Golfweek reports new Masters ball may be on the horizon

[Brian_Marion]

As I've stated in another forum:

Put a "Master's" ball in play at ANGC and The Master's will cease to be a major at some point in the future. The players will not want to play for a multitude of reasons all stated above. The tournament will be diminished in the player's eyes and, while some will argue, they are the ones who decide what is a major and what is not. They already hate the changes to the course and they don't like walking around on eggshells when on the grounds. A different ball would only add to the discontent.

The players will not change to a different ball for one week. Period. I've seen Freddie pick apart a prototype ball because it came off the face too hot compared to what he currently plays. This after one shot. These guys have feel and will not want thier games messed with. Remember, you're talking about guys who pick events based on the type of grass on the greens and the average wind velocity.

It goes like this, Tiger, Phil, Ernie and the remaining top 5-10 players tell the green jackets that if they have to play a "tourney" ball then they will not accept the invitation. This will be done behind the scenes of course but it is feasible. What then if Hootie and the bunch get stubborn, keep the plan and hold the tournament the way they want. You win and you have an asterisk beside your name forever. Nice.

Let this go on for a couple of years and you'll see The Players rise to take The Master's spot.

ANGC needs to leave it alone. They are going to kill the golden goose and be left with a terrific golf course that no one can see or play.

[John Sabino]

Brian

I don't think it would kill the Masters as a major. For a time the USGA and R & A had different standards on golf ball size. If you played in the Open Championship I believe you played with a smaller ball than you did in the US Open. It didn't kill either tournament. I think The Masters history is too rich to be destroyed by a ball. I actually think they would be setting a trend and the USGA would have to follow. Ironically, it would make the USGA's call to change the ball easier by setting a precedent.

Also, today's pros have proven they can more or less adjust to changes in technology without too much trouble.

Joe

[paul cowley]

....why this obsession with protecting 'par'....change it per hole and lower it per course or get used to some number like 30 under wining.....who cares?...as long as they all still have to play the same course.

Maybe its just me, but I do not get it, nor why others don't see it...but then again I've never felt alone, even by myself....so it must just be me ...I guess.

[Anthony Butler]

I don't think it would kill the Masters as a major. For a time the USGA and R & A had different standards on golf ball size. If you played in the Open Championship I believe you played with a smaller ball than you did in the US Open.

The difference being that both the R&A and the USGA has the right to issue Rules of Golf (including equipment specs) in their respective domains. These respective rules barely differ any more. No sponsoring organization has ever included an equipment spec as a local rule in a professional tournament conducted in either domain... The folks at ANGC can huff and puff all they want, but unless they have a death wish, the Masters will never be held using a "Masters"   ball.

[paul cowley]

Interesting post Brian.......

[A.G._Crockett]

Brian,
I agree with you; I think the general public just really does not understand the level that these guys are on, and how small the edge is.  I recently read an interview with Tom Stites in which he said that Hogan could tell the difference in 1/4 of a degree of loft on a club, and do it EVERY time.  He said that Woods can tell a 1 gram difference in the weight of one driver to one that is otherwise identical, which Stites compared to a dollar bill's weight.

I don't think it is a stretch at all to imagine the Masters really reducing the importance of what they do by trying a "special" ball.  It could easily become goofy golf that would lose it's relevance.  The current 4 majors were not always so, and things could change again.

[Doug Siebert]

"Hell, even #1 at TOC was once two stout smacks of a feather ball before paying your third over the burn....talk about a future mean par three...whoa.  

Paulie:

Sometimes you scare me. You just may be the king of the future super mean long par three!!  

When you begin to say something like; "Who said GIR should apply to a long par 3?", then I will know you are there.  

Do you think the old GB architects and even the great early American ones were concerned with GIR---or for that matter were even aware of the concept? No way JOSE!!

GIR is the product of the number crunching, data-loving, "standardization" mentality of these new whiz kids of the modern computer age.

It isn't like GIR would be impossible there.  The burn is quite narrow, you just need to land short and hop it over

[Jim Nugent]

As I've stated in another forum:

Put a "Master's" ball in play at ANGC and The Master's will cease to be a major at some point in the future. The players will not want to play for a multitude of reasons all stated above. The tournament will be diminished in the player's eyes and, while some will argue, they are the ones who decide what is a major and what is not. They already hate the changes to the course and they don't like walking around on eggshells when on the grounds. A different ball would only add to the discontent.

The players will not change to a different ball for one week. Period. I've seen Freddie pick apart a prototype ball because it came off the face too hot compared to what he currently plays. This after one shot. These guys have feel and will not want thier games messed with. Remember, you're talking about guys who pick events based on the type of grass on the greens and the average wind velocity.

It goes like this, Tiger, Phil, Ernie and the remaining top 5-10 players tell the green jackets that if they have to play a "tourney" ball then they will not accept the invitation. This will be done behind the scenes of course but it is feasible. What then if Hootie and the bunch get stubborn, keep the plan and hold the tournament the way they want. You win and you have an asterisk beside your name forever. Nice.

Let this go on for a couple of years and you'll see The Players rise to take The Master's spot.

ANGC needs to leave it alone. They are going to kill the golden goose and be left with a terrific golf course that no one can see or play.

Interesting and compelling points, Brian.  I'm wondering how you know Tiger and the other top guys would not play the Masters ball.  Not saying you are wrong.  Just curious as to your source on this.

[paul cowley]

Tom Paul ....once again you nail it with " who said GIR should apply to a long par three? "....or any hole for that matter.

Who invented GIR anyway and what the hell did he know about the game....did he come up with PAR as well?...thanks, but no thanks for screwing every half par hole ever since.

You're pretty darn bright laddie .

[Brian_Marion]

As I've stated in another forum:

Put a "Master's" ball in play at ANGC and The Master's will cease to be a major at some point in the future. The players will not want to play for a multitude of reasons all stated above. The tournament will be diminished in the player's eyes and, while some will argue, they are the ones who decide what is a major and what is not. They already hate the changes to the course and they don't like walking around on eggshells when on the grounds. A different ball would only add to the discontent.

The players will not change to a different ball for one week. Period. I've seen Freddie pick apart a prototype ball because it came off the face too hot compared to what he currently plays. This after one shot. These guys have feel and will not want thier games messed with. Remember, you're talking about guys who pick events based on the type of grass on the greens and the average wind velocity.

It goes like this, Tiger, Phil, Ernie and the remaining top 5-10 players tell the green jackets that if they have to play a "tourney" ball then they will not accept the invitation. This will be done behind the scenes of course but it is feasible. What then if Hootie and the bunch get stubborn, keep the plan and hold the tournament the way they want. You win and you have an asterisk beside your name forever. Nice.

Let this go on for a couple of years and you'll see The Players rise to take The Master's spot.

ANGC needs to leave it alone. They are going to kill the golden goose and be left with a terrific golf course that no one can see or play.

Interesting and compelling points, Brian.  I'm wondering how you know Tiger and the other top guys would not play the Masters ball.  Not saying you are wrong.  Just curious as to your source on this.

No direct source but I've been around a few of the guys and the TOUR a little over the years. One has to remember that the top 100 TOUR players are all wealthy and very independent by nature. They don't like being told what to do even by Hootie and company. Add to this contracts and endorsements and I can see a player revolt happening. Remember The Ryder Cup?

Also, Tiger has power. We can think of him as just a great golfer but he is THE most powerful man in golf. Even more than Finchem. If he says no, others would follow and I could see him saying no.

From a manufacturers standpoint, imagine being Titleist/TM/Callaway/Nike. If it were 2005 and a "Masters" ball were in play, Tiger's chip in wouldn't sell one ball for Nike. They pay a lot of money to have Tiger play a Swoosh. One tournament win can make a company like Srixons year. Without the logo in play, they are severly handicapped in the ball war.

One thing to also keep in mind, THE PLAYERS is TOUR owned. Guess who makes all the money at The Masters? Guess who makes the money at The PLAYERS?

It all adds up, to me, that it could happen. Not saying it will just that it's possible.

[Jim Nugent]

Brian, I know none of those guys.  But I remember a recent interview, or article, where Tiger bemoaned the new technology and balls.  He said he longs for a ball that spins more, so skill would count for more.  

So now flip your argument around.  Suppose Tiger says yes.  Would the other players follow too?

I'm not sure why Nike, Titleist and every ball manufacturer could not produce a Masters ball for their players to use in the tournament.  

[Brian_Marion]

Jim , I hear you. I think Tiger wishes for a ball that spins more and he wants some controls but I don't he would want it one week of the year. I could see him pushing for a "standard" for all tournaments.

Let's put it this way. Let's say that The Masters, instead of a ball roll back, decides that players must all play circa 1978  Eye-O-Matic woods and they have MacGregor make a set for everyplayer. What then?

[Jim Nugent]

If Tiger has that much power, he could not only be the most dominant golfer in the world.  He could become the man who saves golf and golf courses from runaway technology.  The savior.

Earl was right!

[Steve_Lemmon]

 I saw a televised interview with Hootie this year.  He unequivocally stated that there was no consideration of a rolled back ball taking place.  I have never observed him to be anything less than completely frank in his statements (in fact, that is how he has gotten into pr trouble before).  

[Tags:]

Tags: