Frank Thomas Has Spoken

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're right---a deprivation of membership funds as Paul Richards mentioned probably is a good way of getting their attention. I think they do need that message and I think they also need to feel the public is behind them if the manufacturers decide to bolt conformity in a broad sense. If the USGA felt the public was behind them in an attempt to really control distance or even roll it back do you have any doubt the USGA would propose that to the manufacturers first thing tomorrow morning?

I don't.

[PThomas]

I must say that I do have doubts,  Tom

[JohnV]

Redan said

Of note, at a Matt Ward sponsored seminar at Forsgate almost 3 years ago now, Frank Thomas said to us that in his opinion the equipment had about 5-10 more yards left in it, mostly from the shafts.

DMoriarty Said:

PGA
Dist.
Rank  2005(today)  2002    
1        318.3        306.8
25      296.6        288.8
50      291.7        285
100    286.7        280
150    280.2        274.9

With the exception of the #1 guy, the difference is about 6-8 yards across the board in the 3 years since Thomas made that statement.  The shaft might not be the reason, but the numbers  seem to back up his conjecture on the amount of gain left.

[Paul_Turner]

How much has the distance increased since 1999?

From what I can see, there's a single quantum jump from moving from a wound ball.  

Should Thomas be held accountable for that?

Paul the point is that every year since 1999 or before we have the same conversation-- USGA apologists pretend like nothing is changing or we are reaching a point where no more change is possible.   How many years must pass before we discard this argument and do something abour the problem?  

Change from 1999?

I dont have the change since 1999, but here is the change just since 2002, which I believe is post ProV:

PGA
Dist.
Rank  2005(today)  2002      
1        318.3         306.8
25      296.6         288.8
50      291.7         285
100     286.7        280
150     280.2        274.9

Yes, the top guy should be ignored.  Better to work with medians rather than averages.

I would like to know exactly what Thomas said in 1999.  I doubt it was equivocal as his current statement.

I think it should be stressed that the weight and size contraints of the ball really do limit its performance.  If there were no constraints at all, then Tiger and Co would be launching 400+ drives.  

[Paul Richards]

Paul

>I must say that I do have doubts,  Tom


Me, too.


Unfortunately.


 

[Paul Richards]

Nothing I saw today changed my opinion.

 

[Jason Topp]

This weekend I gained new perspective on how much the game has changed.  The Northwest Amateur in Spencer, Iowa is a state level amateur event that is just a wonderful weekend.  There are about 360 entrants each year, ranging from some of the best players in the area to 80 year old guys who have been playing in the tournament for over 40 years and go to have a good time.  

The course is nothing special.  It is a 60's era 6900 yard course kept in good condition and very straightforward to play.  The first two rounds are played at about 6600 yards.  It is still a perfectly fine test of golf for me, but for one guy in our group, almost every par four was a 1/2 wedge and every par five was a mid to short iron. Any par four under 400 yards was potentially driveable with a following wind.

He made the cut and one guy in his group on Sunday hit it 30 yards past him.  On a 378 yard par four, he hit a driver pin high within 20 feet of the cup.  On many others, he was within 30 yards of the front of the green.

The game in that setting has changed to almost eliminate iron play as a factor in the outcome.  The ability to keep a driver out of the trees, hit a 1/2 wedge and putt entirely determined one's score for the good players.  Those that could get it up and down from under 100 yards went low.  Those that couldn't, shot about the same scores they shot on longer courses.

I think there is room for debate as to whether the game is better or worse off.  There is no doubt it has changed, even at the state level.  

I can't imagine the change will not continue absent some aggressive action by ruling bodies.  People have claimed that distance gains have reached their maximum for the last 100 years.

[Alfie]

All this talk, from every neuk and cranny, of whether the distance issue has maxed / peaked out ? Has it ? Maybe ? Maybe not ? Perhaps it has, then again, perhaps it hasn't ? Perhaps nano technology will bring about a few more yards, or perhaps some other source of, as yet, unknown and undiscovered science might deliver the goods for the long distance golf freak show ? Perhaps the athleticism of "Wie" girls (and boys) will stretch distance performances even further ?

The point is, surely, that we all know from factual evidence that the sport has in the past, and continues to suffer in various ways from continual creepage in distance averages.

So. Why not eliminate the question marks by accepting the situation as it stands, and has done so for some considerable time now and take the bull by horns. Accept that a rolled back (and nearly standardised) ball WILL do the trick. Forget about the unknown parameters of what future science's will inevitably bring and WILL, therefore, affect golf even more than it does now. Let's start the restoration of the sport through tried and proven standards surrounding the golf ball performance levels alone. Let everyone keep their high tech "equipment" allowing continuance of the easier to hit element of playing golf which wont upset the club manufacturers. In fact, it would create a new challenge for their scientists and continued investment into their beloved R & D for equipment that should also please all the punters who love to pay for the best products !

Golf IS a game involving distance factors. Length determines each and every golf hole - length also determines each and every golf stroke ! And the ultimate goal must surely be the wee hole in the grund which is, incidentally, standardised !

I've heard it mentioned on here in previous threads that ; a rollback would be totally unacceptable because, going back in anything is just not the American way ! Well excuse me, but, stuff the American way (when it comes down to the protection of golf's universal appeal and the preservation of it's future !)

Many on here appear to "see the light". We just have to spread the gospel to the uneducated / the unprincipled / the average golfer / the R&A, USGA, so as to recognise and accept that golf has a problem and it aint goin' to sort itself !

But if distance is your ego, and the simplification of skill is your ambition.........then golf aint broke at all ?

Alfie.

In the hope that someone at the R&A reads these threads at GCA.com ?

[A.G._Crockett]

The point is, surely, that we all know from factual evidence that the sport has in the past, and continues to suffer in various ways from continual creepage in distance averages.

Pretty big assumption, this!

[Alfie]

AG Crockett,

My assumption is purely based on the evidence of posters on here who show concerns about the future of golf in relation to the past and present (permissable) technology advances.
And it's great to see many on here (but not everybody) facing up to the facts.

There is entirely no assumption in the fact that golf has and will continue to suffer if the status quo is "allowed" to take it's path ! It was interesting, but disapointing, to hear Geoff Shackelford quote the US stat for core golfers (those who play at least 8 rounds per year) was down a whopping 4.6%.
I've already quoted in previous threads that real concerns are beginning to be aired here in Scotland.

Maybe it's true, that if we court the manufacturers theory of long is good for the sport, that all will ogre well for golf's future ? Aye - right ! If my granny had balls she'd have been my grandfather !

Alfie

[A.G._Crockett]

Alfie,
I'll stipulate the following:

1. Courses are getting longer, and thus more expensive to build and maintain.

2. Golf is more costly and time consuming than it used to be.

3. There has been a drop in the number of rounds played, and the "core" group of golfers.

4. Several technologies are among factors that causes golf balls to go farther when hit by professional golfers, as well as elite amateurs.

5. #1 above, leads to #2 above, which, at least in part, leads to #3 above.

However, given that the vast majority of golfers have been for lo these many years playing golf balls that were and are longer that the golf ball(s) that you are worried about, given that there are other factors at work besides technologies in the distance phenonenom, and given that the same demographic problem that has hurt tennis is now beginning to hurt golf, i.e. the "aging out" of the Baby Boomers, I'm NOT willing to stipulate that #4 above is either the cause of #'s 1-3.  

I also believe in the POSSIBILITY that either a general rollback of the ball or bifurcation might ultimately result in a GREATER drop in the number of golfers and rounds played by either increasing the difficulty of the game or reducing the Walter Mitty charm of the game, respectively.

I have paraphrased G.B. Shaw here many times, but I'll do it again anyway, because I think it fits this case perfectly, and explains the very cautious approach of the USGA and the R&A.

"It is easier by far to write a good play than to write a good law, and there are not a dozen men alive that can write a good play."

[Alfie]

AG Crockett,

4. Several technologies are among factors that causes golf balls to go farther when hit by professional golfers, as well as elite amateurs.

What about the "not so elite" amateurs ? Golf has become much easier to negotiate for them through the EQUIPMENT they can buy. And I stress that I neither have a problem with that fact nor would wish to see the wonders of modern club technology taken away from any golfer.

AGC ; "I'm NOT willing to stipulate that #4 above is either the cause of #'s 1-3."

I believe that technology is exactly the cause for courses getting longer and thus becoming more expensive and time consuming to play / maintain.  Of course there are those who say that this is down to evolving athleticism which, IMO, only scratches the impact of longer hitting.

AGC ; "I also believe in the POSSIBILITY that either a general rollback of the ball or bifurcation might ultimately result in a GREATER drop in the number of golfers and rounds played by either increasing the difficulty of the game or reducing the Walter Mitty charm of the game, respectively"

This is where Geoff Shack's argument for bifurcation makes complete sense. How would bifurcation (for the pro's) make the game more difficult for anyone other than those who decide (compelled) to play the proposed comp ball ? As some have argued on here, and which I agree with, maybe the average golfer would prefer to emulate the elite by adopting the comp ball ? Anything is possible especially when the "try" is made ! I personally prefer the option of a complete rollback as I firmly believe the "problem" has alreardy gone too far
and that bifurcation just doesn't meet the criteria of those "Joint Principles" of the USGA / R&A.

Walter Mitty ? Does he play golf ?

G.Bernard Shaw ; "It is easier by far to write a good play than to write a good law, and there are not a dozen men alive that can write a good play."

That's hardly a factual statement - merely one man's opinion.

Every person has two educations, one which he receives from others, and one, more important, which he gives to himself.
                                                           Gibbon.

The wise and ACTIVE conquer difficulties,
By DARING to attempt them : sloth and folly
Shiver and shrink at sight of toil and danger
And "MAKE" the impossibility they fear.
                                              Rowe.

Alfie

[A.G._Crockett]

G.Bernard Shaw ; "It is easier by far to write a good play than to write a good law, and there are not a dozen men alive that can write a good play."

That's hardly a factual statement - merely one man's opinion.

You're absolutely right; it was just Shaw's opinion.  However, as both an accomplished playwright and an elected politician, his opinions on both subjects were rather educated.

I think the USGA and the R&A are trying to avoid looking back some years from now and saying "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..."   I support them in their measured approach.  You are free not to.

[Doug Siebert]

Alfie,
I'll stipulate the following:

1. Courses are getting longer, and thus more expensive to build and maintain.

2. Golf is more costly and time consuming than it used to be.

3. There has been a drop in the number of rounds played, and the "core" group of golfers.

4. Several technologies are among factors that causes golf balls to go farther when hit by professional golfers, as well as elite amateurs.

5. #1 above, leads to #2 above, which, at least in part, leads to #3 above.

However, given that the vast majority of golfers have been for lo these many years playing golf balls that were and are longer that the golf ball(s) that you are worried about, given that there are other factors at work besides technologies in the distance phenonenom, and given that the same demographic problem that has hurt tennis is now beginning to hurt golf, i.e. the "aging out" of the Baby Boomers, I'm NOT willing to stipulate that #4 above is either the cause of #'s 1-3.  

I also believe in the POSSIBILITY that either a general rollback of the ball or bifurcation might ultimately result in a GREATER drop in the number of golfers and rounds played by either increasing the difficulty of the game or reducing the Walter Mitty charm of the game, respectively.

I have paraphrased G.B. Shaw here many times, but I'll do it again anyway, because I think it fits this case perfectly, and explains the very cautious approach of the USGA and the R&A.

"It is easier by far to write a good play than to write a good law, and there are not a dozen men alive that can write a good play."

Funny how few people believe that hitting it further makes the game easier for average golfers but many more people seem to believe that hitting it shorter would make the game more difficult for them!  Both cannot be true.

Anyway, a proper rollback of the ball would make it behave more like it used to.  It would spin more off the driver (and other long clubs for golfers with the swing speed to compress through to the inner cover) thereby eliminating the "high launch" shot as a way to get 300+ yard carries.  We'd be back to the battle between low loft for more roll or high loft for less sidespin, and carrying trees on the corner of doglegs wouldn't be quite as easy as it is today.  Those who gained very little due to the new technology would lose very little by that type of a rollback, while those who gained the most would lose the most.  Eminately fair, and aims where the problem really is.

It would not (or need not) take away the 460cc drivers, though I think they let that go a bit too far, personally.  So average golfers who had a damn hard time with a driver 10 years ago but can hit one now, would still be able to hit one after a rollback.  You just wouldn't see Tiger fly the ball 320 any longer.  Somehow I think the fans wouldn't care if went back to flying it 290, and the average golfers who were driving it 215 10 years ago and 220 today wouldn't miss the 5 yards they'd be losing.

[Paul Richards]

Jason

> There is no doubt it has changed, even at the state level.

You are absolutely correct.

People think it has only helped on Tour, since their own personal distance has hardly increased.  

But the harder you swing, the more benefit you receive.

Most of us don't swing it hard or fast enough to benefit - hence, most people don't perceive the problem.
 

[Paul Richards]

Alfie

> Why not eliminate the question marks by accepting the situation as it stands, and has done so for some considerable time now and take the bull by horns. Accept that a rolled back (and nearly standardised) ball WILL do the trick. Forget about the unknown parameters of what future science's will inevitably bring and WILL, therefore, affect golf even more than it does now. Let's start the restoration of the sport through tried and proven standards surrounding the golf ball performance levels alone. Let everyone keep their high tech "equipment" allowing continuance of the easier to hit element of playing golf which wont upset the club manufacturers. In fact, it would create a new challenge for their scientists and continued investment into their beloved R & D for equipment that should also please all the punters who love to pay for the best products !


Very well said.


Let's hope the R & A and USGA read this site.

[A.G._Crockett]

Funny how few people believe that hitting it further makes the game easier for average golfers but many more people seem to believe that hitting it shorter would make the game more difficult for them!  Both cannot be true.

Anyway, a proper rollback of the ball would make it behave more like it used to.  It would spin more off the driver (and other long clubs for golfers with the swing speed to compress through to the inner cover) thereby eliminating the "high launch" shot as a way to get 300+ yard carries.  We'd be back to the battle between low loft for more roll or high loft for less sidespin, and carrying trees on the corner of doglegs wouldn't be quite as easy as it is today.  Those who gained very little due to the new technology would lose very little by that type of a rollback, while those who gained the most would lose the most.  Eminately fair, and aims where the problem really is.

Doug,
The key to the first sentence above is that the vast, vast majority of golfers (including this one!) are NOT hitting it farther, and so a distance rollback WOULD make the game harder.  I have played at the same club through the balata days, into and out of the Titliest Professional days, and now into the ProVI days.  I can't blow it over bunkers that used to be in play, or drive greens that were out of reach, or hit wedges where I used to hit 6 irons.  I used to hit it about 250 off the tee, and I still do.  (Most recent index was 4.9)

However, what I am doing is hitting it straighter.  MUCH straighter!  After battling a bad hook, my whole golf life, now I can hardly hook it when I want to hook!  A couple of times a round I'll make what I KNOW is a bad hook swing, only to see the ball go high and relatively straight down the left side, and I play a narrow, narrow course.  

We have tremendous common ground here in your second paragraph.  I firmly believe that the perceived "distance problem" in golf is a "no-spin" problem, in which the very few people that are capable of swing speeds over 110 mph or so are now able to go after everything as hard as they can with no fear of huge penalties.  Tiger blocks it, but he doesn't slice it.  Retief pulls it, but he doesn't snap hook it.  Vijay has said that he doesn't bother to try to play much of a cut anymore off the tee.  Combine that with all of the other technologies plus bigger, stronger, better-trained golfers and perfect course conditions, and you have a "perfect storm" situation at the professional level.  But ONLY there!

The trick, however, will still be finding a way to impose either minimum spin rates OR reduced distance without impacting the Topflites, Pinnacles, and other distance balls that the rank and file of golf play day in and day out.  The other alternative, of course, is bifurcation, which I happen to think is a bad idea in the long run, to be avoided if at all possible.  There's the rub.

[Paul Richards]

Doug

>a proper rollback of the ball would make it behave more like it used to.  It would spin more off the driver (and other long clubs for golfers with the swing speed to compress through to the inner cover) thereby eliminating the "high launch" shot as a way to get 300+ yard carries.  We'd be back to the battle between low loft for more roll or high loft for less sidespin, and carrying trees on the corner of doglegs wouldn't be quite as easy as it is today.  Those who gained very little due to the new technology would lose very little by that type of a rollback, while those who gained the most would lose the most.  Eminately fair, and aims where the problem really is.


Makes a lot of sense.

And I agree wholeheartedly.

However, the fact that it is sensible probably means that it has 0% chance of getting accomplished by the USGA and R & A.

 

[Alfie]

AG Crockett,

"You're absolutely right; it was just Shaw's opinion.  However, as both an accomplished playwright and an elected politician, his opinions on both subjects were rather educated.

I think the USGA and the R&A are trying to avoid looking back some years from now and saying "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..."  I support them in their measured approach.  You are free not to. "
.........................

1st para ; I'll take your word for it, that Shaw was educated. But who believes the word af ANY politician ?

para 2 ; The USGA / R&A measured approach may yet falter if exposed by future moles revealing "insider" info ? Time will tell, and the present incumbents might just be found out if it's ever discovered that they were in dereliction of their duties, towards the future of golf and it's well being ?
Now I am being assumptive and guessing ! That's entirely down to the fact that people like myself who believe there is a problem have virtually no access to any sort of information on this topic of technology (from the governing bodies, that is). If there is not a problem in golf, why don't the R&A / USGA put all our minds at rest by addressing / dispelling some, or all of the many questions raised on this board and elsewhere ? Maybe because the USGA / R&A have a good handle on the situation as the majority appear to believe ? Or maybe because they know that people like myself and my views / concerns are still in the vast minority of golfing opinion ?
Measured approach ? I agree entirely, and remain content to stay with the minority viewpoint !

Alfie.

[Alfie]

Doug,
"So average golfers who had a damn hard time with a driver 10 years ago but can hit one now, would still be able to hit one after a rollback."
................

Exactly ! But it does raise a strange question that has, as far as I know, not been addressed by the ruling bodies. Why haven't they tested all these theories of what 'might be' if they rolled back the ball ? Maybe they have, I don't know ? Does anybody ?
Why don't they take a sample core of pro's and let them loose with a comp ball (a couple of boxes of Dunlop 65's would do) just to gauge reaction and performance etc....? Or maybe they have ?

Then they could give the people who support golf all the answers as to why the rollback or bifurcation wouldn't work for the betterment of the sport ! Both would be very simple and inexpensive exercises to undertake.

Then again, there is no problem. So why bother ?

Alfie

[Alfie]

Paul,
"Let's hope the R & A and USGA read this site."
...........

It certainly wouldn't be the daftest thing they ever did, Paul, if they do visit the site. Not just for the techno debates, but for almost every single topic associated with golf.

However, it's mind boggling to think that the views of past and present greats, archies, writers etc....are nonchalantly waved aside as poppycock ?

Alfie