"The Problems of Excessive Ball Distance" - Letter to The Telegraph

[Ally Mcintosh]

At the World Forum this year, EIGCA Graduate Nick Norton stood up and suggested to Dr Steve Otto that if the R&A and USGA were not going to do anything about reducing the distance of the ball, maybe architects should write an open letter to The Telegraph in time for this year's Open....

Nick was as good as his word and along with Peter Nordwall FSGA - who gave an interesting presentation on the introduction of an "e-ball" - he provided the letter published as follows:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/theopen/7883393/The-Open-2010-the-problems-of-excessive-ball-distance..html

Unfortunately they didn't have time to get a large number of signatories. Perhaps by taking the issue further, they may.

Opinions?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm sorry to bump my own thread... I know this is a subject talked about often... But there must be opinions about such a direct article being printed in The Telegraph on the eve of The Open... Here is the letter in full:


The Open 2010: the problems of excessive ball distance.
Open Letter to the Telegraph Sport from a body of concerned golf course architects: The problems of excessive ball distance.
 
By Mark Reason
Published: 10:43PM BST 10 Jul 2010

For the 2010 Open Championship the R&A has addressed the eroded playing character of the 17th hole at St Andrews by moving the tee beyond the boundaries of the Old Course and onto the driving range.

While this may solve the problem for this Open, the problems for the game of golf of excessive golf ball distance remain!

The increased distance the modern golf ball travels has created major issues for golf in relation to the environment,safety and cost (including the opportunity cost of time spent on the golf course).

Excessive golf ball distance has also had significant adverse affects as regards golf’s architectural and cultural heritage.

* The greater length that the ball travels has created a demand for longer golf courses. The increased acreage required for new golf courses has amplified the environmental impact of golf course construction and maintenance, with greater inputs of fuel, fertilizers, pesticides and water required.

* Increased golf ball distance has increased the danger golfers, greenkeepers and the public face. On the same angles of dispersion, golf balls travel a greater distance, creating safety problems on and around old golf courses and the need for greater safety margins on new golf courses.

* Land is one of the most important factors for the creation of new golf courses. As the next wave of golf course construction will be in the developing and highly populated world, excessive golf ball distance is a barrier to actual and responsible golf course development. The extra need for environmentally sensitive materials along with greater quantities of capital and labour for golf course development and maintenance greatly increases the cost of golf.

* The extra distance walked on long courses forces up the average time per round. Four and five hour rounds are driving many potential golfers away from the game.

* In total, the excessive length the golf ball now travels directly challenges the future development and sustainability of golf.

* This says nothing of the architectural values of our classic courses, denuded by golf ball length just as the famous Road Hole has demonstrated.

These negative length factors were highlighted during the recently held World Forum of Golf Architects in St. Andrews. A vast majority of the 180 delegates were in favour of further rectifying steps to be taken, beyond the ‘v’ groove changes then reported by the R&A and USGA representatives.

The undersigned believe this is the right time for the golf community (i.e. players, golf architects, course owners, tournament spectators and playing equipment manufacturers) to give our ruling bodies full support for ball and equipment measures that will help make golf sustainable and flourish in the 21st century. We believe measures should be taken to ‘roll back the ball’!

Signed:

Peter Nordwall FSGA, President of FSGA (Federation of Scandinavian Golf Course Architects)
Graham Papworth SAGCA, President of the SAGCA (Society of Australian Golf Course Architects)
Ken and TK Sato JSGCA, Board Members of JSGCA (Japanese Society of Golf Course Architects)
Jonathan Gaunt EIGCA, Senior Member and Nick Norton EIGCA Graduate (European Institute of Golf Course Architects)
David McLay Kidd, Principal of DMK Golf Design
James I Kidd, Director of DMK Golf Design
Donald Steel, Past President of British Association of Golf Course Architects, Association of Golf Writers and English Golf Union
Malcolm Campbell, Golf Writer & Chairman of the Links Association
Hurdzan Fry, Environmental Golf Design

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ally

The R&A must soon wake up to the problem, but I fear that they see no problem. This I believe may lead us in the end to question why the R&A have the Right. Perhaps its time to look at Golf in general and cut out the dead wood once and for all.

Perhaps this Quango has just run out of ideas and appear to have run out of steam, although seem good at counting money, our money?

Melvyn

[Mark Chaplin]

Perhaps this Quango has just run out of ideas and appear to have run out of steam, although seem good at counting money, our money?

As far as I am aware the R&A receives no grants from any public or golfing body, quite the opposite in 2009/2010 £6.1m was distributed to golfing bodies. The R&A owns the Open Championship brand and could undoubtedly get £m's more for the Open from Sky rather than free to view BBC coverage.

Set up an "independent" golf governing body and suddenly you have more paid administrators, offices, world travel and expenses. This will cost many millions of pounds, where do we start a £1 levy on every round of golf played or £25 each on our club fees??

Whilst some do not like the blazers I'll stick with the status quo.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

They make money and sit on ideas - nothing new here, just look at their history of delayed decisions. The ball is still being debated 100 years late and still not resolved.

 Judge them on their performance please.

Melvyn

[Mark Chaplin]

Now the club and the business have been split I am more surprised there has not been an imposition of a competition ball, the companies can still produce our bullets but have a top level competition ball. Sadly the time to get a grip was before the split and quite naturally members did not want to risk individual liabilty to line the pockets of a big golf company.

[Tom_Doak]

I was asked to sign but was unable to respond.  (Fax didn't go through, email bounced back, didn't have time to follow up as I was headed out of town.)  I do think it's a noble cause.

There is an article by Ron Whitten in GOLF WORLD this week about the very debate we had in St. Andrews.  Very disappointing ... he misses the point entirely, acting as though we were just talking about the Road Hole, which was certainly NOT the case.  [The extra 30 yards will make the Road Hole harder, but not any harder than it's been before.]  The real debate is over how every other hole in the world needs to change by the same amount because they won't do anything about the ball, and Ron did not really get onto that.  I've
got to believe that GOLF WORLD / GOLF DIGEST / mainstream media taking ads from Titleist encouraged him to blur the subject, because Ron is not that dense.

[John Moore II]

I just have to ask a question: There have been numerous evolutions of the ball over the years, wooden, feathery, gutta-parcha, haskell, wound-balata, wound-urethane, and now solid core. How much distance and consistency was gained in the switch from wooden to feather, from feather to gutta-percha, etc.?

This has been happening since the beginning of golf. There are always evolutions in golf technology. People are always looking to get more yards out of whatever possible. These old courses only become 'too short' for the professionals, not the average golfer. But it all goes back to what I have talked about for a fair time now, architects original design or architects original intent. If TOC and other championship courses wish to continue to hold championships, they must make some alterations to retain the original intent.

Question specifically for the designers: If, in 50 years, it becomes necessary to change some of your best designs in order to make them longer and more relevant to the present game, would you have any objections to them making the alterations so long as they retained all the original shot values in the course? After all, those shot values on every hole were what made the design great to start with.

[Garland Bayley]

I just have to ask a question: There have been numerous evolutions of the ball over the years, wooden, feathery, gutta-parcha, haskell, wound-balata, wound-urethane, and now solid core. How much distance and consistency was gained in the switch from wooden to feather, from feather to gutta-percha, etc.?

This has been happening since the beginning of golf. There are always evolutions in golf technology. People are always looking to get more yards out of whatever possible. These old courses only become 'too short' for the professionals, not the average golfer. But it all goes back to what I have talked about for a fair time now, architects original design or architects original intent. If TOC and other championship courses wish to continue to hold championships, they must make some alterations to retain the original intent.

Question specifically for the designers: If, in 50 years, it becomes necessary to change some of your best designs in order to make them longer and more relevant to the present game, would you have any objections to them making the alterations so long as they retained all the original shot values in the course? After all, those shot values on every hole were what made the design great to start with.

John,

I think you miss an important point. When golf ball distance began to become a concern, the initial velocity regulation was put in place. When manufacturers found a way to get more distance while not exceeding the initial velocity regulation, the overall distance standard was put in place. This last time when manufacturers found a way to get past the overall distance standard (by manipulating spin), no regulation was put in place! As long as I have discussed this issue on this board, I have advocated a spin regulation standard that would return to the game as it was know before the 21st century.

[John Moore II]

Garland-You do understand that the top end balls, Callaway HX Tour (or whatever they brand is as now), Pro V-1, TaylorMade TP, all are designed to spin at different rates with different clubs and different head speeds/ball speeds (basically, they are designed to spin at something of a parabolic line through the set rather than a flat line like old balls)? So its basically impossible regulate spin, and thats why they haven't done it.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland-You do understand that the top end balls, Callaway HX Tour (or whatever they brand is as now), Pro V-1, TaylorMade TP, all are designed to spin at different rates with different clubs and different head speeds/ball speeds (basically, they are designed to spin at something of a parabolic line through the set rather than a flat line like old balls)? So its basically impossible regulate spin, and thats why they haven't done it.

The regulation I proposed was the slope of the line plotted from loft vs. spin rate. The new balls have increased the slope of that line significantly over what it was for balata balls and rock flites.
Given the technology available to every clubfitter on the planet today, that type of regulation is not impossible. It probably is easier than their old test for ODS which involved going out doors with iron byron when the temperature, wind speed, etc. meet specific parameters.

[JESII]

I agree with Tom Doak in that this is a noble cause...



BUT...


I'll stand firm by the statement that it is not the manufacturer's or the administrators that this should be directed at. It is the Architects themselves, and their clients.

The issue of safety is really stretching it, so let's agree on the primary concern is - and rightly should be - COST.

Why does a course HAVE TO increase its length?
Why does a developer HAVE To build a 7200 yard course?
Why do we have to maintain every inch of turf as though it were our front door step?

These are internal decisions that need leadership, not from the USGA / R&A, from the people in the room making the individual decisions at each course.

What percentage of play(ers) have rendered even a single course obsolete?
What are the top 3 reasons/justifications for lengthening a golf course, or demanding a new course be 7200+ yards?

[John Moore II]

I agree with Tom Doak in that this is a noble cause...

BUT...


I'll stand firm by the statement that it is not the manufacturer's or the administrators that this should be directed at. It is the Architects themselves, and their clients.

The issue of safety is really stretching it, so let's agree on the primary concern is - and rightly should be - COST.

Why does a course HAVE TO increase its length?

It doesn't, unless it desires to host high level tournaments (large scale professional and amateur events.

Why does a developer HAVE To build a 7200 yard course?

See above answer, its the same for this one

Why do we have to maintain every inch of turf as though it were our front door step?

Now this is a legit question. I think that only the fairway should be maintained with irrigation, fertilizer, etc. The rough areas aught to be maintained naturally. If you're in a dry area, let it be half grassed and really scruffy. If you're in a dampish area, let the rough grow wild and mow it once or twice a month. Maintenance dollars spent in the rough is money wasted so far as I am concerned.

These are internal decisions that need leadership, not from the USGA / R&A, from the people in the room making the individual decisions at each course.

What percentage of play(ers) have rendered even a single course obsolete?

A very small percentage. Only the professionals who are capable of playing on a major tour and amateurs capable of qualifying for one of the top level national amateur competitions.

What are the top 3 reasons/justifications for lengthening a golf course, or demanding a new course be 7200+ yards?

Desire to host or continue to host top level professional amateur events, desire to retain placement in magazine rankings which may take into account length and difficulty, and a possible need to feel 'superior' to other 'elite' courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Tom Doak in that this is a noble cause...



BUT...


I'll stand firm by the statement that it is not the manufacturer's or the administrators that this should be directed at. It is the Architects themselves, and their clients.

The issue of safety is really stretching it, so let's agree on the primary concern is - and rightly should be - COST.

Why does a course HAVE TO increase its length?
Why does a developer HAVE To build a 7200 yard course?
Why do we have to maintain every inch of turf as though it were our front door step?

These are internal decisions that need leadership, not from the USGA / R&A, from the people in the room making the individual decisions at each course.

What percentage of play(ers) have rendered even a single course obsolete?
What are the top 3 reasons/justifications for lengthening a golf course, or demanding a new course be 7200+ yards?

Jim:

I do agree with you on all of the above.  We all watch too much TV and see these pros hitting the ball so far, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to the actual game of golf that 99% of us play.  And, generally, I do push my clients to let me keep building courses shy of 7000 yards from the back.

Yet, every week someone will turn on the TV and decide that if the R & A is lengthening the Road Hole, their course must need lengthening, too.  And the USGA and R & A are strangely silent on that point.  They ought to say the same things that you did, but they don't at all.  Instead, they continue to add length and add bunkers to older courses each time a championship is played.  And sometimes they even suggest that they can't do this or that because the manufacturers would complain!

[Chris Buie]

Again, could this not be resolved relatively simply by having a tournament ball?
The companies could continue to sell whatever ball they want.
The great courses get to remain in tact because the pros wouldn't be hitting it so far.
What is the problem with that way of dealing with the issue?

[JESII]

They ought to say the same things that you did, but they don't at all.  Instead, they continue to add length and add bunkers to older courses each time a championship is played.  And sometimes they even suggest that they can't do this or that because the manufacturers would complain!

I guess that is the one major point of blame I would place on their doorstep, totally agree.



Chris,

I am an occassional competitive amateur...which ball would I play?

I think the same rules and equipment are a great asset for golf. Throwing it away because a club on which Tiger Woods will never set foot wants to protect it from par in case he does is the error I see most clearly.

[Chris Buie]

Jim, I would start with having the touring pros use a tournament ball.
I am not concerned with saving par but saving courses.  I think we should 'lean forward' in preserving the designs.
You would not be throwing anything away.  The pros just use a different ball.

[Tom_Doak]

Chris,

I am an occassional competitive amateur...which ball would I play?

Jim:

You would play the tournament ball, and you'd insist the guys you play with do, too ... and that is how it would gradually roll back and become accepted by the better players and then the masses.

[JESII]

Chris,

Why is that a simpler solution than just leaving the courses and the ball alone and letting the pros drive it right in front of the greens?

If the theory is this will take away spectator interest I'd be curious to hear how or why.

[JESII]

Chris,

I am an occassional competitive amateur...which ball would I play?

Jim:

You would play the tournament ball, and you'd insist the guys you play with do, too ... and that is how it would gradually roll back and become accepted by the better players and then the masses.

If the guy that will never play an organized tournament will play the tournament ball because I asked him to, why wouldn't we just go straight for the total roll-back as opposed to a tournament ball?

[Chris Buie]

You miss the whole point of the design if you are hitting a 9 iron into a par-5.
It doesn't remotely have anything to do with spectator interest.
There is also the land issue.  We are going to use a lot more land (and maintain it) just to accomodate a golf ball company?
If there is a better solution I would be happy to go with that.  I don't see a better one but am open to hearing about it.

"If the guy that will never play an organized tournament will play the tournament ball because I asked him to, why wouldn't we just go straight for the total roll-back as opposed to a tournament ball?" - Jim

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you are saying.  The guy that doesn't play on the tour would not have to use the tour ball.

[JESII]

Chris,

On your last point, I was responding to Tom, who suggested that as a competitive amateur I would play the tournament ball and by association, I would convince the guys I play casual golf with to play the same ball I do and by that association, the tournament ball will trickle down to all levels. I disagree with him, but that was his gist.

On the first point about the relevance of the design...my approach is to not care a lick about that 1% of the golfing population. How does it effect you directly if a guy drives it 330 and dead straight? Why should I lengthen my golf course because there are two guys in the region that can do that?

[Garland Bayley]

...
What percentage of play(ers) have rendered even a single course obsolete?

A very small percentage. Only the professionals who are capable of playing on a major tour and amateurs capable of qualifying for one of the top level national amateur competitions.

...

Sorry, but John is wrong and Jim mistakenly implies that making courses obsolete is a non-issue.

For every player capable of qualifying for one of the top level national amateur competitions, there are at least 100 that hits it just as far, but with far less accuracy (guess why they aren't capable of qualifying for top competition). When you know I can stand on the 10th green of my home course and almost be hit by a ball that has carried over 300 yards from the 13th tee, then you begin to understand the obsoletion issue and the safety issue. For lots of strong young players, there is no reason they need to buy 14 clubs. Driver, 3 wood, 8, 9, putter, and 4 wedges ought to do it, except for the fact that there may be a few par 3s out there that would make them need another club from time to time.

[JESII]

Garland,

How many visitors each year playing The Old Course get plunked?

I'd take the over on 1 per day...

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

How many visitors each year playing The Old Course get plunked?

I'd take the over on 1 per day...

Glad you think TOC is my home course and it is what I am worried about being obsolete. I should be so fortunate.
The local HS kids make my home course obsolete with the modern ball. Once they no longer get free golf through their parents membership, they will certainly look for somewhere else to play.

[Tags:]

Tags: