It's Time for a Tournament Ball

[Chris Buie]

"At St. Andrews, you used to tee off within a club-length of the hole into which you'd just putted out; nowadays, in the Open, competitors hole out and increasingly must take a brisk, 100-yard-plus walk back to the next tee." - John Barton

That is the sentence that pushed me over the top on this topic.  I've prattled on about it before without being terribly adamant about it.  But I unequivocally say this must now come to pass.
Having to modify the Old Course (not to mention so many others) so crudely is the straw that broke the camel for me.  Without a doubt it is time for it to happen.  Whatever the contrary views to this are they need to be bowled over or worked around.  There is no acceptable excuse for this.  It is time for it to happen.
The companies can still sell their high flyers.  In fact, I hope they sell any equipment that will make the choppers get through their round faster.  But in tournament play - and for people that take the game seriously - it is time for a standard ball.
It's curious because not long after I decided to post this I checked Shackelford's website out of curiosity and there is a big thing on there about this subject. 
I'm sure there must have been discussion on here regarding this topic but I am not aware of a thread about it.  If there has been please excuse the repetition.

[Colin Macqueen]

Chris,

I could not agree more. To lengthen the Road Hole is acceptable but I suspect that, this weekend, the professionals will still be using short irons rather than 3, 4, or 5-irons to get to the green.  Why a ball of lower compression cannot be manufactured across the board for  professional tournaments and thus regain a lot of the original strategies and plays on renowned courses is beyond me. I think that all other ball sports, baseball, soccer, rugby, grid-iron have ball parameters that apply across the board -why not in golf?

Colin

[Brent Carlson]

Amen Chris.  Does anyone else think that the technology makes the game less interesting?  I used to love hitting a four iron into a par four.  Nowadays it's rare to have anything less than an eight!  What's funny is I took five years off from the game and gained 20 yards in the process, just by switching the ball. 

A tournament ball would keep expenses down and speed up play.  The downside would be for the equipment manufacturers.  Is there a way to do this without putting them out?  That is the main question.

[TEPaul]

You think there may've been discussion about this on here in the past?

That's putting it mildly!

Yes, Shackelford does think there should be a "tournament" or "competition" ball and he has for years. He is most definitely not alone on that---he has many allies with that concept whether he fostered those allies or just inherited them.

Personally, I disagree with his and the others' ideas for a tournament or competition ball and all that's in the back pages here in spades. Back in the day when we spoke to each other we argued over this particular subject endlessly as we did about the necessity and endurance of the USGA itself.

As I've said many times in the past on here I think Geoff Shackelford is an unusual talent in particularly golf architecture, and he is unusually and uniquely observant in many of the ways of the evolution of golf. I think he has a rare intuition for it all but similar to many with his particular knacks and talents, both now and in the past, he also seems semi-saddled, to some extent, with some degree of petulant immaturity or perhaps unrealistic principles that disallow him from grasping what I consider to be true prescient LONG-TERM thinking in and with ALL the factors and ramifications of issues such as this particular one. When we spoke in the past about the possibility and/or the benefit or the disadvantage to golf of the USGA, as we've known it all these years, going down the pipeline of history into virtual irrelevance, and he mentioned that might not be an altogether bad thing as something like it and even perhaps purer might get regenerated out of the grass-roots of golf, that is pretty much where I drew the line with Geoff Shackelford.

But the guy has chutzpah and he articulates his particular brand of chutzpah very well, and has for some years now.

However, I think a tournament or competition ball is and will be unnecessary. I'm an optimist and I have always felt the regulators (the USGA and R&A) and the manufacturers will roll it all back under I&B unification for all (if they have not been thinking and negotiating together on this for up to the last 7-8 years I will be shocked), so that it will actually hurt the high mph swing-speed players while at the same time helping the lower MPH swing-speed players. (the realities of modern day I&B technology really is something else and I think we will be seeing it in this vein in not too long a time now).

I am an eternal optimist and I actually think technology with I&B at this stage of the game can do that. I hope it will and I still believe they will (or I should say very likely might) because I do not believe in two sets of I&B Rules and Regs in golf. Golf has never been that way in its history (even if it has been proposed in the past) and it is no time to start now, in my opinion!

[Chip Gaskins]

"I am an eternal optimist and I actually think technology with I&B at this stage of the game can do that. I hope it will and I still believe they will (or I should say very likely might) because I do not believe in two sets of I&B Rules and Regs in golf. Golf has never been that way and it is no time now to start, in my opinion':"

TEPaul

Send me your dealers name, i need some of that.  Really?!

[Colin Macqueen]

TEP,
Can you flick up the thread info from bygone days so I can get the GCA take on it?

Thanks, Colin

[TEPaul]

Colin:

I wish I could do that for you but unfortunately I can't. You'd think for a guy who has been on this site from the very beginning and with close to 40,000 posts, I'd know how to use the search engine on here like a wizard but I'm afraid I don't.

Chip:

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean. But if by dealer you are referring to something like a drug dealer don't bother to respond---I'm not interested in that kind of myopic response on here. If you were implying something else, however, I would welcome hearing about it.

[DMoriarty]

TEP,
Can you flick up the thread info from bygone days so I can get the GCA take on it?

Thanks, Colin

Many old threads.  Here is a relatively recent one.  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41836.0/

TEPaul has been promising that change was right around the corner for years now.  I have my doubts about the USGA doing much.  As of a few years ago they apparently did not even understand what the problem is.   

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Thanks very much for linking and reprising that thread. I note it was from only about eight months ago. You also mentioned that I have been saying, FOR SOME YEARS NOW, this kind of action on the part of the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers was RIGHT AROUND the CORNER. Would you please show this website where and when I said that? I'm serious, that's a pretty straight-forward question that only requires a straight-forward answer on your part, so please provide it instead of whimping or finking out again. If you can and do THAT, believe me, I will be the first to admit I've been mistaken on that if enough years or time has gone by since I first said THAT, or if, in fact, I ever said it at all  . If it hasn't been years then perhaps we can discuss the all important aspects of the request by the regulatory associations for prototype balls from the manufacturers, the agreement and R&D and production of protype balls by the manufacturers, the stated time of study by the USGA/R&A of those prototype balls, the accepted protecol time of "Notification and Comment" following those regulatory associations studies of those prototype balls, and then the real world desemination and select golfer testing of those prototype balls which were asked for by the regulatory agencies and designed by the manufacturers to go 15 AND 25 yards less far!

[Pat Burke]

So, as one of those (former), spoiled, petulant, whining, pampered, "tour guys".  Actually, I'm still a whiner and a little petulant, but definitely a FORMER player, I have a concern.
First, I am a huge fan of classic courses, and consider myself absolutely blessed to grow up on the Jersey shore.  I also would move to Melbourne TOMORROW if given the opportunity to make a living and be able to spend time on Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne and the rest of the courses (and people) that I loved in OZ.  So I am definitely concerned with the history of the game and its' courses.
So, my question.  Given that the ball is going further, any rollback, in my opinion, would HAVE to be for everyone, not just tour pros, and highest level amateurs.
(self edit) I originally had 3 more paragraphs of reasons , in a shorter version, how many believe any roll back should be for everyone?
Or just the "top" players?

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

I think TEP's point (if I have understood him correctly) is that a roll-back for all need not necessarily mean the same length reduction for all.  The technology of ball manufacture is such that it must be possible to specify a "roll-back" or change in allowed ball specs, that results in a proportionately far greater reduction in length for guys who hit the ball 300 yards than 200 yards.  Indeed I guess (but don't know and could be completely wrong) that it would be possible to specify a ball which, say, was spinnier to reduce length for the tour pros but which actually added length for the guy who hits it 180 off the tee.

[Colin Macqueen]

I would be more than happy for the roll back to apply to all and sundry. I am not convinced that the "average" player on 10-18 handicap would lose all that much off the tee. It might even be an incentive for the likes of me to reduce my not infrequent slice that loses me 20 metres straight off (curved off?).

Colin

[Pat Burke]

Pat,

I think TEP's point (if I have understood him correctly) is that a roll-back for all need not necessarily mean the same length reduction for all.  The technology of ball manufacture is such that it must be possible to specify a "roll-back" or change in allowed ball specs, that results in a proportionately far greater reduction in length for guys who hit the ball 300 yards than 200 yards.  Indeed I guess (but don't know and could be completely wrong) that it would be possible to specify a ball which, say, was spinnier to reduce length for the tour pros but which actually added length for the guy who hits it 180 off the tee.

Well, when I was still playing (2000-2001) there was no doubt that guys like Phil could take enormous advantage of the new Pro V1.  I flew Maxfli HT's (still my faves) right at 260 with a "stock" drive.  When I switched to a solid core, I gained only a couple of yards distance, but was thrilled with the better consistency ball to ball.  When I played with some of the longer guys, they were picking up over a full club on iron shots, and BOMBING drives. 
So I would imagine engineering the opposite is more than possible.  I had the opportunity to do a lot of testing with a company, and what concerns me with any proposal, is that all those R&D guys that are out of work from aerospace, are working at equipment companies.  These guys WILL find a way to somehow make another jump. 
Rollback on total distance or ball/club optimization seems like the option, but at what costs?  Pretty tough to put the genie back isn't it?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I have said on pretty much every one of these threads that it ought to be possible to have two balls, because until 1974, that's exactly what we had.  The smaller UK ball was acceptable for tournaments outside the U.S.A.  And when they outlawed it for the Open and the Amateur in 1974, they still kept it legal for general play, yet it was eventually phased out by the players themselves at the national and regional and local amateur levels.

The only thing stopping that today is Titleist.  They sell a billion golf balls a year based on selling you the same ball that most of the Tour plays ... and if you're not going to play the ball the Tour plays, then they might lose some of that market share.  So, they defend the status quo like a wounded animal defends itself, growling at anyone who comes near them.

[Jason Topp]

There were also effectively two balls in many ways when I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's.  Pinnacles/Top Flites went a lot further than balata balls but at a cost.  Most of my friends and I played Pinnacles because they felt soft compared to the Top Flites and went further.  We did, however, refer to them as "Knucklers."

The manufacturers were able to meld the two together around 2000.  Earlier efforts to create a spinning one piece ball were comical - anyone remember the Tour Edition?

[Steve Kline]

Several thoughts on this in no particular order:

- Once read that TOC would have to be more than 10,000 yards long today to play as it did more than a century ago.

- This has been an issue from the beginning of the game of golf. Read any history and you will see there was a group complaining about the ball going farther. Technology has always improved the ball and made it go farther. I think it is highly unlikely that anything but physics will stop that.

- I'm 35. 20 years ago in high school I hit a 3-iron 200 yards. Watching every Tour event at the time that seemed to be the standard distance for a 3-iron on tour. Today, even though I'm a far better and stronger golfer I still hit a 3-iron 200 yards. Most pros seem to hit no more than a 4 or 5 iron from 200 yards now. I do hit my driver farther though - probably about 20 yards in the air.

- I think any equipment specifications should apply to everyone that plays the game. Make the specs whatever you want but they should apply to everyone - or at the very least to every single tournament (even at the club level). It's a real pain for guys like me who play high level amateur events, even an open qualifier, and stuff at my club. You want me to stock all different kinds of equipment to be playing by the same rules as everyone else? That seems ridiculous. Sure it's no big deal for the Tour players or the recreational golfer but the high level amateur gets screwed.

[JC Jones]

Ran should tag one of these threads and just have an auto-bump on it anytime a major championship visits a "classic" venue.

The culprit here is not the ball; in fact, I think the ball argument is nothing but a distraction from the real problem.  The real problem is our understanding of Par and it's relation to success.  For whatever reason, not only have we chosen Par as the point from which we determine success in golf but also we've set it as a maximum level of success allowed.  I think a large part of this comes from the viewing public and the amateurs in charge of the governing bodies.  Because we (and they) struggle with achieving the success of a level par round, we (and they) want to project that struggle on the top .00001% of golfers because they are the most visible.

Who cares if Tiger shoots -27 at St. Andrews?  Why should the architecture change for the one person in the world capable of doing that?  Why should the ball change because the one person in the world who can shoot -27 at St. Andrews did. 

When we start talking about having a different ball for one subset of golfers then we have acquiesced to the dominance of Par over the game of golf.  I say take the fight to Par (at least it doesn't have the deep pockets that Acushnet does...).

[Steve Kline]

I blame TV JC. That was when the hole notion of keeping score of these tournaments relative to par came into vouge because it made for an easily understood TV graphic.

[Adam Lawrence]

JC - par is not the problem, or at least it's only a smallish part of the problem. The real issue is not about score in relation to par or what is done to 'protect' it. The real issue is the desire to have top pros prove their skills by hitting difficult shots, and specifically, the kind of shots that have, throughout golf's history, separated the good from the great. Hold top tournaments on unmodified classic courses with today's equipment, and, extreme weather apart, it would be a constant parade of driver-wedge. Nine iron or wedge approaches to the Road Hole are a travesty of what that hole stands for. Or take Merion's eighteenth: how long would that hole have to be in 2013 to force the equivalent of Hogan's one iron?

People who really love the game don't want championship golf to be merely about shooting darts with your wedges. That's the real problem.

[JC Jones]

JC - par is not the problem, or at least it's only a smallish part of the problem. The real issue is not about score in relation to par or what is done to 'protect' it. The real issue is the desire to have top pros prove their skills by hitting difficult shots, and specifically, the kind of shots that have, throughout golf's history, separated the good from the great. Hold top tournaments on unmodified classic courses with today's equipment, and, extreme weather apart, it would be a constant parade of driver-wedge. Nine iron or wedge approaches to the Road Hole are a travesty of what that hole stands for. Or take Merion's eighteenth: how long would that hole have to be in 2013 to force the equivalent of Hogan's one iron?

People who really love the game don't want championship golf to be merely about shooting darts with your wedges. That's the real problem.

Adam,

I disagree that par is not the problem and I "really love the game."  Perhaps you are a better golfer than me but I consider a 9 iron from 150 to 5 feet to be a great shot.  I don't think the standard should be "miraculous" shots and that is what you are suggesting.

Your point above is also disconcerting because it shifts the perspective of architecture away from the average golfer and to the .0001% of golfers on the planet.  It is also precisely the downfall of modern golf course architecture. 

Why design (or alter classic golf courses) around the the one week per year (or 5 years in the case of TOC) that the top players in the world will be playing it?  Moreover, why have that as a standard for golf course architecture, generally, when 99.99999% of golf course wont be hosting the top .0001% of golfers?

[Melvyn Morrow]

The problem is not the ball nor protecting par but the total refusal of our Lords and Masters to grasp the nettle. 

Our Golf Courses,  well the main links courses are owned by Us, the people, NOT THE R&A – that is something they need to understand and if their little minds can grasp the situation they should not be tinkering with our courses before each Open either. They have not proven to anyone that they know best, in fact based upon past performances they seem to know little and understand even less.

The problem is that technology is NOT Controlled, it has been left to find its own level which some might believe is just fine. Except what about our courses (the majority being well established), they have been left to their own devices yet still expected  to  produce a challenge each year. The Pros, who has a new arsenal of goodies nearly every year are the equivalent of being light years ahead of the course development. Sorry that may not be correct as we must not forget that fine work of art undertaken by the Links Trust on the recommendations of the worldly wise R&A - The new Tee for the Road Hole on TOC.

Sooner or later one would expect that even an idiot would recognise the futility of their stance in not addressing technology in line with the course.  Simply put the equipment must convey serious intent in compatibility with our courses, well that is unless the jokers at The R&A are intending to have all our courses lengthened at their expense.

Reality needs to surface and tinkering with our great and old courses is not the way forward.  All because the R&A will not address the issue honestly for fear of how the money men and equipment manufacturers may react . Sorry guys they don’t matter, but,  we the bloody golfers do because  we will ultimately have to foot the bill.

I fear we are soon going to have to have a worldwide debate on the basis of impeaching the R&A as while perhaps they have not betrayed the game they have outwardly done little to protect the integrity, customs or traditions of the Game of golf.
Well that my opinion,  may not be yours, however for the sake of the majority of our existing golf course something soon needs to be done for their protection. Sod the equipment manufactures - they should follow, not lead.

As for the ball, just one size for all - its the only fair and honest way.

Melvyn   

[Adam Lawrence]

JC - par is not the problem, or at least it's only a smallish part of the problem. The real issue is not about score in relation to par or what is done to 'protect' it. The real issue is the desire to have top pros prove their skills by hitting difficult shots, and specifically, the kind of shots that have, throughout golf's history, separated the good from the great. Hold top tournaments on unmodified classic courses with today's equipment, and, extreme weather apart, it would be a constant parade of driver-wedge. Nine iron or wedge approaches to the Road Hole are a travesty of what that hole stands for. Or take Merion's eighteenth: how long would that hole have to be in 2013 to force the equivalent of Hogan's one iron?

People who really love the game don't want championship golf to be merely about shooting darts with your wedges. That's the real problem.

Adam,

I disagree that par is not the problem and I "really love the game."  Perhaps you are a better golfer than me but I consider a 9 iron from 150 to 5 feet to be a great shot.  I don't think the standard should be "miraculous" shots and that is what you are suggesting.

Your point above is also disconcerting because it shifts the perspective of architecture away from the average golfer and to the .0001% of golfers on the planet.  It is also precisely the downfall of modern golf course architecture. 

Why design (or alter classic golf courses) around the the one week per year (or 5 years in the case of TOC) that the top players in the world will be playing it?  Moreover, why have that as a standard for golf course architecture, generally, when 99.99999% of golf course wont be hosting the top .0001% of golfers?

I'm not suggesting that at all, and I'm a lousy golfer. I just want to see the big boys hit long irons occasionally.

[Richard Hetzel]

The only thing stopping that today is Titleist.  They sell a billion golf balls a year based on selling you the same ball that most of the Tour plays ... and if you're not going to play the ball the Tour plays, then they might lose some of that market share.  So, they defend the status quo like a wounded animal defends itself, growling at anyone who comes near them.

The irony here is that most of those golfers would get better performance from a "lesser" Titleist golf ball! They tried a tourney only ball here in Ohio for the Ohio Amateur a few years back, but I don't know what ever came of it. I think the players who qualified were given a few options for which ball they could choose to put into play.

[PThomas]

i too wished for a tournament ball..but if it hasnt happened by now it aint going to happen....and i've given up arguing for it...

[Jim Sweeney]

It is well and good and lots of fun to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the modern ball and its use by the best players in the world, and to take the regulators to task for their alleged lackluster effort in doing their job as we see it, while ignoring the many other factors that contribute to today's performances by the best players in the world.

It is reproted that when Phil Mickelson hit a 206 yard six iron from the pinestraw to the thirteenth green during the fourth round this year's Masters, the club he used had a loft equivolent to my four iron, and was one inch longer than my six iron, effectively it was as if I hit a choked three iron, which I hit about 210. Oh by the way, he is 6 foot 4, about 210 lbs., and is the second best golfer in the world, and one of golf's longest hitters to boot.

I'd like to go back to persimmons and balatas. But I live in the real world, as the USGA and R&A must. I could support a rollback of the ball by a reasonable amount if the ball were constucted in a way that all players were affected equally, not with the cynical notion that long ballers should be penalized for having that talent, and the shorter hiotters left alone. Before taking the regulators to task, walk a mile in there shoes, and see if you can come up with a real-world solution that takes into account all the constituencies. Be honest- it ain't as easy as it seems. Remember you also have to enforce it, and protect your authority as well!!