[Rick Shefchik]

Ron Whitten:

So now it's the persimmon driver.

Of course no one uses the persimmon driver anymore -- but they would, if the PGA tour mandated its use.

Same with a competition ball. It wouldn't dominate the market, but if the PGA tour used a standardized ball -- as, say, the pro tennis tour does -- there would be a significant market for that very ball in pro shops and sporting goods stores around the country.

Good players would still want to test themselves against the best. Hell, lousy players would want to test themselves against the best. Why do you find so many divots taken out of the blue tee boxes at most courses?

You write, "The Tour exists to placate tour players, not challenge them." I disagree. I believe the tour exists to employ golfers, and an employer is entitled to institute workplace rules that enhance the product. Preserving the shot values of great traditional golf courses, I would argue, enhances the PGA Tour product more than building faceless, traditionless 8,000-yard stadiums. If the players don't like it, they're free to find work elsewhere. I wouldn't anticipate a revolt.


Jeff:

You write, "I think that most predictions (especially those of impending doom) have historically proven wrong." Yet this follows a prediction of your own: "I still think casual fan ticket sales and even TV interest would go down if players started hitting it shorter.  Only a few non golfers (hell even golfers) really understand the intracite shotmaking skills of the players."

John Daly is not going to hit it a competition ball shorter relative to the field. Neither is Tiger Woods. Casual (and even serious) golf fans ooh and ahh over the relative distance one player can hit a ball compared to other players (including themselves.) Limiting Daly's average driving distance to 290 yards isn't going to affect the sale of five tickets to any golf tournament I know of, or knock a sliver of a percentage off the TV ratings of the Buick Open (or Classic or Invitational.) What it will do is lessen the need to create a new set of tees every three years.

I believe the casual golf fan appreciates a well-struck 200-yard 4-iron second shot as much, if not more, than a well-struck 120-yard sand wedge second shot to the same hole.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Hopefully we will never see a competition ball. If we do I am going to lose some ammo. Imagine listening to some mutt go on about how long he hit it on such and such  hole at such and such course. Boring. At least now I can eventually shut him up by saying "Yeah, but Tiger hit it OVER the hotel roof".
Please don't take this away from me.    

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

Let me comment on something where we might agree.  

I was thinking about starting a thread on "lack of definition" based on a recent experience I had.  The other day a friend invited me out to Lakewood Country Club for a quick nine holes and lunch.  Lakewood is a Tillinghast design on the West Side of Cleveland, well away from the snow belt so it manages to stay open year round, albeit with winter greens set up 10-30 yards short of the regular green.

I've played the course several times before, but never with the winter greens.  Wow, was that cool!

Why?

Due to the complete lack of definition.

No green side bunkers, no green shaping, nothing to provide any depth perception.......just hitting to a flag in the middle of the fairway.  

I never remember approach shots being so difficult to judge.  It made me think golf architects ought to try to create this kind of thing more often.

Mind you, I realize many people wouldn't get it.  They might find it boring or frustrating.  But still I think it should be done., at least occasionally.

My all time favorite shot lacking definition is the tee shot on #6 at Ballybunion.  No matter how many times I've played it I never feel sure where to aim.  My friends who play it 3 or 4 times a week claim they don't have the same problem, but with 3 or 4 visits a year I still never feel comfortable.


As for options verses alternating specific shot requirements, my views are somewhat mixed and probably a little different than Geoff S.

I like both options AND making specific demands.  Ideally, I'd want to see a little bit of each.  With regard to specific demands, I like asking for different shape tee shots and approach shots.  To keep a course interesting, I like greens with different pin placements that require different specific shots.

Regarding options, I'm fond of holes that not only provide options, but get inside your head a little bit when you are trying to decide which shot to play.  I didn't get to play #2 at Pacific Dunes into the wind, but there I think Tom Doak created something ideal.

So, then, how do I feel about this issue, i.e., shot requirements, as it relates to Augusta?

Not as strongly as I do about the length issue, in part because I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the course.

But, I would like to hear more from people like Geoff and perhaps John McMillan, or anyone who can comment about each shot where changes have been made.

Sorry if that's a bit wimpy on my part.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron Whitten,

Comraderie is certainly amongst the primary attributes golf offers.

Enjoyment ?  Perhaps that can be viewed relative to your daily results.

Cash flow positive possibilities, I guess that depends on the golfers assessment of his abilities to meet the challenge better than his competitors, OR..... he knows something they don't, he's got 5 shots in reserve through an engineered handicap.

I would agree that most golfers don't appreciate the principals of architecture let alone its nuances.

But, what brings golfers to the course ?

I believe it is the challenge of the game, and that comraderie, enjoyment, and cash are really but derivitives of the challenge.

And challenge, is a function of architecture.

What makes miniture golf fun for people ?................
the obstacles.  It's the same in golf, it's just that the obstacles take on a different form...... architecture.

What has been lost, is authority, the maintainance of tradition and values, in golf and in our society.  
Had the USGA won the square groove litigation, and had they at the same time ruled the long putter illegal, I doubt we would be having this discussion, because there would probably be fairly strict limits on balls and implements.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[TEPaul]

TimW:

Yes, the idea that a manufacturer, certainly Titleist, would not manufacture the competition ball (if it were instituted) would be an odd decsion indeed by Titleist and is an odd suggestion by RonW.

Jim Kennedy:

The interesting thing about this whole issue is what recreational golfers would play if a "competition Ball" was instituted and used by the tour and good players. Many think the allure of playing what the tour players play is a strong one and would therefore induce lots of recreational players to use a competition ball recreationally. History seems to sort of prove this point in certain instances but in this case I'm not so sure.

The fact that the old "rocks" that have been around for many years were never used by the tour players (and good players) would seem to indicate otherwise but a good case can be made that very few recreational players knew they were different or understood why! That, in fact, is one of the benefits of "unified one set of rules" B&I rules, and that of course would be lost with the "competition ball".

[Paul Richards]

Bring on the competition ball!!!

[David_Elvins]

May I just butt in and say that for many years the Pros used balls that flew 20 yards shorter than what the regular player used.  They were called 3 piece balata balls.  No-one seemed to mind then, why would they mind now or in the future?

[TEPaul]

David:

The only reason anyone would mind now is because of a very distinct difference from the way it used to be with the example you cited. Back then pros JUST DIDN'T use those other balls (that were not 3 piece) but the COULD HAVE if they wanted to.

With a competition ball they will NOT BE ABLE to use those other balls! That's not just "in practice" but "in actuality under another set of B&I rules" and an atmosphere of "two sets of B&I rules" where throughout the history of golf there has always been "one set of B&I rules" where anyone could use anything as long as it was conforming under that "one set of B&I rules".

This would be distinctly different under the rules! Could they handle it? Sure they could. Is it necessary at this point for a whole set of reasons? Probably! But it would be different under the B&I rules of golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

Touche!

Tim,

Another prediction I would make based on history is that any new idea, including the introduction of the comptetion ball, usually has "unintended consequences".  Most of my musings center around those possibilities, and that is not a "gloom and doom" prediction, but a realization that for every action there is a reaction.  Those reactions are almost certainly made in the best interests of the individuals who make them. Its all uncharted ground to me.

Another prediction based on history is that new ideas are introduced slowly.  We sent chimps up in space for five minutes, we didn't just shoot a few guys to the moon without sufficient testing.  In that regard, Augusta is probably the perfect test lab for a competition ball, if there is to be one.  Everyone else can see what the problems are, if any.

I agree with your definition comments, which are astute, and a great example.  Regarding getting more comments from others on the new shot values at Augusta, specifically requiring one shape shot on the tee ball and the opposite on the approach, it seems to me that Ron covered that pretty well and that is what they tried to do.  Specifically, it seems they have balanced the tee shots by requiring a few more fades.

Of course, no one ever called it a bad course because it overly favored the draw.  One of my favorite off beat courses is Manhattan CC in Manhattan, KS.  The routing has you fade the ball the entire front nine, and then requires hooks all through the back. While textbook design would balance that a little more through the nines, I have heard stories of players coming back from several down after the turn, when the course starts favoring their game.  That's almost as much excitement as a see saw battle.

[Dan Kelly]

I want to say "Bravo!" to my colleague Mr. Shefchik's observations at the top of this page of this thread. Very forceful -- and, to me, completely convincing.

But I don't want to add a post to this thread just for the purpose of doing that old Rush Limbaugh "mega-dittos" thing. This thread is getting long enough already -- even with Tom I's beautifully concise posts!  

This happens many times here: You put down an observation, and there's no response to it -- not, I'm guessing, because no one has anything to say, but because many of the readers of that observation have nothing to ADD, except maybe BRAVO or BOO!

So, an idea for Ran & Co. to pass along to those who designed this Discussion Group Format: It would be a fine addition if one could "HEAR, HEAR!" or "BOO!" a post, right there alongside the post, so that we could see if we have (or do not have) a consensus.

Just a thought.

And now I'll return to hoping that Ron Whitten will be heard from again. There certainly are plenty of unanswered questions! Maybe even some unanswerable ones!

[Ron_Whitten]

Wow. Gone for 18 hours and bombarded with new questions. I can't keep track of them all. But here goes:

Competition ball: I'm not opposed to it. It's a great idea, in theory, but unworkable in practice.  Even if only at Augusta National (especially if only at Augusta National.)  Ignoring for the moment what specifications that ball would be, I can't imagine any ball manufacturer would willingly tool  up and produce those balls that have no other market that A) PGA Tour competition or B) just the Masters. (There's no money in that. None.)

Would average golfers buy and play them? Of course not, because their buddies wouldn't be obliged to also play the shorter competition ball. What average golfer is willingly going to sacrifice yardage just to be playing "what the pros play"?  

Titletist would easily pass by the opportunity to be the  "official golf ball of the Masters." It's already boasting it's the most popular ball on Tour (by various tour counts).  And, by the way, The Masters controls to a very large degree the use of its tournament name in advertising.

Rick -  The PGA Tour does not employ players. Players are independent contractors.  The tour does have certain regulations that it imposes upon licensed participants (mandatory minimum appearances; permission to play elsewhere the week of a tour event, etc.) deemed necessary for the good of all the participants. But it's not going to meddle with all these tour players' individual equipment contracts. Never.  It won't even require soft spikes, even though those things are a proven blessing to the improved quality of putting surfaces.  And the PGA Tour isn't particularly interested in preserving grand old courses, scoring records, etc.  They're in the entertainment business, and while some of us are entertained by fantastic shotmaking, most spectators (and TV viewers) are awed by the ball bashing.  Yes, John Daly and Tiger Woods would still hit the competition ball farther than others (an incredible 265 yards, perhaps), but to what end would the Tour even want a competition ball?  And if a competition ball is necessary, should drivers also be regulated? Putters?  

As for this whole discussion (which started this thread lo those many moons ago) about my obligation to educate readers, hey, I've accepted that and tried to do that my entire writng career. But Golf Digest is not a trade publication. It is a special interest magazine to reaches a larger audience than simply golf architecture fanatics. I've tried my very best, and will continue to do so, to get average golfers all worked up about golf design, its nuances, its pleasures, its fascination. But, as I'll say again, it is not (sad to say) the subject that most golfers care all that much about. It simply isn't. Any more than they care about the mechanics of the car they drive or the electronics of their new digital camera. The challenge of the game to my daughters, who've just taken up the game in the past five years, is simply mastering the swing mechanics, learning to read greens, playing from bunkers, etc.  Course management will come later, and that's when most of us really zero in on the course design. But when I get off those top 100 courses once in a while and play at some scruffy public course in Anytown USA, I find a vastly different attitude. These guys are struggling all their lives to CURE THEIR SLICE (which is why the magazine will run such an issue every year, and it'll sell thousands upon thousands of copies).  

Now, if a competition ball could cure their slice . . .  

[Rick Shefchik]

Ron:

Thanks for addressing the points that have been raised here. I just want to offer this testimony, from one who "play(s) at some scruffy public course in Anytown USA" -- most of my rounds, anyhow:

I would play the competition ball. My best golf buddies would play the competition ball. We're getting older, we're not all that good, but we're not all that bad, either, and it would not matter one whit to us what the guys in the foursome ahead of us or behind us were playing. They can agree to play the Hot Rock 3000; we'll compete against each other with the competition ball.

There's another level of competitive golf beyond the PGA Tour and the mini-tours. I play in (or attempt to qualify for) a couple of state amateur events each year, I play in my club's Saturday events and I play in a couple of weekend invitationals. The players I know who participate in these events wouldn't hesitate to play a competition ball if that's what was required -- and in fact, we'd probably prefer it.

I know we're a small group, but we're out there -- and we're the ones, along with our better-playing pro brethren -- who have just enough of a skill level to notice that the modern ball is changing the game we knew. We're not getting older, our courses are getting shorter -- and my scruffy public course doesn't have any room to move its tees.  

[SuperK]

Ron,

BRAVO!!!  (Thanks Dan)

Good idea in theory, not in practice...

[Tim_Weiman]

Ron Whitten:

For some reason you seem to have difficulty understanding that the golf ball manufacturers are already tooled up to produce a competition ball.

They just need to be given the order to do so.

Should any major manufacturer decide to opt out of producing golf balls for professional level competition, that only makes it more likely that other manufacturers would fill any void and crank up their marketing personnel to exploit this advantage.

Why is that so hard to understand?  Could it be your lack of manufacturing and/or business experience?

As for Augusta National controlling the use of the tournament name in advertising, of course they do.  That is exactly why they would have so much leverage if they decided to contract with a single supplier.  Can you really imagine that every current golf ball manufacturer would decline the opportunity to bid for this prestige?

As for how widely the competition ball would be used, I don't know.  Individual clubs might decide to require them in competition play (just as they banned non conforming drivers), thereby slowing increasing the size of this market.

The only suggestion you make that I agree with is that it would be best if the Masters, the USGA, the R&A and all Tours joined together in requiring a competition ball.  That would certainly make sense.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I think Ron is closer to correct than you are on whether new tooling would be required.  If, as he suggests, we go back to balls at a 1992 level, perhaps the tooling is there.

But it is just as likely that things would get complicated.  The tour players would form a committee to decide just what characteristics should be included, the USGA would naturally be involved, as would the tour(s) and so on.  Its just as likely that it would require all new tooling!  I don't really know, but that is not so hard for me to imagine.

As for how many would sell, I think its more than 0, less than what would be necessary to be profitable in the way that wall street types want companies to be profitable.  

They used to say the only person who could keep MJ from scoring was his coach at NC - Dean Smith.  The marketing of the ball that "is the only thing that can keep Tiger from hitting it 300" is uncharted territory.  It would not be very appealing to me.

[TEPaul]

"The competition ball is great in theory, but unworkable in practice."

Guys, again with all due respect, that's not really the kind of assumption that's constructive to attempt to deal with the present and future distance problem and certainly when it impacts as much as it can golf's future the future of architecture.

It can be extemely workable in practice provided the entities that need to do something about it agree that there is a problem with distance in the first place. If they agree to that then the workability of putting it into practice can happen easier than you could imagine. It would certainly appear that there are enough influential people at this point that agree this is a problem now or will be very soon.

Once you have that agreement, the second step is to do it in such a way that it will benefit all the parties involved or at least not completely negatively impact any one of them. You can't tell me that can't happen if the entities of golf work together on this. Certainly "similarities of interest" need to be found and can be found on this for the USGA, the R&A, the world pro tours, the ASGCA, the superintendents associations, the manufacturers, the Tour players themselves, and other interested entities of golf.

You can't tell me that just because these entities might be adverserial right now they can't get together on this if a way is planned out how they can all do this! And a way can be found how they can do it and probably benefically to all as well.

"The manufacturers won't make a competition ball." Bullshit they won't. They will if a way is found to make it make sense to them and that can definitely be done.

Every problem, if in fact it's considered a problem, has a solution that's workable in practice somehow and a solution that's more than just a great idea in theory.

It wasn't long ago that we thought that putting a man on the moon wasn't even workable in theory much less in practice, but someone decided to get to work and try it and it was done in less than a decade.

And doing something about the distance the golf ball travels for the best players in the world is definitely not putting a man on the moon, that's for sure.

It seems to me there are definitely enough people and enough powerful and influential people who think there is a problem here and want to do something about it. Get them organized and looking for "similarities of interests" and it will happen!

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

With all due respect, Whitten is not correct.  The manufacturers would not need to re-tool just to produce balls with different specifications.

Agree on specs, testing procedures and the appropriate lead time and the changeover could be made very easily.

As for Wall Street, they have plenty of analysts who know something about manufacturing process.  They would crucify any management who claimed they couldn't produce a competition ball.  They would have the head of any management team who willingly gave up the fight for the professional player market.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, this isn't all that different than the unification of the playing rules in the early 1950s.

My Dad who was a good competitor, knew everyone in golf, worked for a manufacturer too, thought there was no way in hell the ruling bodies would or could agree to unify the playing rules. Too much turf warfare, to much proprietariness, too much this or that, great idea in theory but unworkable in practice!

What he didn't see was it was creating a real problem in golf worldwide and they wanted to do it no matter how many obstacles there seemed to be. And they did it!

They thought there was a problem and they could see a greater good so what became a good idea in theory quickly became workable in practice.

There seems to be enough people around now who see a problem, like they did back then and just like back then they can do it--if they see a problem with distance--and it sure looks to me like they do. Anybody who says it's just a couple of hundred characters on a Internet website is just plain wrong!

[Richard_Goodale]

IF there were such a thing decreed as a Master's competition ball, the following things would happen, in roughly this sequence, and a lot faster than almost anybody on this site would believe.

1.  ALL of the major manufacturers would almost immediately produce batch runs under the new specs for their contracted players (now including top amateurs, as per new USGA/R&A rules, as you know).
2.  The players invited to the Master's would spend a significant amount of time practicing with the new ball and probably play it exclusively in at least the 2-4 weeks before the tournament
3.  If the experiment was a success, the USGA and the R&A would adopt the standard for their tournaments, particularly their Opens, probably in the same year.  As a result, most of the leading playersd would probably be playing the competition ball for most of May, June and July.
4.  Many players, starting with top amateurs and purists like Rick S. and I and our friends, but including an increasing number of average players who just "want to play the ball that the pro's play" would switch partly or wholly to the competition ball.
5.  Because the retooling would be simple, as Tim W. rightly says, the manufacturers would make just as much money on the ball as they do on the other moderate run balls they produce today.
6.  Over time, as the demand increased and the need for R&D expenditures decreased, the total cost of manufacture would decline to below that found for most balls in the currently broad product lines of most manufacturers.
7.  The USGA, R&A and various PGA Tours would agree to the competition ball as the only legal ball, with the rule phasing in over a year or two.
8.  GCA threads with over 100 posts would decline precipitously.

All IMHO, of course, and there is a teeny, tiny possibility that I could be wrong.

[Jim_Kennedy]

As I said earlier, a ball travels 2.5 yds. for each 1 mph of clubhead speed. I didn't make that figure up.  a 120 mph clubhead speed produces 300 yd. drives. If lowered to 2.3 yds. per 1 mph of clubhead speed the yardage drops to 276.
Would this please everyone for a distance the comp ball could fly?

It probably wouldn't please a good amateur who swings at 95 mph. His distance would go back to 218 yds. Or even the stronger amateur at 100 mph who would get 230 yds out of his drives. Who would buy this ball? A handful of purists?
Who's going to make a ball that probably no one would buy?
There aren't enough tournaments in the world to make such a venture possible.
I think we are stuck with the distances we see now and all we really need is a way to measure the properties of today's balls and cap it where it is.    

[JakaB]

Jim,

Its not my fault but the laws of aerodynamics do not allow for the linear relationship you suggest...to put it simply if a 200hp car goes 135 mph the same car with 400hp does not go 270 mph.   There is a limit when increasing swing speeds will lead to negligible distance increases.  I am thinking of a proposal that bans nutrition and fitness as I this is what I see as a bigger problem than the ball which is close to maxed out as it stands today.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I think I conceded that the manufacturers could easily, or perhaps are already tooled up for some ball.  I outlined some scenarios of "unintended consequences" of "agreeing on the spec."  You casual dismissal of this reminds me of Steve Martin's old comedy bit - "How to make a million and pay no taxes!" ....First, make a million dollars, then,.....

In Richs' scenario, he mentions the pros taking the 2-4 weeks off before the Masters to practice with the ball.  How does the tour placate the four events now filling fields with players tuning up for the Masters competitively?

Agreed, the scenarios could probably work out the problem.  But there have been lots of good political/governmental programs stalled and shelved because of the politics of the here and now.

Example, everyone wants to fix education.  No one wants a program that starts with kindergarteners, because when the real results are in, they are no longer running for office.  They opt for the quick fix of changing curriculum and tests so scores will rise. Problem not only not solved, but perhaps made worse for the wrong reasons.

On the surface, if Jack Nicklaus says its a good idea, I'll go with it.  I guess I'm just getting too old and cynical, and have just seen too many things screwed up, starting from a simple and good idea.  In all my musings, I have not yet even mentioned my real reservation - this being America, how can we expect that some lawyer some where won't just #### the whole thing up for his own amusement and profit?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

ps -

You can answer if you want, but I am officially tired of this discussion thread!  I know, I know, I prolonged it as much as anyone, and for that, I am truly sorry! :-/

[Richard_Goodale]

Jeff

I know you're tired, so I'll be brief.  I was assuming that the pro's would used the competition ball in tournament play for 2-3 weeks prior to the Masters.....

PS--I think that JakaB and Frank Thomas are right.  The ball is mostly maxed out now and these 400 yard pelotas that Tom Paul and Mike Cirba talk about are due to enormous swing speeds rather than any new physics.

PPS--this "competition ball" would probably be something like the Titleist Professional, which ain't one of those 215 yard quasi-Cayman mushies that Jim K and Dan K moan about....

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

I think it is time to acknowledge the wisdom of Rich Goodale's comments and move on.........for the time being, at least!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()