good idea.

[DMoriarty]

98% of golfers love to hit the ball far, the farther the better, no matter what consequences to the game might occur;
2% of golfers care more about architecture and the good of the game than hitting the ball farther.

Horrible oversimplification as to why this problem exists, but is it correct?

Tom, probably not much of an oversimplification at all.  But one that might rely on a flawed premise.  

It seems that assumption is that a rolling back the ball hurts the 98%, and that they would not stand for it.  Now, if this were true, I would agree with your post.  However, I don't think that this is necessarily the case.

As Phil's quote regarding swing speed indicates, these new balls are being designed with the professional swing speeds in mind, and the improvement they offer to the average player probably does not correlate to the improvement they offer Phil.

Like the new ballls, a USGA rollback could also be aimed at the tour swing speed.  To oversimplify, just create a ball limitation where the relative benefits diminish as the swing speed increases.  

This would allow the "poor manufacturers" (the ones many are worried about hurting) to redirect their constant quest for a better ball to the golfers that actually need it.  Build a ball that benefits the 60-85 mph swing.    

I am sure that some would object that this is unfair to the long ball hitters.  I disagree. They will still hit the ball farther, but their relative advantage will be diminished.