Conspiracy Theories Please - NYT's Article

[Mike_Sweeney]

Okay I am normally one to shoot down conspiacy theories on the internet, BUT it is amazing to me that this article was on the front page of the NYTimes today. Not the Sports Section, not the Weekend Section, The Front Page of The NY Times! So the USGA is thinking about rolling back the ball, and suddenly an article comes up on The Front Page of The NY Times about how Tiger and Matt Ward's Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass still stink at golf and our scores are increasing. Someone at Titleist or Calloway must have a cousin on staff at The NYT's.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/sports/golf/24Golf.html

[Michael Moore]

Mike -

Put down the Kool-Aid and pick up your reading glasses!

This is a nice little summary of the problem, and a pleasant change of pace from car bombings for Joe PATH and Mary Jane MetroNorth.

The most common complaint I hear regarding technology and distance is that watching the PGA Tour on TV is boring, and I fully agree with that. Can you imagine what the New York Times readers would have sent in if I was quoted as saying "I used to be on the edge of my seat watching golf on TV, but now it's just boring"?

Yes, there is anecdotal evidence on this board that our drives are longer, but I have yet to hear anyone say that the extra thirty yards has sucked the life out of his golf game. If anything, the new possibility of getting home on a 520 yard hole has probably rejuvenated the advanced intermediate golfer. And besides, we're talking about Joe Bogey and Mary Jane Other here, who are no doubt thrilled to occasionally put the three wood down and hit into a green with the five iron.

I don't usually stand on my persimmon soapbox, but if you don't like it, don't use it!

And finally, I was playing with a somewhat unsophisticated young man in the cold and rain on Sunday evening. We got to talking about driving distance on the PGA Tour, and he offered to me the most succinct commentary yet -

"You don't see the #$%$# major league baseball players swingin'  #@$%$ aluminum bats! What the #$%$ are those guys doin' with @#$@# titanium drivers? Those #$%#% things are for us!"

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There is a vast difference between the PGA Tour player and the "recreational golfer." They play a different game. I don't hit driver,wedge on a 470y 4par. If the PGA Tour and USGA for their National Tournaments want to have different rules for equipment/balls for their events, that's fine with me.This is what I got out the article:

"They watch golf on TV and then they all want to hit it far, like Tiger Woods," said Dr. Bob Rotella, golf's best-known psychologist and a best-selling author. "Well, good luck. They should be going to their teacher and saying, 'I want to hit it like Fred Funk.' Physically, they are much more like him. That would make a lot more sense."

Mr. Funk is a 5-foot-8, 48-year-old PGA Tour pro who ranks first in driving accuracy and 186th in driving distance. He is also seventh on the PGA money list this season with more than $1.9 million in earnings.

"Part of the problem is that golf instruction has been incredibly one-dimensional," said Lynn Marriott, a teaching pro based in Arizona who is on Golf Magazine's list of the nation's top-100 instructors. "Most golf lessons are not golf lessons, they are golf-swing lessons. The game is still about getting it in the hole, not about having the proper backswing."

I'm going to work on my short game.

[Kyle Harris]

Steve,

Come by today after 11... I'll let you up top there  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Aaaah, statistics.  My old stats professor is probably rolling around in his grave.  Are the courses on tour set up the same as they were five years ago? Are they longer? Are they cutting pins more aggressively? I would say yes and yes. I would say that the scores relative to the course rating have gone down.  Also, Joe Sixpack is playing probably the exact same course, not a longer tougher one from five years ago.

Lastly, as has been well documented, the flaw in the USGA's distance control regimen was that they were controlling Joe Sixpack's distance (because of the clubhead speed used in the test) while the manufacturers engineered greater distance for the faster swinging pros. The BIG LIE is that what makes them better (which it does) makes the rest of us better (which it does not).

[Peter_Collins]

What was the average Stimpmeter reading on tour in '87 or '97? What was it at your average muni or daily fee during the same time period?  Greens are getting harder and faster as maintenance techniques are improving.  Better seed, fertilizer, and irrigation technology is allowing roughs to be grown thicker and higher than ten years ago.  Thus, roughs ands greens are being used to defend par.

[bstark]

   Here is a thought, attention spans are shorter than they used to be. Look at movies, TV shows, video games audio books etc. Golf is not a game for short attention spans. Golf requires time, 4 hour rounds. Golf requires thought. Golf requires mental discipline. All things in short supply in today's society.
  I would love to see a handicap breakdown over the past few years of riders vs. walkers. That would be an interesting study.

[Jerry Kluger]

I still think that the first place to start is with the drivers as not only would there be a dramatic difference in driving distance and accuracy, but they could point to the baseball example and perhaps avoid the litigation which golf manufacturers will no doubt bring if they are restricted concerning the specifications of golf balls.  I recently read about one pro, I believe it was Davis Love, who hit a wooden driver and was stunned at the difference between it and the large metal drivers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

Titleist or Callaway?, I think not. This article is a pre-emptive strike by the USGA to safeguard their status (after they P-O the public by rolling back the ball and diminishing the allowable moment of inertia in clubs) by surreptitiously informing golfers that they aren't getting any better with their Scamium drivers and gravity defying balls.  

The average handicap has gone down by 1/2 stroke over the last five years.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike,

Titleist or Callaway?, I think not. This article is a pre-emptive strike by the USGA to safeguard their status (after they P-O the public by rolling back the ball and diminishing the allowable moment of inertia in clubs) by surreptitiously informing golfers that they aren't getting any better with their Scamium drivers and gravity defying balls.  

The average handicap has gone down by 1/2 stroke over the last five years.  

James,

You are normally the true sleuth here at GCA.

It is a my understanding after posting this article this morning, via a GCA friend, that Larry Dorman, the former Times golf correspondent, left several years ago to take the job of head of public relations for Callaway and Jaime Diaz, who writes for GOLF DIGEST and used to write for the Times, lives in Carlsbad and is very friendly with all the execs there?



PS. I hope to get up in June.

[Peter_Collins]

Even if they roll back the ball for USGA events, why does it have to be rolled back for the general public.  Whether handicaps have gone down .5 or 5.0 golf for the average golfer is more fun today than it was 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.  Hitting my 382 dimple seamless space age polyomer ball 150 feet above the perfectly manicured fairway with slight draw off the face of my barely legal 460cc laser welded beta titanium driver in '05 is a hell of a lot more fun than slap hooking a Red-Dot off the hosel of my Eye-o-matic into the non-irrigated hard pan under the pine tree six feet off the fairway was in '77.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think many of the correspondents on here are better golfers than I am who learned their golf a good few years before I did. I've been playing less than five years and it's been clear to me that all the developments in golf that get regularly discussed on here conspire to make it much harder to learn the game now.
Alice Dye has pointed out that (take your pick from the usual suspects) fairway watering, longer courses, water hazards etc make it harder for women golfers. When we start we are pretty much all 'women’ golfers. What beginners need is free running courses with wide open fairways with minimal rough where the scuff, the top etc offer us the chance to keep moving forward. If the course is of moderate length then the hole will be won by the player who is most proficient around the green. Match play between two friends learning the game will soon show where you need to be proficient. Superior ball striking will come later.  
Why does the average player only play 6-8 rounds a year? Because as soon as the (unsuitable for golf) ground becomes heavy and wet, his fat shots take all the fun out of it.
These trends in modern golf courses are exploited by the manufacturers who constantly promote their clubs as hitting it further and higher as if that's the only way to get a ball in the hole.  I don't see any mention on GCA of cavity back irons but to the new player the words 'Big Bertha' promise the secret to a major drop in your handicap.
From reading biographies many of the games greatest practiced as kids with friends on the course (or Seve’s beach), not as today on the range in front of video analysis.  In Ireland it still seems like every village has a pitch and putt ‘field’ where the old teach the young golf.  I know of 4 such courses near London that have been changed to a range or been stretched out to offer a ridiculous 18 ‘full length’ holes. Not!
At least the balls don't give you ironic smiley these days.
IMHO the trends in golf that people discuss on here are not just taking some of the enjoyment out of the game for the more proficient guys with a feeling for history and strategy but are leading the game towards ruin as evidenced by the falling numbers taking the game up.

[Michael Moore]

When we start we are pretty much all 'women’ golfers.

Indeed, we all carry that X chromosome around.

There is much to be learned from observing the LPGA, especially the languid backswing and transition, the presence of swing and the absence of hit. Not slowly, but smoothly.

[Jim Bearden]

It must be a really slow news day because they haven't published their 4567th article on Abu Ghraib or how W stole the election or how many of W's black judicial nominees are closet KKK members. So now we are going to have 2759 articles on golf balls and clubs. This is in preperation for next years Masters protest by Martha Burk. This of course will feature guest columns by USA Todays Christine (I hate mens sports) Brennan.

[Peter_Collins]

I have for years toyed with the idea of writing a business plan for an easy upscale daily fee golf course.  I am talking a short, 5700 -5900 yrd course with wide open manicured fairways, huge accomodating greens and big shallow bunkers just far enough away from the line of play to capture only the most viscious slices, hooks, and other various chilli dips.  But with a nice gracious clubhouse, a pretty boy pro and a couple of Ken doll assistants, new top of the line Club Car carts, a beer cart with pretty girls with not quite enough clothing on to really be respectable and a slope rating somewhere right around 115-120.  Some place to give all the corporate outings, bachelor parties, and beginning golfers the country club for a day without beating them over the head with 28 yard wide fairways and Maxwell rolls on steriods greens.  

Seriously, how much fun can it be for Doris from accounts receivable to play in the annual employee golf tournament at The Bridges of La Playa Creek Target Links Bandit 154 Golf Club.  

I think I'd make a killing in this underserved market segment.   Hell I'd be creating a segment to slay.  In the days of slope ratings being something to embroider on the side of a cap, who in their right mind would think of building an easy upscale daily fee.  A place where a guy playing with his wife's brother's old 845's could shoot a 124 in just over four hours and enjoy himself doing it.  Heck, I could give even give it an upscale name like The Links at Tuscany Manor Pussycat 117.

Then I wake up and realize I would be committed if I tried to borrow the money necessary to build such a course.  . . . Better just roll back the ball.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

I think this year's weather explains the scoring on the PGA Tour.

As to average scores, with so many golfers new to the game, how can they use that statistic ?

A better statistic would be to track golfers who have been playing the game for the last 20 years or more.
And, the aging process should be factored in.

In theory, handicaps should increase as one ages beyond a certain point.  And, if one uses the demographic at most clubs, older aged golfers, a static handicap would indicate factors other than physical ability are responsible for preventing a deterioration in scoring.

I know an inordinate number of people who are playing to their lowest handicap's of their lives, and these guys are in their 50's and 60's.  And, none of them have located Ponce De Leon's fountain of youth,  yet.

[Craig Sweet]

Fred Ridley writes in the latest Green Section:



http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2005/may_jun/distance.html

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,
This "statistic" is trotted out every few years.
Additionally, the courses built 100-30 years ago are significantly easier than the new ones built today.
Out of bounds on housing courses,multiple water hazards,knee high "natural" grasse areas,longer couses.
Wetland issues(which used to be filled) dictate forced carries-all of these contribute to making scoring way harder(physically and psychologically) for the higher handicapper-and it's never accurately reflected in the slope or course ratings.
It's possible for a 100 shooter (and his actual score would be much,much higher)to lose a dozen balls in a round.
the same guy could shoot 90 on an older shorter,more open traditional golden age course with maintained rough(*and have a lot more fun)

[ChasLawler]

Jeff Lewis - I couldn't agree more with your thoughts.

I still think that the first place to start is with the drivers as not only would there be a dramatic difference in driving distance and accuracy, but they could point to the baseball example and perhaps avoid the litigation which golf manufacturers will no doubt bring if they are restricted concerning the specifications of golf balls.  I recently read about one pro, I believe it was Davis Love, who hit a wooden driver and was stunned at the difference between it and the large metal drivers.

Jerry - toning back the driver is going to affect Joe Six Pack much more than it will affect the average touring pro. Take away those big heads, and the pros may lose a few yards overall, but the sweet spot is still the sweet spot - and those guys find it a lot more than most of us mortals.

I consider myself somewhat of a traditionalist, but the thought of giving up my 350cc driver really scares me.

As Jeff alluded to, the loss of the modern Pro-V1 will have a far greater impact on the pros than any recreational golfer - even the "scratch" golfers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Callaway's son also formed a book company back in the latter part of the '90s to publish works by some of the better known golf writers. I think that venture went belly up due to lack of payment on Callaway's part but it also had a conspiratorial look about it. Imagine, a book company owned by the son of a golf magnate hiring numerous golf writers to create stories and at least one of them asking to be paid in Callaway golf equipment. Sheesh


I have always believed that Tim Finchem holds a lot of power in his hands. The USGA, Callaway, Titleist, etc., can make all the moves they want but if it ain't happening Sunday afternoon at 4 o'clock on your Zenith, it just ain't happening. They may be involved in a symbiotic relationship but the bucks flow from your TV dial and he derives his power from there.  
If the USGA prevails, and I think it will, we'll see a "rebirth" of balata-type balls. They will be used on Tour but they won't be required for all events so you'll still see the Pro V1's and CallaFlites being used. Manufacturers will market them as "The choice of shotmakers everywhere".
Everyone will be happy, the Pros still get their endorsement money, the ballmakers have another product to market, clubs won't be forced to lengthen their courses if they choose the "new" ball for their event, the rules of golf remain cohesive, the USGA can go back to Merion if it can find room for the tents cities and the non-Tour world can go bombs-away, unless they want to become "shot-makers" like their favorite Pro.

It is a perfect world after all.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I recently read about one pro, I believe it was Davis Love, who hit a wooden driver and was stunned at the difference between it and the large metal drivers.

He paired today's low spin ball with an old persimmon head and couldn't get the ball up in the air like he used to.  Not a great surprise...that experiment didn't really prove anything other than low spin balls + low launch head = low ball flight.

PS, while I'm posting in this thread I will say the same thing I said in the other NYT thread...we shouldn't copy and paste copyrighted materials here at GCA.  There, off the soapbox.

[Allan Hutton]

On ball and equipment conspiracies, perhaps the tour should look at the relative softness of their greens. There was recently a discussion here on the 17th at Quail Hollow that hopefully will help to illustrate my point.  [Agree or disagree re: bad design, as Tiger hit a towering 6 iron that failed to hold the green on the par 3].  

I wonder what the result would have been with a nice high fade with a 4 iron and a Balata ball….

To quote Greg Norman “Most amateurs would die to be able to spin the ball backward, but for a pro there's no problem as frustrating as spinning the ball too much. During the mid-'80s I played the Tour Edition ball, which spun like no ball before or since. The third hole at Augusta National was a nightmare for me. There just was no place to land the ball and keep it on the green. Once, not knowing what else to do, I landed my ball on the right side of the green and spun it sideways 90 feet to the left, to where the pin was. The Tour Edition helped me win the 1986 British Open at Turnberry, because the greens were like rocks, and it was the only ball that would hold. But it killed me in majors in America, including more than one Masters, because the damn thing spun so much”.

I would like to see extremely firm greens, perhaps edging on unfair if one uses current equipment.  We would have to put up with our ‘expert’ announcers denouncing the fact that a “well struck shot did not hold the green”.  However, given enough time perhaps the difficulty in holding greens would cause players to choose higher spinning golf balls and forego a little distance off the tee......

Never thought I could use 'choose', 'forego' and 'distance' in the same sentence.

[PThomas]

so I wonder why the Shark didn't stop using that ball if it spun so much

[Craig Sweet]

Fred Ridley in Green Section:

"The PGA Tour has been supportive of these efforts and has repeatedly acknowledged that the USGA and the R&A are the appropriate rule-making bodies for regulating golf equipment. They have publicly supported the research efforts, particularly the ball project, and have recognized that it is only through that research that we can define what options are available to regulate distance and make educated assessments of the effects of those options. They also have given us full access to the data generated by their new ShotLink System for every shot at every tour event. As a result, we have a far clearer picture of how the game is being played by the best players. Actual data have replaced speculation and opinion because of ShotLink."

They are generating data on EVERY shot at every tour event?