Ogilvy on the State of Golf

[George Pazin]

I predict that if the USGA makes a tournament ball, amateur golfers will play it. I know that pro's have tailored equipment, but do you really think that Tiger at your home course with equipment out of the proshop is going to fall to pieces?

Hell, he can probably get Nike forged irons and the One Platinum, so he won't be far from his own gear to begin with - and there's a REASON for that.

There is ONE game of golf. One.

We all play it with what we can, but there's only one game.

A

Of course I don't think Tiger's game will fall apart, any more than I think I would be the no. 1 player if Nike tailored a ball to my (pathetic) game. But that's not the point.

And I, too, think many or most amateurs would adopt the tournament ball. I think that's the unstated goal of most bifurcation advocates.

[Jason Topp]

Are we sure that article is all Geoff's?

It reads suspiciously like a rent-a-quote document to me.

He has been saying this stuff for some time.  Now he has a platform from which people will pay more attention.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Do you really think you're not playing the same game as Federer because you can't remotely hit a tennis ball like him? You're playing the same game it's just that you're nowhere near as good as he is. Is that such a tough thing to contemplate and accept?

I think you're the one who's living in a dream world when you propose that competition in golf should be "open" as it generally is these days in tennis. You want to talk about a game that's lost the "grass roots" it used to have? Tennis's road was definitely the way to do that. I hope that never happens to golf.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I predict that if the USGA makes a tournament ball, amateur golfers will play it. I know that pro's have tailored equipment, but do you really think that Tiger at your home course with equipment out of the proshop is going to fall to pieces?

Hell, he can probably get Nike forged irons and the One Platinum, so he won't be far from his own gear to begin with - and there's a REASON for that.

There is ONE game of golf. One.

We all play it with what we can, but there's only one game.

A

Of course I don't think Tiger's game will fall apart, any more than I think I would be the no. 1 player if Nike tailored a ball to my (pathetic) game. But that's not the point.

And I, too, think many or most amateurs would adopt the tournament ball. I think that's the unstated goal of most bifurcation advocates.

That's a good point, George - and you're probably right.

I guess what I'm saying is that the natural drive of golfers to be like the pros is what holds the game together, and to try to make an "official" bifurcation, will not work - because golfers won't accept it.

Golfer want to play the "real" game, and tend to look to the pros for the definition of what "real" is. That's why we demand crazy maintenance standards for our home clubs and spend thousands of dollars on equipment (and $50 a dozen on balls!!!)

I don't think official bifurcation will fly - but it may get the ruling bodies around some costly lawsuits from manufacturers, and that may be reason enough to try it.

[ForkaB]

Rich:

Do you really think you're not playing the same game as Federer because you can't remotely hit a tennis ball like him? You're playing the same game it's just that you're nowhere near as good as he is. Is that such a tough thing to contemplate and accept?

I think you're the one who's living in a dream world when you propose that competition in golf should be "open" as it generally is these days in tennis. You want to talk about a game that's lost the "grass roots" it used to have? Tennis's road was definitely the way to do that. I hope that never happens to golf.

Tom

I love using the word "tennis" on this board because it so exquisitely exposes your prejudices and your naivete!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Ogilvy's a great golfer and seems to be a really nice guy and apparently a student of GCA, but what is relevant to his game is irrelevant to ours.  Bifurcation exists, and fighting it is like trying to be only a little bit pregnant.  The myth that we "all play the same game, on the same courses" was obviously a myth many years ago.
...

Rich,

Did you read the article? Did he say what is relevant to his game is relevant to ours? Read it again! He talked about a game that was relevant to ours. He talked about his father's game. He talked about making the game fun! As for his own game, he said he could handle anything they threw at him. He didn't necessarily like it (e.g. continual flop shot practice), but he could handle it.

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

Thanks for lending your gravitas to my posting.  It has given an unpopular view the light of day.

By the way, none other than Sandy Tatum, a man's man and golf purist if there was ever one and a longtime proponent of the one-game concept, has reversed himself on this topic.  Perhaps due to his old age and the accompanying difficulty with the game, maybe because he sees the negative effects of the current stalemate, he now supports different ball and equipment rules for the professional game.

Bill,

One of the best tips I picked up on the course came from you at my then home club.  You remarked that you enjoyed walking because, among other things, it allowed you to notice the architectural features that would be missed if riding on the paths.  You then explained how while as you approach the green complexes you are already reading your putt.

Few people I know are ready to stroke their putts faster than you (remember when you got pissed off at me at Cog Hill because I couldn't get a coin out of my pocket to mark my ball and you were already down to one on your countdown?).  Unfortunately, you are about the only person who does this.  Most "serious" golfers regardless of handicaps, specially those who follow the pros religiously, spend an excruciating amount of time reading the greens.   The guys who putt until they exhaust their handicap maximum are the exception, not the rule.

I personally like firm, fast greens, and little rough.  Deep bunkers particularly on short holes are great (a bunker should extract a penalty).  But taking my R7 away from me and making me play an old balata would not add enjoyment or make my round more interesting.  I for one have absolutely no illusions that I can play like the pros.

As to the follow the pros proponents, no doubt that some low handicappers and hacks actually do that.   A friend of mine is a clubmaker and he does real well with knock-off component clubs, some which are probably non-conforming.  A look in the bags of everyday golfers at a muni will reveal that there is a lot of equipment being made that is not anything close to what you saw at the US Open.

[George Pazin]

I guess what I'm saying is that the natural drive of golfers to be like the pros is what holds the game together, and to try to make an "official" bifurcation, will not work - because golfers won't accept it.

Golfer want to play the "real" game, and tend to look to the pros for the definition of what "real" is. That's why we demand crazy maintenance standards for our home clubs and spend thousands of dollars on equipment (and $50 a dozen on balls!!!)

I don't think official bifurcation will fly - but it may get the ruling bodies around some costly lawsuits from manufacturers, and that may be reason enough to try it.

I agree with you, but I think there is something that you are not understanding about the bifurcation advocates: the split is optional from the non-competitive golfers' standpoint.

Just because someone is not a professional, or an amateur playing in certain events, whatever the criteria is deemed to be, does not mean one has to play with non conforming equipment. I personally would play with conforming equipment, if it ever comes to bifurcation. I want to play something resembling the one game theory (even if no one could see the similarities between me and Tiger).

The one point that Geoff O. made that really made a lot of sense was that everyday golfers follow their lead from the tour, so it's not good enough to narrow fairways, make greens flat and speedy, etc., and then say, don't do this to your course.

[PThomas]

we need to get a GCA-logo golf bag to Geoff!

[ForkaB]

...
Ogilvy's a great golfer and seems to be a really nice guy and apparently a student of GCA, but what is relevant to his game is irrelevant to ours.  Bifurcation exists, and fighting it is like trying to be only a little bit pregnant.  The myth that we "all play the same game, on the same courses" was obviously a myth many years ago.
...

Rich,

Did you read the article? Did he say what is relevant to his game is relevant to ours? Read it again! He talked about a game that was relevant to ours. He talked about his father's game. He talked about making the game fun! As for his own game, he said he could handle anything they threw at him. He didn't necessarily like it (e.g. continual flop shot practice), but he could handle it.

Yo, Garland!

Did you read the article?  I just re-read it and Ogilvy says clearly that 99.9% of the golfers in the world (including his father) are unable to play the game he plays.  If that ain't bifurcation, call me Thomas Edelweiss Paul.

Rich

[Adam_F_Collins]

I guess what I'm saying is that the natural drive of golfers to be like the pros is what holds the game together, and to try to make an "official" bifurcation, will not work - because golfers won't accept it.

Golfer want to play the "real" game, and tend to look to the pros for the definition of what "real" is. That's why we demand crazy maintenance standards for our home clubs and spend thousands of dollars on equipment (and $50 a dozen on balls!!!)

I don't think official bifurcation will fly - but it may get the ruling bodies around some costly lawsuits from manufacturers, and that may be reason enough to try it.

I agree with you, but I think there is something that you are not understanding about the bifurcation advocates: the split is optional from the non-competitive golfers' standpoint.

Just because someone is not a professional, or an amateur playing in certain events, whatever the criteria is deemed to be, does not mean one has to play with non conforming equipment. I personally would play with conforming equipment, if it ever comes to bifurcation. I want to play something resembling the one game theory (even if no one could see the similarities between me and Tiger).

The one point that Geoff O. made that really made a lot of sense was that everyday golfers follow their lead from the tour, so it's not good enough to narrow fairways, make greens flat and speedy, etc., and then say, don't do this to your course.

Oh, I understand that, George I realize that joe schmo would have options. I just don't think he'll use them - just like most of them don't use non-conforming clubs now - even though they can. I think the manufacturers probably see that as well. I would imagine they know that if the pro's can't play the Pro V1, the hackers won't play them either.

I understand the purpose of bifurcation, I just don't think it'll fly. However, I will admit that it may be the only way to get the whole game to scale back on distance. But it'll remain one game, not two.

[Garland Bayley]

Rich,

As I see it, the point of the article was to point out that the modern ball has caused changes to courses that are hurting the game. These changes began to occur when the modern ball was introduced.  I understand your statement - "Bifurcation exists, and fighting it is like trying to be only a little bit pregnant.  The myth that we "all play the same game, on the same courses" was obviously a myth many years ago." - to mean that you believe this is not a problem that began with the modern ball.

The modern ball does not curve as easily as the old balata ball. You apparently have no trouble with this, because it is advancement in technology. Would you advocate that baseballs be made to not curve as easily as they presently do? Wouldn't that change the game of baseball so that pitching lost a significant dimension to its craft and the game would become less interesting? How about footballs (soccer balls)? Is not bending the shot on goal a significant part of the game?

In essence, the game was previously controlled by a bifurcation in the ball. You had a choice. The balata ball which could be worked, and spun to a stop on greens; and you had the "rockflite" and equivalents that would neither spin and curve as much off the driver, nor spin and stop on the greens. The modern ball upset the apple cart and let the pros have the best of both worlds.

If you would go to the USGA conforming ball list, you would find entries such as the Strata Tour Professional designated L-H. That means low spin (relative to others) off the driver and high spin off the short iron.
With the old ball technology, the entries in all likelyhood would read
L-L (low off driver, low off short iron, e.g. "rockflites"),
M-M (medium off driver, medium off short iron), or
H-H (high off driver, high off short iron, e.g. "balata balls").

[ForkaB]

Garland

Make the big boys play a ball that spins and bends.  One ball.

The rest of us schmucks can play rocks, balatas or featheries, if we want.  However, if we want to play with the big boys (i.e. qualify for a tournament or a tour), we play their ball.

That's bifurcation.  Pure and simple.

Not so hard to swallow now, is it?

Slainte

Rich

[JESII]

My question though, Rich, is why is that necessary? What will it improve?

[Garland Bayley]

Rich,

I prefer that the ball be limited to the old spin characteristics. Why should modern chemistry alter an age old game? Should we stop making baseballs and soccer balls with leather covers? Should we let chemistry modify the spin characteristics of those balls. Should we let a team with a great pitching staff choose to use the highly curving ball for their home games, and the team with the poor pitching staff choose the minimal curving ball for their home games?

Of course, I am glad we got away from the feathery, because of the consistency issue, but the balls used 20 years ago were every bit as consistent as needed.

Why do we need to bifurcate the rules when the rules were just fine until the USGA let ball technology get away from them?

[Mike_Cirba]

One man - One vote
One game - One set of Rules

Simple concepts, and even a strategist like Rihc who deals with complex concepts and multi-dimensional questions should see the utter beauty and sensibility in simplification that works for everyone.

It's not the rules and golfers that are changing.  It's the equipment which has changed and now the playing fields are struggling to change with them or be left behind in terms of utility for all levels of golfer.  

Rein in equipment and the problem goes away.

Simple concepts.  

There's no need to make this as complex as we do.

[ForkaB]

My question though, Rich, is why is that necessary? What will it improve?

Jim and Garland and Mike

No smashball=no need to screw up classic courses.  That's enough for me.

You and me and a dog named Blue can flog our ProV1's to our hearts delight, but since we are crap, it won't affect the game.  Just make the big boys play with something like Hogan played with.

Mikey

When you and I played 18 at Merion, we both got near the Hogan marker, from the new back tees.  Hogan probably wouldn't have made the carry.  Is that a good thing?

As for:

"One man - One vote
One game - One set of Rules"

I can hear Bono singing that one.......

[Mike_Cirba]

Mikey

When you and I played 18 at Merion, we both got near the Hogan marker, from the new back tees.  Hogan probably wouldn't have made the carry.  Is that a good thing?

Rich,

If it wasn't for the new technology, that new tee wouldn't be there for us to play from!  

Furthermore, if we both hit our Sunday best (as we did) with the older tools from the Hogan tee, I think our getting to the Hogan marker would be about right.  

[ForkaB]

Mikey

When you and I played 18 at Merion, we both got near the Hogan marker, from the new back tees.  Hogan probably wouldn't have made the carry.  Is that a good thing?

Rich,

If it wasn't for the new technology, that new tee wouldn't be there for us to play from!  

Furthermore, if we both hit our Sunday best (as we did) with the older tools from the Hogan tee, I think our getting to the Hogan marker would be about right.  

Bingo!

Of course, that wasn't my Sunday best, just a Thursdaycut of fthe heel.  My Sunday best that day was on the 14th where I drove it into a different zip code than TEP.

[Garland Bayley]

You and me and a dog named Blue can flog our ProV1's to our hearts delight, but since we are crap, it won't affect the game.  Just make the big boys play with something like Hogan played with.

As someone trying to develope a better game, I would like a ball that helps me do that. When the ball spin was higher from a low angled clubface, then it was easier to work the ball with a clubface that was at a low angle off of square. With present balls, I have to get the clubface to an angle that approaches a disasterous slice angle to get a fade.

If flogging is what you are interested in, then the old "rockflites" went just as far if not farther than the Pro Vs.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mikey

When you and I played 18 at Merion, we both got near the Hogan marker, from the new back tees.  Hogan probably wouldn't have made the carry.  Is that a good thing?

Rich,

If it wasn't for the new technology, that new tee wouldn't be there for us to play from!  

Furthermore, if we both hit our Sunday best (as we did) with the older tools from the Hogan tee, I think our getting to the Hogan marker would be about right.  

Bingo!

Of course, that wasn't my Sunday best, just a Thursdaycut of fthe heel.  My Sunday best that day was on the 14th where I drove it into a different zip code than TEP.

Rich,

From the original Hogan tee, do you think Tom might have tried the Paul Runyan method of playing the 18th?  

[Sean Walsh]

A question was asked on page 1 re the spat with the caddie.  I have heard Ogilvy quoted something to this effect.

It was a par5 and he wanted to go for the green.  The caddie advised laying up.  GO still wanted to go for the green.  Caddie said one out of five spots is good if you go for the green.  4 out of 5 are bad.  Not worth the risk.  GO conceded caddie was right.  denied that the two following bogeys were a result of the spat.

Put me in the bifurcation camp.  It will most likely only those on higher handicaps would use the juiced equipment anyway, allowing them the opportunity to become enamoured with the game with less ego pain (and my don't we hate pain these days).  The trade off is the pros are reined in.  Courses have less need to be alterewd reducing cost and increasing the likliehood of the better club golfers to being able to enjoy good golf courses as their designers intended.

And tell me you wouldn't like to see the pro's slicing the be-jeesus out of it like Phil did more often without the need for the boa-constricted fairways.

[TEPaul]

"Tom

I love using the word "tennis" on this board because it so exquisitely exposes your prejudices and your naivete!  

Rich:

One could probably call that a response, but, again, just a pretty poor one.  

It is your estimation of the evolution of tennis in the last few decades that shows true naivete, and even greater naivete if you cannot understand why golf should strive mightily not to go down that same most unfortunate road.

[JESII]

My question though, Rich, is why is that necessary? What will it improve?

Jim and Garland and Mike

No smashball=no need to screw up classic courses.  That's enough for me.

Rich,

I didn't know the ball could be blamed for screwing up these courses. I have always assumed it was people, and their false interpretation of how to "protect" their course that have screwed it up. Let's place the blame properly and then have the discussion.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Rich Goodale does not realize how to make intelligent and important distinctions like that. You know what I mean---eg if someone screws up a course somewhere in this country Rich Goodale's immediate impression is it must be the fault of the USGA.  

At least Rich Goodale's fellow countryman John Huggan sees the light. Yesterday he was saying he's not much of a fan of what the USGA has done and I asked him if he knew whether the R&A might wake up out of their total somnabulance by the next century and at least his response was; 'Good Point'.  

Tom Paul to the President of the R&A:

"What do you think about the distance problem?

President of the R&A;

"Distance problem?"

Tom Paul:

"Yes, sir, you know, the problem today that the ball is going too far for many of the existing courses?"

President of the R&A;

"Oh, yes, I have heard there are some people out there who believe that."  

I was thinking of following up that remark with another question about the distance problem but I was afraid he might respond that perhaps golfers should select another of their remaining 13 clubs if they felt the ball was going too far.