[Bill Shamleffer]

As much as I enjoyed watching this U.S. Open, at times I could not help but think "Am I just getting old, or was the US Open really better a couple of decades ago?"

Then I read Lorne Rubenstein's latest column.  Not only is the new ball very long, not only does it cause big time tournaments to avoid old courses, or cause old courses to be tarnished just for the sake of length, but even worse the new ball causes professional golf to be boring.

I was at the 1988, 1990, and 2002 US Opens.  The 1988 US Open at The Country Club was practically the last of the "small" Opens.  No corporate tents, a single minimal merchandise tent, parking across the street from the course.  But best of all the golf was great.  Persimmon woods, balata balls and lots and lots of shotmaking.

This may be beating a dead horse, but the PGA Tour must institute standards that make the ball much more workable to be curved by the pros for the sake of making the game more interesting.  As a bonus for the corporate side, if TV loves golf being dominated by Tiger, this will only help Tiger.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wspt-rube-col-22/GSStory/GlobeSportsGolf/home

[Brent Hutto]

After a decade of "sky is falling" panic over the the distance the modern ball flies...what has been done about it? Absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, bupkes.

So now the USGA and the alarmists are ready to move on to the next thing that absolutely nothing will be done about. Lack of spin. I guess we get to hear about this for the next ten years until the zeitgeist changes to worrying about the fact that Tour players make too many 6-footers.

[Adam Clayman]

Lorne's article seems to raise alot of questions. I like that.

Here's mine;
If the powers that be are under the impression it's more difficult for the pros to work the ball, why would they want to make it easier? And, if a pro wanted to work the ball more, why wouldn't he use a different ball?

[Brent Hutto]

And, if a pro wanted to work the ball more, why wouldn't he use a different ball?

That was exactly my thought. If David Toms wants a ball that curves, he could ask Titleist to make him (for free) whatever kind of ball he wants to use. Why don't he and the other players play a curvier ball? Wait, I know this one! It's because they couldn't hit a spinnier ball as long or as accurately as they can a ProV1x.

I think what David Toms is really saying is this. I think if everyone were forced to hit it shorter and crookeder, my ability to shape shots would help me deal with it better than some of the young guys who grew up hitting the ProV1 and not needing/wanting to hit big curves. Yeah, and if Bobby Jones were alive he'd be hell in a hickory-club tournament.

A longer, straighter modern ball allows a good player to shoot a lower score. That's why they use them. If there was some advantage to curving the ball, they'd be playing the ball that let them do it. It's just a Grandpa Simpson complaint..."when we were fighting General Franco in ought thirty-nine we didn't have no modern ball, we had to curve every shot 30 yards or die trying...".

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:

Don't you think golf course architecture would be more interesting if the players could curve the ball to respond to slopes and wind?

You are right that the players use the equipment they have because they want to make the game as easy as possible.  They're in the business of posting a score.  But while some lament that the game has become less interesting as a result, other pros are bringing up the inability to curve the ball as the first argument toward the conclusion that tilted greens are unfair because even the pros can't hit a fade into a green anymore.

[Brent Hutto]

I think if it were all or nothing then perhaps there would be some sort of choice required. I mean if the next ProV1 comes out and can fly 350 yards and is literally impossible to move left or right at all then perhaps the game (at the highest levels of play) would have abandoned its historical nature.

But that's a false choice. I've seen good players work it left and right when they think they need to even though they're playing a ProV1x (and bombing it extremely long and straight hole after hole). So the real situation is that modern balls give elite players considerable distance and accuracy gains at the cost of some portion (but far from all) of their ability to curve it on demand.

Therefore, I tend to view a desire on the part of a Tour player for some sort of throwback ball because it curves more to be a disingeneous argument that is really about eliminating the "far and sure" advantage that rewards the strongest players nowadays. Now maybe I'm just being cynical, my golf game doesn't give me any feel for the subtleties of the argument. David Toms and others have a point.

It is rare to see a crafty "small ball" approach pay off with a Tour win nowadays. I don't know that we'll ever see a major championship again where a Pavin-type player curving shots this way and that around the course without ever hitting it more than 30 feet off the ground comes out ahead of a Cabrera-type overpowering the course. But my desire for that sort of variety doesn't lead me to wish for a US Open contested with wooden woods and wound balata balls.

[Jon Wiggett]

Certainly the modern ball has killed off the player who used to shape the ball in order to eake out a few extra yards of run but I don't see that it is because you can't shape the ball. The players didn't have problems drawing it around the tee shot on 13 at ANGC. I see it more as if you hit it 320 on a 470 par 4 your only going in with a 9 iron so wheres the advantage of being 10 yards nearer. Now if its the difference between a 4 or a 5 iron like it used to be with the 280 drive then maybe you would eake out those extra yards.
Also it seems to me the argument of playing short and straight is no longer true. The quest for the ultimate playing surface on the fair but at the same time difficult course is destroying the very thing that makes golf interesting. ADVERSITY. I say let em have scruffy, uneven, interesting, nerving, unfair...... golf so its interesting for those of us who watch.

[Dan_Callahan]

Anyone who thinks it is impossible to curve a ProV has never played with me. I hit a fade, draw, slice or hook on almost every shot. I just don't do it on purpose.

[Brad Klein]

The issue here is compounded because the contributing factors are not just the ball's construction but the velocity players have to swing in order to get to the core of the ball and compress it, which is much higher than you'd swing if you were trying to work the ball. Also, the club face is straighter. Compare a modern driver with an old laminated or persimmon head and see how much roll in the face those clubs had; they had a curved surface for contact that a good player could control, whereas the modern swing and the modern club provide no room for that controlled/marginal kind of shot; everything is powerful and flush on, thanks to more generous weight distribution in the clubhead.

To get to where Lorne is talking about, you'd have to change everything at once, though I agree the ball is the single biggest factor. I'd much prefer to see guys like Verplank and Pavin with a chance to win more regularly, but it seems few of the younger players could play that sort of game as they've never had to. How is Charles Howell III going to gear down and shape shots? He'd break his wrists trying and lose 40 yeards on his tee shots in the process. As for Tiger, he'd do fine, but he'd have much more competition as he couldn't get away with poor timing when he was slightly off his game.

[Garland Bayley]

Anyone who thinks it is impossible to curve a ProV has never played with me. I hit a fade, draw, slice or hook on almost every shot. I just don't do it on purpose.

Isn't that the real problem. The pros have to start swinging like guys like Dan and I to get the results we do.

I believe Tom Doak brings up a point that should be paid attention to.

... other pros are bringing up the inability to curve the ball as the first argument toward the conclusion that tilted greens are unfair because even the pros can't hit a fade into a green anymore.

If you accept Alister MacKenzie's premise that the best golfers are awarded the most credabilty, whether or not they deserve it, and that they try to eliminate the features of golf courses that are ruinous to their game, then we will see less and less of greens sloping left or right.

I find it very interesting that Tom reports (on another thread) that a bunker on the right with a green sloping away from it is considered eminently unfair. But somehow the course I will play tomorrow has 18 holes of out of bounds on the left and few people object.

[Eric_Terhorst]

But while some lament that the game has become less interesting as a result, other pros are bringing up the inability to curve the ball as the first argument toward the conclusion that tilted greens are unfair because even the pros can't hit a fade into a green anymore.

Tom Doak,

I hope you are laughing out loud when this argument is advanced.  Any pro that complains that a course is "unfair" because he can't curve the ball should have Tour card revoked.  

I have an old Macgregor driver and a shag bag full of balata balls that any of them are welcome to borrow.

[C. Squier]

I'll buy the argument that Pro V's spin much less off a driver face, but they spin just as much as an old balata ball off irons/wedges.  You still see pros hitting "arm" shots to control spin with irons and they can easily bend the ball when in the sticks.  

I think part of the problem that hasn't been discussed is the "pay to play" trend with club contracts.  Contracts are much more specific and tend to go towards the game improvement models.  Ever notice once a guy gets bounced from an OEM's stable, or is between companies, what kind of clubs are in the bag?  Usually Mizuno blades.  Or a set of unstamped Don White MacGregors.  Or an old set of Hogan Apex.  Just because a pro may have tennis rackets in the bag, doesn't mean they prefer them.    

Put a set of blades in the bag and have fun working the ball.  I still have a blast with my Mizuno MP29's, which you can easily move the ball either way with.  I don't think the game is as "point and click" as its made out to be.  

[Brad Klein]

Clint,

great observation on the equipment switcheroo, but I still think it's extremely hard even for great players to hit a continuously curving hook or fade with the modern ball. The ball might start out curving but straightens up real fast owing to the aerodynamics and weight configuration of the ball's construction.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Brad, ball or no ball, perimeter weighting and larger heads have taken a huge part of the game away.  Just yesterday a buddy and I were lamenting that the ability to work a ball with todays clubs has almost disappeared.  It was more fun with a less forgiving club. Just try to hit em at the pin and then let em stop.  The game just doesn't require the same skills it did in the past!

I'm too cheap, however, to give up the control unless everyone else does.  I can't stand losing a $2 nassau!

[Kalen Braley]

Clint,

great observation on the equipment switcheroo, but I still think it's extremely hard even for great players to hit a continuously curving hook or fade with the modern ball. The ball might start out curving but straightens up real fast owing to the aerodynamics and weight configuration of the ball's construction.

I sure wish I could find some of those balls.  I've been using Pro V's and Nike Blacks, and even when I'm hitting my pitching wedge, those darn things will still curve.

I know they have put a lot of science into the modern balls and clubs, but I just don't get how the average hack on the course like me can make em curve all over the place and the pros can't.  Whoever thinks they can't curve thier shots, just watch the next time Phil or Tiger gets under a tree and has to hit a low slinging hook or slice to find the green.

Of course they really can curve them, but they will incessantly whine and moan about any green of fairway that isn't flat so they can shoot thier precious low numbers.

[A.G._Crockett]

The issue that nobody has really addressed here is that the spin rates for ProV generation balls are very low off the driver only, allowing elite players who know that contact will be relatively square to swing out of their shoes.  THAT is what has made the game more boring, I think.

The issue really isn't about curving the ball off irons and wedges; that can still be done with the modern ball.  I don't think it curves like an old balata ball, but it curves enough to allow/cause shots off irons to curve.  If anything, though, it takes MORE talent to work the ball now, since the spin rates are lower overall.

But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, to curve the ProV off a driver would require much lower swing speeds to maintain control, and therein lies the future; minimum spin rates off the driver coordinated to the wedge spin rates, so that if the guys who want high spin balls for shots around the green, they're going to have to hit a high-spin ball off the driver as well.  The high handicappers who want distance could still get it with low-spin balls.  Much better than a "roll back"...

I believe this will happen.
 

[Wayne_Kozun]

The issue that nobody has really addressed here is that the spin rates for ProV generation balls are very low off the driver only, allowing elite players who know that contact will be relatively square to swing out of their shoes.  THAT is what has made the game more boring, I think.

Someone should tell Tiger that you can't hit a fade or draw with a driver as he seems to have a fair bit of trouble hitting his drives straight and he is one of the best ever.  He doesn't use a Pro-V1 but his Nike ball is very similar.

[A.G._Crockett]

The issue that nobody has really addressed here is that the spin rates for ProV generation balls are very low off the driver only, allowing elite players who know that contact will be relatively square to swing out of their shoes.  THAT is what has made the game more boring, I think.

Someone should tell Tiger that you can't hit a fade or draw with a driver as he seems to have a fair bit of trouble hitting his drives straight and he is one of the best ever.  He doesn't use a Pro-V1 but his Nike ball is very similar.

Tiger doesn't get in trouble off the tee with a fade; his default flaw is a block, and it is a straight ball.  His vectors are pretty big, so the ball goes WAAAY off-line when it happens.  But a slice it ain't...

[David_Tepper]

The June 15 issue of Golf World has an article about the Nicklaus/Palmer playoff in the 1962 US Open at Oakmont. It mentions in the article that Nicklaus deliberately used narrower than normal grooves on his irons BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TOO MUCH SPIN ON HIS IRON SHOTS!

The article mentioned that Nicklaus essentially pioneered the aerial golf game, figuring if he hit the ball high enough (which he could do with his strength), it would land softly and he could access any pin position that way. Nicklaus was not interested in "working the ball" with his irons into the greens.  

If nothing else, this article again shows how golf history repeats itself over and over.

[Garland Bayley]

...Nicklaus was not interested in "working the ball" with his irons into the greens.  
...

I think it would be more accurate to say that Nicklaus preferred not to work the ball. However, when the shot demanded it, he would do it. That does indicate some level of interest.

[Brent Hutto]

Nicklaus was not interested in "working the ball" with his irons into the greens.  

If nothing else, this article again shows how golf history repeats itself over and over.

David,

I've "known" this for quite a while as an intuitive thing but never had any objective account of it being true for a player earlier than the current generation. If you're playing stroke play tournament golf and are physically able to execute a straight aerial power game then that's the high percentage way to do it in the vast majority of situations.

Of course a great player needs to be able to work the ball as required. However for most plain-vanilla shots there's no reason not to take as many variables out of the equation as possible. Bombing the ball straight down onto the target is the direct way to do that absent wind.

That's why I say if the Tour reverted to some sort of throwback higher spin ball it's foolish to think that players would no longer play the modern version of Jack's game. A higher spinning ball would make them shorter, it would make them less accurate, it would tend to increase scores but there's no way it would make Angel Cabrera or Phil Mickelson start playing golf like Corey Pavin. They would still overpower the course to the greatest extent physically possible and they would deal with the extra spin as a nuisance to be overcome.

[David_Tepper]

Garland B. -

Have you read the article in Golf World?

We can debate the semantics of "preference" vs. "lack of interest" in terms of Nicklaus working his iron shots into greens and accessing pin positions. I never saw Nicklaus play in person in his prime, so I cannot comment on how often he did or did not try to "work" the ball.

However, when a player of his caliber deliberately chooses to have the grooves on his irons ground appreciably narrower than standard (so that spin is minimized), I can only conclude (at least from reading this article) that "working" the ball was a low priority for him.  

DT

[Garland Bayley]

David,

I have read Jack's description of his use of working the ball. I forget where. His standard shot was a high fade. However, he discovered that he needed to be able to draw the ball on occasion, so he developed that shot for the rare instances he really needed it.

My understanding of working the ball has little to do with groves on the club face, unless of course the groves are vertical, not horizontal.

[John_Cullum]

Nothing is stopping these players, or anyone else, from using older equipment if they place so much value on working the ball.

[TEPaul]

I believe some of what Rubenstein said in his article about the preference tour pros may have or even be able to do with higher spinning golf balls is essentially theoretical.

I believe the desire that Rubenstein suggests on the part of Tour pros to really curve the ball is also fairly theoretical particularly when one considers what a tour pro would give up in ball performance (mostly trajectory---eg height) with a significantly higher spinning ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()