News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2007, 06:00:50 PM »
Bryan Izatt,

The manufacturers would oppose bifurcation.

Their marketing strategy plays to the concept that hackers to good golfers want to play the equipment that the PGA Tour Pros play.

There's a reason why ONLY wooden bats are allowed in MLB.

But, let's say that hi-tech bats were permitted and that multi-base hits and home runs dramatically increased, and that special footballs that would allow field goals from 80 yards were developed.  

The ruling bodies of those sports wouldn't permit their use because it would [size=4x] DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE PLAYING FIELD.[/color][/size]

Unfortunately, the USGA didn't project and understand the future impact of this issue until it was too late.

And now ?
I don't think it's possible to get all of the genie back in the bottle.

However, a "Masters? competition ball would be a great start.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 06:01:52 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2007, 06:08:36 PM »
Patrick,

In my case too, it's the I&B.  

I don't recall the studies if they were referred to on this site. Regrettably I&B hasn't helped my memory. Anybody remember the thread?

You can de-stress, the USGA has regulated that there will be no tennis rackets on a 56" shaft.  How about we resurrect this thread in 10 years and see if the technology saved us from our own deterioration.

In respect of the "renovation" of courses, I guess I see less of it here and where I play.  It sounds like the percentage of courses in your experience that move bunkers or narrow fairways or change greens is not as large as the number that  lengthen tees.  It's regrettable if it happens on a course that is classic and if it effectively makes the course worse for the membership.  If it's just cost that's the concern, it seems likely to me that money is not an issue for most members at classic courses.

As to whether it is harder to design courses for a variety of players when there is a larger gap in their driving (and iron) length, I'll leave that to the architects to say.  From other threads I got the impression that it's always been hard to design a course effectively for a variety of kinds of players.  A glaring example in the past being for men vs women.  I was under the impression that it was difficult if not impossible to design a course that fits well for players both long and short, and professional to rank amateur.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2007, 06:15:09 PM »
Patrick,

They may well oppose it, but it's still a lesser impact than forcing everybody to change.  I'm not too excited that I'll have to buy new irons because the pros spin the ball too much out of the cabbage.

Aren't wooden bats a perfect example of bifurcation?

I agree that it's going to take a lot of arm-wrestling to get the genie back in.  I'm not even sure it'll happen in my lifetime.

Sure a Master's ball would be neat.  Do you have any connections at Augusta.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2007, 06:56:47 PM »
Byran,

I've written and expressed my encouragement with respect to the introduction of a competition ball.

TEPaul

Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2007, 09:52:56 PM »
Bryan Izatt:

When it happens, just remember what I said.


;)

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2007, 01:55:17 AM »
I think that would be impossible.  Everyone would have to lose some distance and likely that everyone would lose about the same in % terms i.e.  for 10% a 200 yard driver would gain about 10 yards relative a 300 yard driver.


Why?  Golfers of all distances certainly didn't gain distance by the same percentages during this decade, so why would a rollback that undid the technological changes in the ball which allowed that not cause relatively more distance loss for longer hitters than shorter ones?

Ignore the pros for a moment, and think of the longest hitters you know personally.  How much distance have they gained in the past 5-10 years?  Now think about the shortest hitters you know, have they gained anything at all on their best hits?  Iif they aren't that good, they probably increased their average drive because of the bigger clubhead, but likely haven't added much distance at all on their best hits.

The 200 yard driver hasn't gained much on his best hits, certainly nothing like 20 yards that a 10% increase would gain him, but 10% is probably pretty close to what 300 yard drivers have gained.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Technology and Architecture - 2007
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2007, 02:22:19 AM »
Bryan Izatt:

When it happens, just remember what I said.


;)

Tom,

You've said 25,810 things and counting.  Which one was it I'm supposed to remember?   ;D

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back