[Andy Hughes]

All I'd like to see, for once in most of our lifetimes, are major championships in which the golf courses don't need radical plastic surgery.

Chuck, that is well said.  But the ramifications are interesting--millions of golfers are pleased with the current state of technology in golf, including the balls, but the powers that be should alter that state because 4 weeks a year a few terrifically good players are too long for the Merions and TOCs of the world.

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.

Too far for whom? For you? Assuredly not too far for me. 

[Garland Bayley]

...

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.

Too far for whom? For you? Assuredly not too far for me. 

Too far for most 18-38 year olds. I took my son to our short driving range with tall fence around it. He seldom plays golf. He took out his fairway wood and ripped it over the fence. I told him that was a no-no. He took out his gap wedge and ripped it over the flag at 167 yards that I practice hitting five irons to.

[Chuck Brown]

All I'd like to see, for once in most of our lifetimes, are major championships in which the golf courses don't need radical plastic surgery.

Chuck, that is well said.  But the ramifications are interesting--millions of golfers are pleased with the current state of technology in golf, including the balls, but the powers that be should alter that state because 4 weeks a year a few terrifically good players are too long for the Merions and TOCs of the world.

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.

Too far for whom? For you? Assuredly not too far for me. 

Nor me, to be honest with you, Andy.

My stubborn insistence in this case is admittedly one based largely on principle, since the practicality is that most every good golf course in American is more than enough of a challenge for you and I from the back tees.  And some well-known courses are probably more than enough of a challenge for you and I from the white tees.

But as for "principle," I think it is of huge, overwhelming importance.  The alternative is bifurcation of equipment, and I think that such a move would be disastrous for golf.  I think the USGA is very concerned about any bifurcation; so much so that the Executive Committee seems willing to continue to expose itself to public abuse and ridicule to continue to let elite players cause trouble for the rules and for golf architecture, just to keep away from any 'bifurcation.'

The equipment manufacturers aren't too crazy about bifurcation, either.  Opposition to bifurcation is parctically the only thing that Titleist, the USGA and Geoff Shackelford (I think!?!) all agree on.

Golf would be a huge loser in any bifrucation.

[Nicholas Coppolo]

I've been in the fairway with 6 of the top 10 players in the world rankings as of 11/30:

NONE of them hit the ball straight on a consistent trajectory. 
Every approach shot has a specific and unique shape.

Driving usually has a consistent shape unless specifically called for by a dog leg that's not "cuttable".  But then they will usually hit a fairway wood to the turn.

If you want to be one of the best players in the world, you HAVE to work the ball, still.

If you just want to be a be a millionaire or keep your card you don't.

Mediocre courses beget mediocre golf.  When thoughtful architecture is on the schedule, the best players show up and respond, and never with a straight ball.

I won't argue that point with you, Nicholas.

As for Mark Brooks, angling speicifically for rules requiring balls that have more spin in them, it may be self-interest on his part, and he may be lobbying for one particular class of players, including himself and Cory Pavin and some others.

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.  It is absolutely inarguable that modern balls and other equipment are no longer a good fit for most (not just "most,' but the vast majority) of existing golf course architecture, in the hands of elite players.

I truly don't favor any one group of players over another.  I have no desire to prevent JB Holmes form winning, or to help Mark Brooks win, or vice versa, or anything in between.  All I'd like to see, for once in most of our lifetimes, are major championships in which the golf courses don't need radical plastic surgery.

This one is touchy for me.....

First, are we (the USGA) at a regulatory stopping point for the golf ball?  Do we know that the limits have been reached?

Second, I resist the concept that Golf Courses, Architecture, and Art in general is an inflexible, stagnant medium.
These things, in my opinion, need to be maintained, and altered in reaction to the developing world in which it exists.

That being said, the game is dependent on its equipment and that equipment must be regulated. 

I don't know the science behind the equipment laws, but where is the ball currently in regards to them?

...

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.

Too far for whom? For you? Assuredly not too far for me. 

Too far for most 18-38 year olds. I took my son to our short driving range with tall fence around it. He seldom plays golf. He took out his fairway wood and ripped it over the fence. I told him that was a no-no. He took out his gap wedge and ripped it over the flag at 167 yards that I practice hitting five irons to.

This doesn't concern me in the slightest and reflects little on the state of the golf ball.....

Most athletically enclined, fit(ish), young(ish) people can swing a golf club fast and hit it as far as a pro, or even further and occasionally straight(ish), if that's what your trying to do.

That has little to do with actually playing golf.

I am MUCH longer when I don't have to keep it on the golf course, with any kind of golf ball.

[Andy Hughes]

Too far for most 18-38 year olds. I took my son to our short driving range with tall fence around it. He seldom plays golf. He took out his fairway wood and ripped it over the fence. I told him that was a no-no. He took out his gap wedge and ripped it over the flag at 167 yards that I practice hitting five irons to.

Garland, it is your contention that because your son hit a gap wedge over a flag at a range marked 167 yards than the ball goes too far for 'most' 18-38 year olds? I am not sure it is reasonable to extrapolate to such a large group based on one swing by one person, nor is it necessarily justified to base such things strictly on distance. That is one small portion of playing golf.

My stubborn insistence in this case is admittedly one based largely on principle, since the practicality is that most every good golf course in American is more than enough of a challenge for you and I from the back tees.  And some well-known courses are probably more than enough of a challenge for you and I from the white tees.

But as for "principle," I think it is of huge, overwhelming importance.  The alternative is bifurcation of equipment, and I think that such a move would be disastrous for golf.  I think the USGA is very concerned about any bifurcation; so much so that the Executive Committee seems willing to continue to expose itself to public abuse and ridicule to continue to let elite players cause trouble for the rules and for golf architecture, just to keep away from any 'bifurcation.'

Chuck, in truth, I have much sympathy for your position, though my thoughts are more for the comparisons between now and former players. I played Inwood some years ago, and I played the last hole driver-9 iron. Bobby Jones famously hit a 2 iron for his approach to the final green in the US Open.  Such a difference, and I certainly do not need to mention that Jones and I played very different games 
Yet I remain torn about the ball 'going too long' now. It seems that for 99% of the golfing world that is just not the case, in truth I am not troubled by a pro shooting 62 at Merion, and for the average player who finds the game is just not a challenge any longer because of his equipment has easy remedies at hand. The cure to stop that pro seems too draconian and would upset too many golfers. 

[Sean_A]

While I have sympathy for Chuck's position, I still believe it is down to clubs to dig in their heels where change is concerned.  If the USGA wants to alter a course for the big boys the club has every right to say take it or leave it.  However, I think membership egos drive change as much as anything only it is always more convenient to blame someone else. I personally don't care that a pro can shoot 60 in a major.  I don't think it makes much difference either way.  What I want to see is good shotmaking.  Whatever it takes to make this happen, I am in favour of.  Personally, I think cutting the number of clubs to 8 or 9 would do very well toward this goal. 

I wouldn't care too much if there was a tech cutback, but I must say that, like AwsHuckster, haven't come across a single course that didn't present enough of a challenge.  Sure, I get bored with some places, but that is because they don't interest me, its not a challenge problem.  For me, these questions are really for the players to decide - as Peter P suggests.  Its their product and they can judge for themselves if it is being successfully sold.  This would be especially up front and centre if clubs had the balls to tell the USGA to stick it.  If the classic clubs stuck together they would stand a much better chance of forcing the players (pga tour) and the USGA hands.  But of course, we all know that secretly or not, memberships pride themselves on being a championship venue and love all the hoopla that comes with it.  So I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that the clubs in question with stand firm for not altering their courses for the purposes of championships.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...

But as for the argument that spin or no spin, the balls (and equipment in general, but especially, particularly, uniquely, BALLS), go far -- too far -- I just don't see any other side.

Too far for whom? For you? Assuredly not too far for me. 

Too far for most 18-38 year olds. I took my son to our short driving range with tall fence around it. He seldom plays golf. He took out his fairway wood and ripped it over the fence. I told him that was a no-no. He took out his gap wedge and ripped it over the flag at 167 yards that I practice hitting five irons to.

This doesn't concern me in the slightest and reflects little on the state of the golf ball.....

Most athletically enclined, fit(ish), young(ish) people can swing a golf club fast and hit it as far as a pro, or even further and occasionally straight(ish), if that's what your trying to do.

That has little to do with actually playing golf.

I am MUCH longer when I don't have to keep it on the golf course, with any kind of golf ball.

It seems you overlook the fact that they can keep it in on the golf course, because of the reduced spin. Their misses are not penalized nearly as much as they were with higher spinning balls of yester year, and they have the spin available to play an enhanced short game.

Furthermore, the young players are not interested in playing driver wedge all the time, thereby rendering many courses obsolete. So not it is not just a four week a year issue with the majors.

[Garland Bayley]

Reducing the set to 9 to 10 clubs should not be the solution.

It used to be a beginners set was an evenly space half set. Reducing to 9 to 10 clubs might make a set consist of 60, 56, 52, and 48 degree wedges, driver, fairway wood, 8 iron, 6 iron, putter. Not exactly a set that tests the traditional skills of the game.

When I was a busy father with young child, the local course was all wedge shot approaches for me. I did not escape there to play golf often, because it was not exercising my skills. Admittedly I played rock flites. Admittedly, it fits me much better now.

[Chuck Brown]

The "seven-club solution" seems like a very odd approach to me.

(Just to get a personal prejudice out of the way, I am not in the club-selling business, and I just love the idea of playing a few holes by myself in the evening with nothing but a Sunday bag and about seven clubs.  Fabulous.)

But when people talkabout addressing the golf ball-distance problem by cutting down the number of clubs, to me that sounds like trying to enforce the speed limit by laying down occasional oil slicks.  One has very littel to do with the ohter, except tangentially.  As crude as this notion is, the "distance" problem could be solved by getting rid of just one club -- driver --  instead of seven of them.

We don't have a 'skill' problem, or a 'golf course' problem in golf.  We have a distance problem.  A distance problem that is directly related to equipment.  And since the one thing that seems to be helping elite players, and not recreational players, is the golf ball (I dare say that big-headed drivers may be of a big help to recreational players as well as elites), it is the golf ball that we should focus on.

After all, the cheapest, most inconsequential, least memorable, most uniteresting part of the game is the golf ball and its formulation.  Golf clubs and daily fee course operators have millions invested in their courses.  And as Geoff Shackelford rightly says, golf is the game in which the venue is the most important and most fragile in all of sport.

At the same time, individual golfers have hundreds, or thousands, of individual dollars invested in their clubs, along with many hours of work and familiarization in most cases.

But golf balls?  Come on.  Who, besides Fortune Brands, has any sort of investment in golf balls?  Who has bought the golf balls they plan to use in 2010?  N-o-b-o-d-y.

Bottom line:  For everybody (except perhaps Titleist, Bridgestone and Callaway) changing the rules for the formulation of golf balls would be easy.

And it need not be a change that "punishes" recreational players.  Why not a ball that closes the rapidly-expanding gap between elite and recreational players?  Right now, quite perversely, we seem to be optimizing balls for the elite players.  The Pro V is their dream ball.  Why not codify ball specifications that are optimized for recreational players instead?

[Andy Hughes]

Furthermore, the young players are not interested in playing driver wedge all the time, thereby rendering many courses obsolete. So not it is not just a four week a year issue with the majors.

Garland, I believe you have gone over the top with the hyperbole this thread. I still do not believe that just because your son hit a wedge at a flag that says '167' that it therefore proves most 18-38 year olds either a) hit it too long or b) play all holes with a  driver and wedge. I am fairly sure that 'most' 18-38 year olds do not find many courses obsolete.  Is the game really so trivially easy for your son?
Also, the 4 week reference was in response to Chuck's comment as it related to the majors. So yes, the 4 weeks was accurate in that sense.

Chuck, I am still struck by the surgery desired by so many, and what the ramifications would be. And to what end?  Does it really matter that much what Ernie Els shoots at Olympic or whether Woods shoots a 61 at Augusta? Heck, Woods is the best that's ever been--he should shoot a 61 at Augusta!     Does it genuinely bother you if they shoot great scores in the majors?

I agree with Sean, if Merion (for example) really wants to spend a fortune and potentially disfigure their course to satisfy their vanity, it seems to me a pity but that's their choice. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()