[Dan Kelly]

Mark Brooks speaks out, in a James Achenbach Golfweek commentary posted at http://www.golfweek.com/commentaries/achenbach-120308:

"Brooks is a thoughtful, articulate man. He is sensitive yet deeply opinionated. Get him started on modern golf equipment, he may never stop.

"The big campaign for Brooks is the golf ball. He, along with many traditionalists who enjoy working the ball and creating a multitude of different shots, would like to see spin put back into the ball.

"Among other consequences, this would reintroduce the slice to golf. With today’s low-spinning, dead-straight golf balls, the slice has disappeared from the game. Sure, shots still go to the right because they are pushed or blocked, but they fly straight right rather than slicing out of control.

" 'It would put more emphasis on shotmaking, which would be a good thing,' Brooks said. 'I’ve been screaming about it for some time, but it hasn’t done any good.'

"It hasn’t done any good because the U.S. Golf Association failed to control the golf ball. For all the positive achievements of the USGA, the organization flatly failed to comprehend the ingenuity of the golf ball companies.

"Along the way, golf turned into a straight-line game. A new philosophy emerged: Aim it at your target and swing like hell.

"Brooks contends that an element of skill was removed from the game. Controlling the ball became too simple.

" 'It’s very frustrating,' Brooks said. 'Shotmakers are artists. They are highly skilled at moving the ball around. Now suddenly you see a bunch of guys who never think of playing that way. The reason they can swing so hard and hit it so far is that the ball is so easy to control.' "

Discuss?

[Garland Bayley]

My position here has been the same as Mr. Brooks for a long time. The golf ball makers went to unnatural (not mimiced in nature) techniques to create the modern ball. In doing so they changed the game significantly. The USGA should add spin regulation to their ball regulation of initial velocity. Historiically the slope of the plot of spin rate vs face angle was somewhat related between the high spin balls and the rock flites of the world. The new ball increased the slope of that plot significantly, and as I maintain unnaturally.

I get lots of people on this site arguing against this, becasue they saw an improvement in their game from the new ball. IMO they prefer personal gain over the good of the game.

Yours,

Mr. Popularity

[Brent Hutto]

I suspect if they put the spin back in the golf ball by fiat, either in general or on the PGA Tour, we just might find that the dominant players will aim straight and swing like hell anyway. They'll have to deal with upshooters and the occasional slice missing way right but then they'll use their lob wedge to deal with those problems. And if you take away the lob wedge they'll open the face of the sand wedge.

It is my considered opinion that no change you make to balls and/or wedges and/or drivers and/or course setups is going to make a person as strong and technically proficient as Tiger Woods accede to bunting the ball around like Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin. Any change sufficient to make a modern player give up all of his physical and technique advantages would be enough to render the game a joke.

And I am unwilling to entertain any suggestion that the guy whose talent is for hitting the low cutter as accurately as Lee Trevino is morally, intellectually or otherwise superior to another guy whose talent is for hitting the ball on his intended line and trajectory while producing 180mph+ of ball speed. It's an unfortunate contingency of the way the world works that 180mph+ ball speed ability tends to trump low-cutter ability on most courses worth playing.

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

Interesting topic...and I can see how this is one of the reasons why many pine away for the old days.

I just dont get Mark Brooks stance on this one.  If he wants to use the old equipment, I don't beleive anyone is stopping him.  By all means he can use it on Tour and I'm sure he can find a supplier to get him everything he needs from 20-30 years ago.

Do any of us advocate going back and driving that old 1982 Buick POS?  Or how about digging out that old polyester liesure suit and wearing it around town...hell it sure takes alot more "skills" to get away with wearing something like that.   Sometimes I don't understand why some think everyone needs to recede back to older gear and technologies.  By all means if the newer stuff doesn't interest one on an individual basis, they are perfectly free to re-tool and use the older stuff...including Mark Brooks.

[Brent Hutto]

Kalen,

Mark Brooks thinks that if you make him and Tiger both play with 1982-era implements on a course set up like a 1982 Tour venue then you've given him a better chance of beating Tiger. I'd say he would be in for a shock when he saw what Tiger's fast-twitch muscle fibers would enable him to do once he'd had a few months to learn to work around the limitations of the old equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

BS Kalen,

No one is advocating receding to older technologies. The advocacy is for regulating current ones. When they put the initial velocity test in, they did not prevent technology from advancing in materials and craftmanship! The simply regulated the COR of the ball.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,

I suspect your suspicions are suspect.

[Ken Moum]

It is my considered opinion that no change you make to balls and/or wedges and/or drivers and/or course setups is going to make a person as strong and technically proficient as Tiger Woods accede to bunting the ball around like Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin. Any change sufficient to make a modern player give up all of his physical and technique advantages would be enough to render the game a joke.

Brent, the problem is that the ball WAS changed, and it tilted the balance in faovr of those who could produce 150 mph clubhead speed by taking away some of the need to control sidespin. I am a fervent advocate of doing something with the ball, but even I still want to see the guy who can hit it long AND straight succeed.

And I am unwilling to entertain any suggestion that the guy whose talent is for hitting the low cutter as accurately as Lee Trevino is morally, intellectually or otherwise superior to another guy whose talent is for hitting the ball on his intended line and trajectory while producing 180mph+ of ball speed. It's an unfortunate contingency of the way the world works that 180mph+ ball speed ability tends to trump low-cutter ability on most courses worth playing.

Making the ball spinnier would actually help the guy who capable of "hitting the ball on his intended line and trajectory while producing 180mph+ of ball speed." What the modern ball has done is reduce the importance of the control portion of the game. Personally, I think it's tilted too far in the direction of power, just as men's tennis and bowling have. I'd like to see the balance between power and control retored to 1980s levels.

More importantly, IMHO, such a change wouldn't have a big effect on who won the most tournaments. It would still be Tiger--in fact he might win more often.

But it would have an effect on HOW the tournaments were won.

Modern power golf is boring to watch. Look at how fascinated we are when extreme conditions force players into strategies like Tiger at Hoylake.

A spinnier ball might produce that kind of stuff more often.

Ken

[David_Tepper]

Brent Hutto -

You are putting words in Mark Brooks' mouth as far as competing with Tiger is concerned. He made no comment whatsoever in regard to that. 

As I understand it, Tiger comes as close to anyone on Tour in terms of playing with "old-school" equipment. He plays with forged blades and uses a ball that spins more than most of the other players. He was one of the last players on Tour to use a graphite shaft in his driver.

DT

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

That cat is out of the bag, and you can't put it back in.  If the newer and improved golf balls hadn't been invented, maybe you could make that claim...but in this case you clearly can't.

And in this case, Mark Brooks is clearly only asking for a return to older equipment that is harder to use because he thinks it best fits his skill set.  If he could bash it with todays players he'd be happy to be out there stuffing his pockets with oodles of money grinning with the other boys.

If we're going to reverrt, why not go back to old computers where you had to insert 5 -1/4 inch floppies just to boot up the machine.  RAM?  Who needs 4 Gig, 64K should be enough, just ask Bill Gates. And forget about 100s of Gigs for hard drives...10 MB outta be enough for anyone.  After all it took a lot more "skill" to operate a computer back in the good old days.   

[JNC Lyon]

It is my considered opinion that no change you make to balls and/or wedges and/or drivers and/or course setups is going to make a person as strong and technically proficient as Tiger Woods accede to bunting the ball around like Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin. Any change sufficient to make a modern player give up all of his physical and technique advantages would be enough to render the game a joke.

Brent, the problem is that the ball WAS changed, and it tilted the balance in faovr of those who could produce 150 mph clubhead speed by taking away some of the need to control sidespin. I am a fervent advocate of doing something with the ball, but even I still want to see the guy who can hit it long AND straight succeed.

And I am unwilling to entertain any suggestion that the guy whose talent is for hitting the low cutter as accurately as Lee Trevino is morally, intellectually or otherwise superior to another guy whose talent is for hitting the ball on his intended line and trajectory while producing 180mph+ of ball speed. It's an unfortunate contingency of the way the world works that 180mph+ ball speed ability tends to trump low-cutter ability on most courses worth playing.

Making the ball spinnier would actually help the guy who capable of "hitting the ball on his intended line and trajectory while producing 180mph+ of ball speed." What the modern ball has done is reduce the importance of the control portion of the game. Personally, I think it's tilted too far in the direction of power, just as men's tennis and bowling have. I'd like to see the balance between power and control retored to 1980s levels.

More importantly, IMHO, such a change wouldn't have a big effect on who won the most tournaments. It would still be Tiger--in fact he might win more often.

But it would have an effect on HOW the tournaments were won.

Modern power golf is boring to watch. Look at how fascinated we are when extreme conditions force players into strategies like Tiger at Hoylake.

A spinnier ball might produce that kind of stuff more often.

Ken

I agree.  Many of the Golden Age architects sought relentlessly to reign in the brute force golfer through clever design.  This indicates that they valued thought and strategy over pure physical strength.  Read through "The Architectural Side of Golf" to see this at work.  Fortunately, there will always be room for finesse in the game.  However, the thought required to play golf has decreased significantly.  Some of the best players I know are the ones who can mindlessly hit fairways and greens.  They don't have to worry about shaping it.  It's just a matter of pounding away at the ball with whatever club fits the yardage.  It is still a mental test, but it is one of endurance and not one of wisdom.  

Any effort to bring back shotmaking to the game is directly in line with the ideals of Golden Age architecture.  I'm not really concerned with the notion of 'progress' in equipment, especially in a game/sport that relies so heavily on its rich traditions.

[John Kavanaugh]

New balls can be worked just as well as the old ones.  The only factor needed are courses long enough and difficult enough to require the shots.  I don't think it is the ball manufacturers that constantly request the shortening of courses and cutting of trees.  My recent thread on the fun of the long approach is testament to this stance.

[Jeff Spittel]

Tour pros have a problem working the ball becasue they make solid contact and swing on plane.

I've got no problem imparting thirty yards worth of sidespin on the ball in either direction. I'm just not sure when it's going to happen.

[Phil Benedict]

I don't have any trouble curving the modern ball in an unintended way.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

That cat is out of the bag, and you can't put it back in.  If the newer and improved golf balls hadn't been invented, maybe you could make that claim...but in this case you clearly can't.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

And in this case, Mark Brooks is clearly only asking for a return to older equipment that is harder to use because he thinks it best fits his skill set.  If he could bash it with todays players he'd be happy to be out there stuffing his pockets with oodles of money grinning with the other boys.

Once again BS. Tiger Woods, Geoff Ogilvy and otheres that can bash it with today's players and are stuffing their pockets with oodles of money are also calling for regulation.

If we're going to reverrt, why not go back to old computers where you had to insert 5 -1/4 inch floppies just to boot up the machine.  RAM?  Who needs 4 Gig, 64K should be enough, just ask Bill Gates. And forget about 100s of Gigs for hard drives...10 MB outta be enough for anyone.  After all it took a lot more "skill" to operate a computer back in the good old days.   

Why don't you go get your fallacies reference and critique this nonsense

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Me, too, Phil.

[Pat Burke]

Two pennies from me
As has been stated, Tiger probably plays more "old school" than any of the top players right now.
He plays a ball that in this age spins a ton, and has worked tirelessly on learning how to hit little shots to not spin it off the world from short distances.  He hits more dead hand shots to control the spin than you can imagine.
My own experience is that yes, the equipment has changed the game, I am fat, never practice, still play with blades, but always look for more yardage, and always try the newest bomb inducing, marketing weapon.  So, now I hit it about one club further with my irons, and about 8-10 carry with a driver.  The ball is the culprit more than anything, and as teaching pros learn to fit balls to players who are decent club players, they will also reap more distance gains.
FYI  MArk HAS talked about this a long time, and mentions the ball as the culprit.  This is good, because he was the first PGA Tour player to switch to and win the Callaway's Big Bertha driver!  So that technological change he was all in for

[Ken Moum]

FWIW, I have long believed that all we need is to simply return to a ball that weighed about 1.55 ounces as it did in 1931.

You can read a differing opinion from John Vander Borght here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionvanderborght.html.

I think that today's low spin ball at 1.55 would be a completely different animal than the 1931 ball was.

For one thing, there's at least some evidence that it would be easier for juniors, women and seniors to get in the air.

It would definitely favor the player who hits it long AND straight, while giving the short, straight hitter a fighting chance against the player who is just long, and not-so-straight.

K

[Michael Blake]

 I think Brooks needs to focus on Q-school and not how regulating the ball will better enable HIM to compete.

[Garland Bayley]

...
It is my considered opinion that no change you make to balls and/or wedges and/or drivers and/or course setups is going to make a person as strong and technically proficient as Tiger Woods accede to bunting the ball around like Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin. Any change sufficient to make a modern player give up all of his physical and technique advantages would be enough to render the game a joke.
...

So what's the purpose of your statement here. Everyone knows Tiger will not "accede to bunting". His shot just won't go quite as far. Neither will Mark's nor Corey's for that matter.

Tiger has said he would like spin put back on the ball. He would win just as often as now if not more, and he would have more fun doing it.

[Garland Bayley]

New balls can be worked just as well as the old ones. ...

When you make it to the tour, we will be more willing to take your word for it. However, since you contradict most of the playing professionals including Tiger, we will ignore your misunderstanding of the facts.
 

[Brent Hutto]

...
It is my considered opinion that no change you make to balls and/or wedges and/or drivers and/or course setups is going to make a person as strong and technically proficient as Tiger Woods accede to bunting the ball around like Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin. Any change sufficient to make a modern player give up all of his physical and technique advantages would be enough to render the game a joke.
...

To be more succinct, change the equipment if you want to. It won't matter.

Anyone who thinks a different golf ball will make modern players play like Lee Trevino or Ben Hogan is delusional.

So what's the purpose of your statement here. Everyone knows Tiger will not "accede to bunting". His shot just won't go quite as far. Neither will Mark's nor Corey's for that matter.

Tiger has said he would like spin put back on the ball. He would win just as often as now if not more, and he would have more fun doing it.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Anyone who thinks a different golf ball will make modern players play like Lee Trevino or Ben Hogan is delusional.
...

Tiger Woods fully intends to play more like Lee Trevino and Ben Hogan, as he thinks he is better at it then everyone else (and Hoylake would seem to give credence to that). Is not Tiger Woods a "modern player"?

[Chuck Brown]

I think Brooks needs to focus on Q-school and not how regulating the ball will better enable HIM to compete.

How does 66 work for you?

It is surprising that so many members of a site like GCA would persist in rehashing old arguments about which players a ball rollback would help, or hurt.

The point of a ball rollback has nothing to do with stopping Tiger Woods from winning so often (it assuredly wouldn't), and it wouldn't neccessarily help Mark Brooks or Corey Pavin win more.

The point of a rollback would simply be to move the game to a place where it better fit the exisiting courses.  You all can argue all you want about what is "best" or what is "right"; what no one can say is that the game is not outgrowing the existing courses.  It is, absolutely and without question.  If it weren't, there'd be no need to redesign and adjust all of the courses that elite-level players now play.

Yes, tour distances have leveled off in recent years.  All that proves is how much golf ball technology developments have been the overwhelming factor in the distance explosion.  Yes, players are bigger, stronger, fitter.  But that does nothing to explain the spike upwards in distances that came with the Pro V era, and how disatance gains have flattened with the near-constancy of the design of modern urethane-cover balls.  Yes, drivers and launch monitors keep getting better too.  I know that.  But it is the ball that has driven the sharpest spikes in distance growth.

So, Mark Brooks is right.  It is about the ball, and the aesthetics of what we currentlyunderstand as golf pretty much demand that we do something about regulating the ball specs...

[Tom Huckaby]

Chuck:

That was exceedingly well-written, well-reasoned, and makes great sense to me.  I fully concur that for today's courses to continue to be relevant for the highest level of players, something needs to change; and the most logical something is indeed the ball.

However... before we take this too far, do you believe that the same change must occur for all players?

I for one sure as hell don't hit the ball too far, and have yet to play a course that's too short for me, or too easy.  The game remains more than tough enough for me.  That being said, I also enjoy fooling myself into thinking I can hit the ball far, as like Pat Burke (but on a very very very lower level) I too have gotten nothing but fatter and weaker and yet I too hit the ball the longest I ever have.  I find this to be fun.

So I don't know the answer here; I don't know how to reconcile this and I am hoping you can help as that was so darn wise.  Is bifurcation the answer?  Or is it that we amateurs need to suck it up and accept a roll-back also?

These are genuine questions without agenda or malice.  I honestly don't know and would appreciate your wisdom (or that of anyone else).

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()