The entire history of significant distance increases.....

[RSLivingston_III]

Jim, Typically, comparisons need to be done with the better players as little or no documentation exists of the lesser players. Maybe over the last 50 years 10 hc could be compared but good luck going further back, especially pre-1940.

Anyway, it still cowes down to B&I manufacturers and the constant push for more tech.
Personally I would like to see all Irons go to smooth faces, but I am sure they will figure out a new material for the clubs and/or dimple patterns for the balls to negate the attempt at reigning things in.

edit-damn I type slow, three new posts while I was writing this post.

[JMEvensky]

VK,hot golf balls have been around forever.Polaris,Molitor,and others I can't remember all ultimately failed.Guys want to play what they see on television--whether it's the right ball for them or not.

Never underestimate the power of marketing.

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph,

I don't see too many 10 handicappers hitting sky-high 4 irons over fronting bunkers and stopping the ball near a hidden hole location...


I understand your point very well, I just disagree that it actually happens...

I make the opposite point on Jason’s topic about wide fairways. If you have to run the ball onto the green then front bunkers matter, if you can fly them they don't. Hence I agree with Ralph the high flying game, which we all play partly because we're now hitting shorter clubs (typically not 4 irons) into greens has had a great detriment on Architecture. I believe there were less 'hidden hole locations' as we know them know, in the old days.  Not one talked about ‘4 yards on’ then.

May I ask your opinion as to approximately at what handicap you think the high airborne game is not within a players skill set and they do have to hit ground running balls because thats all they own on a longish approach shot?

[V. Kmetz]

JME,

I see your point, I do.  But Titleist has always had 5 brands of balls of brands going at once, Callaway has 4 offerings, and so forth...why is this different.

As for TV, I could see the ads now..."Poor Phil Mickelson for Callaway complaining to the viewer and consumer that he only wishes he could go back to the good old days when he carried balls 320, now he can't hit it past the local yokels at Dogtrack Hills, who still have the ultra-hot 2011 Callaway. "

He gets to advertsise the Callaway brand they get to keep everyone else and the curious and the occasional tournament player - it's more golf balls, not less and that cannot be a bad thing.

I just see this as an add-on line, one that is initially going to spike their gross volume of distribution northward, not a detriment to their other lines....

Would you really purchase and play a slightly more expensive Tourney Ball that you know isn't as high-performance as your Pro -V, if you weren't required to do so? 

And if you were an occasional local tournament player required to do so, you mean to tell me that you are not going to play Pro-V's in the other 90% of your friendly matches?

And if you are a Tour player, you get the balls for free anyway and you can still play the Tourney Ball with the Callaway box or Srixon sleeve.  You get to still demonstrate public loyalty while getting to shill for the other 3-5 lines of ball your boy may be making.

cheers

vk

[JMEvensky]

VK,I actually hope your proposal would be put into action.

You're close to agreeing with the Goodale Principle of unification through bifurcation.He believes that a USGA/PGA Tour tournament ball would eventually work its way down to club championships.The tournament ball would become widespread and the non-tournament ball(s) would be relegated to being played by the same guys who used to put Vaseline on a driver.Ipso facto,unification with a rolled back ball.I think he's right.

However,so long as Titleist,et al can afford plaintiffs' attorneys,it ain't gonna happen.The ball manufacturers like the bird they already have in hand.I doubt if they're interested in gambling.What's their upside?

[V. Kmetz]

JME,

I understand your circumspection and the point about litigation war-chests.

I guess it's the saddest thing about the commerciality of all sports that have ramped up since baseball's free-agency, every pitch must be sponsored, the guy with the orange gloves - not the ref - runs the football game, and the silly golf ball goes like the Dickens, with ads featuring broken windows and courses that drop air mail on 7000 yards.

I just know though, that if there is a solution...it's in somehow making the communism of the tournament ball into a positive profit scheme for the maker.

cheers

vk

[Melvyn Morrow]

JME you said "I wasn't dissing your grammar,just assuming that MHM would prefer that the technology had stopped long ago."

No it’s just a question of controlling technology, something way beyond the powers of those currently in charge. The equipment aided but modern technology should never be allowed to out strip the land - that's down to pure ignorance and indifference on behalf of the Governing Bodies.

Melvyn

[Tony_Muldoon]

 

Ralph,

I don't see too many 10 handicappers hitting sky-high 4 irons over fronting bunkers and stopping the ball near a hidden hole location...


I understand your point very well, I just disagree that it actually happens...

I make the opposite point on Jason’s topic about wide fairways. If you have to run the ball onto the green then front bunkers matter, if you can fly them they don't. Hence I agree with Ralph the high flying game, which we all play partly because we're now hitting shorter clubs (typically not 4 irons) into greens has had a great detriment on Architecture. I believe there were less 'hidden hole locations' as we know them know, in the old days.  Not one talked about ‘4 yards on’ then.

May I ask your opinion as to approximately at what handicap you think the high airborne game is not within a players skill set and they do have to hit ground running balls because thats all they own on a longish approach shot?

Ralph I’ll try and answer your question.  In what I’ve observed the running game is today more relevant to an older player or a women playing off 10 plus. I will now cover myself by adding but not all of them.

When I play with Hickories my perception of the course really changes.  With the green Srixion I can get it airbourne, more so than the gutty I’ve played with, but drives are shorter and approach shots longer, even on the short course I get them out for. 

[Sean_A]

Ralph,

I don't see too many 10 handicappers hitting sky-high 4 irons over fronting bunkers and stopping the ball near a hidden hole location...


I understand your point very well, I just disagree that it actually happens...

I make the opposite point on Jason’s topic about wide fairways. If you have to run the ball onto the green then front bunkers matter, if you can fly them they don't. Hence I agree with Ralph the high flying game, which we all play partly because we're now hitting shorter clubs (typically not 4 irons) into greens has had a great detriment on Architecture. I believe there were less 'hidden hole locations' as we know them know, in the old days.  Not one talked about ‘4 yards on’ then.

I am glad to see this dicussion quickly move away from the esoteric distance rant and into why distance makes a difference. 

Tony, fronting bunkers should aways matter as an issue of access to the hole - even if they can be flown.  I think the the more pertinent question is they should matter more, especially when approaching from the wrong angle or rough.  But that is more a question of green firmness than bunker placement.  I would also say that on many fairways there isn't enough width to really allow a player to choose his angles/options.  Its more a case of hit or missed fairway (just as the stats imply) rather than good position/bad position.  Hopefully, we can make moves toward more discernining positional play in the near future because I do believe that for the vast majority of golfers this is far more enjoyable golf.  Its only the Matt Wards and Shivas's of the world who want to see black or white golf rather than shades of grey.  I have long been of the opinion that so long as we keep f&f with wide fairways as the mantra than practically no amount of distance can wreck the formula.  For sure, its expensive and incomprehensible to keep adding yards, but not inherently damaging to the game so long as the mantra is kept as the #1 priority.  Of course, the mantra also implies that one cannot give a nut for how low the pros go; whose concern has always been a source of bewilderment for me. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

TomD:

On your post #3 you mention there may not be a direct relationship between tech development in I&B and the lengthening of courses.

I agree to an extent. There may not be just one direct relationship such as the onset of the Haskell ball (the beginning of wound ball technology). Like a lot of things the contributing factors were probably multiple with the Haskell ball distance increase one of a number of them.

I think some of the brightest minds in architecture in the first decade of the 20th century were also beginning to think about such things as a greater application of variety and balance in the makeup of an eighteen hole golf course and that alone probably served to add to the total length of the best creations of the time-----eg NGLA, Merion East, Pine Valley etc.

As we know, Macdonald himself did not seem to feel Merion East needed to be more than about 6,000 yards but apparently MCC did not agree with that as they created at least a 6,400 yard course that by the way only ever had two par 5s as did Pine Valley three years later. Macdonald actually never seemed particularly concerned about the increase in distance around that time stating that he felt even with the increased distance the game was still challenging enough for most people. However, Macdonald always was a strong proponent of a golf ball that floated which most of us can probably assume had its own inherent distance limitations due to its lesser weight alone.

[JESII]

There are a few questions I'd like to get back to; first VK's market demand concept and then Ralph and Tony's discussion on playability.

VK,

Why would Callaway even consider paying Mickelson endorsement money tied to the ball he played if it was indisputable that the ball was identical to the one every other guy on Tour uses? I cannot see bifurcation actually adding to the total pie of golf ball sales...I can however see your idea working for the consumer...why not do exactly as you say and sell the balls for less? Then everybody will use them...

[JESII]

May I ask your opinion as to approximately at what handicap you think the high airborne game is not within a players skill set and they do have to hit ground running balls because thats all they own on a longish approach shot?

Ralph,

I don't think there is a specific number...I've seen legitimate single digit folks play it along the ground and I've seen people that can't break 100 hit it up in the air...not very well, but they sure don't play it on the ground.


Undeniably, at a certain point every player looks more at the options/problems on the ground but has that point really moved substantially further away from the green?

[JESII]

I think some of the brightest minds in architecture in the first decade of the 20th century were also beginning to think about such things as a greater application of variety and balance in the makeup of an eighteen hole golf course and that alone probably served to add to the total length of the best creations of the time-----eg NGLA, Merion East, Pine Valley etc.

Tom,

Did the architects of the 19th centure not focus much on variety or balance? Are there examples?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

The History of Golf according to Tom P seems to have really started when the game came to America, yet in a recent topic regards ‘replica and templates’ much of that came from existing courses well established by the turn of the 20th Century.

Something does not quite fit but that has never stopped people trying to re write history in their favour.

MY own opinion is that GCA started in real terms from the 1840 slowly developing as a demand for the game increased. Inexpensive land was sought for the formation of new clubs and courses requiring some knowledge of the game to set up these clubs. These early clubs and their Members designed their own courses, making some terrible decision as to location and design. Some building courses on land that would get waterlogged over winter months making play impossible well into the summer. Others securing too small a plot, limiting these courses to perhaps six holes of each 150 to 250 yards. The inexperience of design within the club normally forcing such errors. Many of the new courses realised from the early stage that experience was required to select the land and design the course, hence we see the emergence of designers working for the many new different clubs

Yet new courses outstripped designers and by the 1890’s meaning that a large percentage of local clubs selected the land and designed their own course , yet were wise enough to get the professional golfers  and designers to inspect thir course and suggest improvements to bring their course up to the accepted standard. The period from 1860 to 1895 saw the real development of the design process. Even courses like TOC were developed into what we see today (widening of the fairways, the major work to reclaim the land from the sea which allowed the 1st & 17 and 18th Holes to be re-designed, not forgetting the revering of play and changes required).

By the time of the great export of our top players/greenkeepers/designers from Scotland in the early 1890’s there was a firm design process in play, from site location to actually modelling the land. Although the second generation of designers (from the 20th century) seem to have dismissed many of the original designs/designers, one has to ask the question why because are these,  in the main not the holes that have been templated and exported worldwide. Not the 20thth Century Holes but Holes like the Redan &The Road Hole proving the point that (A) Design was very much advanced  by the middle part of the 19th century (1850-1870) and  (B) leading to many Design Houses being extremely busy in surveying the land, advising clubs and councils alike about the suitability of the land and the number of potential Golf Holes the land could accommodate without restricting play. One point worth noting being the Courts called in these Designers to survey the land if any dispute materialised between the new Council owned or funded golf courses and the land of the local farmers. Clear records still exist of the case between Elie and the local farmer with Old Tom Morris being instructed by the Courts to survey the land and place Inch stone markers on the boundary. Note no Surveyor was requested but course designer, showing their standing ans abilities in the eyes of the Courts.

We must read the history of GCA from the 19thCentury, not just that which appeared one morning in the 20thCentury. Remember many of the Designers who left Scotland had close contact with some of the major course designers prior to leaving Scotland. WE have names like Ross, The Foulis Brothers, Willie Campbell, well the list goes on, but they learnt their business in Scotland. Design did not stagnate it developed , well until the WW2 when IMHO it took a wrong turn giving us on the whole mediocre courses for the last 20-30 years, although I do accept some gems managed to materialise despite the modern trend of make the game easy to attract more golfers.     

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Tom was primarity speaking about golf ball and club technology, how it effected the game and then how those periods contrasted with periods of increased length golf courses (with Tom Doak's suggestion). There was never a focus on specific resposibilities of golf course designers or the original version of specific features such as the Redan...

Do you disagree with Tom's summary of technological advancements in golf tech from his opening post?

[V. Kmetz]

Jim S,

The latter point first

1.  Callaway and the various manufacturers that make balls will merely continue - not start or stop or pay extra - to pay their stars to promote them:

Because:
A - as is this case with most companies, they are selling much more than Golf balls.
B - the sales pitch I envision has Mickelson (in this example) actually advertising their other 4 lines of balls by talking about the standardized Callaway he now has to use..."he wishes he could go back to the old days like all of us folks watching on TV"

2.  I'm not a business man...at all but in these instance:

A.  I think they have to be marketed along the lines of a "hand-free cell device" - you don't have to have it to drive or operate a cell, but you have to have one of them to drive and speak on the cell phone - to operate them legally when their use is simultaneous.

B:  In the end, charge more or less or whatever, but I think the healthiest results would come by initially charging a little more for something that notoriously does a little less, because you are using the price point and this marketing scheme to enhance, not denigrate or invalidate your other lines of Ball.  Your market share in this line Tourney Approved ball will likely be whatever your market share is now in all your lines and your total brand sales.

All in all, though I've tried to interpret the logic of some patent and anti-trust case law, I'm not a lawyer either. I have always thought that the USGA/PGA should have a barrel of golf balls of their own subsidiary non-commercial manufacture to hand out to the players on the first tee.  "Pick a box of these fellas, they are all the same and they are the only ball you are playing today"...providing access to these, of course, for practice.

cheers

vk

[JMEvensky]

VK,do you really see a Callaway advertising campaign featuring Phil Mickelson with the tag line "buy the Callaway XYZ,it's not good enough for me but you'll love it"?

[JESII]

VK,

Once it becomes absolutely impossible to create a distinction between two items you will not find a company spending money to advertise thier version of that item...are there examples to the contrary of a particular product having any and all innovation legislated away and still being the recipient of large marketing campaigns? Pharmaceuticals after their patent expires are the best example I can think of but that's different than this. Once I've learned that some drug works well for me I'm unlikely to try something different just because the ingredients are the same whereas with your idea nobody will have loyalty to anything other than the brand and that can't seem to be all that lasting.

[JESII]

And I'm not saying that matters...Phil can make money marketing other stuff.

I think the biggest hurdle has to be marginalizing the Intellectual Capital these companies have accumulated.

[TEPaul]

I have very little knowledge of what some of the regulatory bodies in other large scale sports such as football, baseball, soccer, tennis etc do regarding specifications that ball and implement manufacturers must conform to. However, if the regulatory bodies of golf are and have always been far more lax or laissez faire about specific manufacturing regulations on their I&B there very well may be a remarkably simple reason why that's always been the case and still is the case and may always be the case.

[RSLivingston_III]

Jim

The History of Golf according to Tom P seems to have really started when the game came to America, yet in a recent topic regards ‘replica and templates’ much of that came from existing courses well established by the turn of the 20th Century.

Something does not quite fit but that has never stopped people trying to re write history in their favour.

MY own opinion is that GCA started in real terms from the 1840 slowly developing as a demand for the game increased. Inexpensive land was sought for the formation of new clubs and courses requiring some knowledge of the game to set up these clubs. These early clubs and their Members designed their own courses, making some terrible decision as to location and design. Some building courses on land that would get waterlogged over winter months making play impossible well into the summer. Others securing too small a plot, limiting these courses to perhaps six holes of each 150 to 250 yards. The inexperience of design within the club normally forcing such errors. Many of the new courses realised from the early stage that experience was required to select the land and design the course, hence we see the emergence of designers working for the many new different clubs

Yet new courses outstripped designers and by the 1890’s meaning that a large percentage of local clubs selected the land and designed their own course , yet were wise enough to get the professional golfers  and designers to inspect thir course and suggest improvements to bring their course up to the accepted standard. The period from 1860 to 1895 saw the real development of the design process. Even courses like TOC were developed into what we see today (widening of the fairways, the major work to reclaim the land from the sea which allowed the 1st & 17 and 18th Holes to be re-designed, not forgetting the revering of play and changes required).

By the time of the great export of our top players/greenkeepers/designers from Scotland in the early 1890’s there was a firm design process in play, from site location to actually modelling the land. Although the second generation of designers (from the 20th century) seem to have dismissed many of the original designs/designers, one has to ask the question why because are these,  in the main not the holes that have been templated and exported worldwide. Not the 20thth Century Holes but Holes like the Redan &The Road Hole proving the point that (A) Design was very much advanced  by the middle part of the 19th century (1850-1870) and  (B) leading to many Design Houses being extremely busy in surveying the land, advising clubs and councils alike about the suitability of the land and the number of potential Golf Holes the land could accommodate without restricting play. One point worth noting being the Courts called in these Designers to survey the land if any dispute materialised between the new Council owned or funded golf courses and the land of the local farmers. Clear records still exist of the case between Elie and the local farmer with Old Tom Morris being instructed by the Courts to survey the land and place Inch stone markers on the boundary. Note no Surveyor was requested but course designer, showing their standing ans abilities in the eyes of the Courts.

We must read the history of GCA from the 19thCentury, not just that which appeared one morning in the 20thCentury. Remember many of the Designers who left Scotland had close contact with some of the major course designers prior to leaving Scotland. WE have names like Ross, The Foulis Brothers, Willie Campbell, well the list goes on, but they learnt their business in Scotland. Design did not stagnate it developed , well until the WW2 when IMHO it took a wrong turn giving us on the whole mediocre courses for the last 20-30 years, although I do accept some gems managed to materialise despite the modern trend of make the game easy to attract more golfers.      

Melvyn

I would like to see a detailed history of golf architecture of the 19th century done. I think I do see a direct correlation between the equipment changes (B&I) and what I perceive the architectural changes to be. For good measure we should throw in greenskeeping and agronomy advances. Another variable might be when land became dedicated to the game, and the land was smoothed of cart ruts and other surface disruptances.

[JMEvensky]

I have very little knowledge of what some of the regulatory bodies in other large scale sports such as football, baseball, soccer, tennis etc do regarding specifications that ball and implement manufacturers must conform to. However, if the regulatory bodies of golf are and have always been far more lax or laissez faire about specific manufacturing regulations on their I&B there very well may be a remarkably simple reason why that's always been the case and still is the case and may always be the case.

OK,I'll bite.

What's the remarkably simple reason?

[V. Kmetz]

TEP,

I don't really know either about the other sports, but they are unlike Golf in that the Ball is shared by the competitors, whatever it's properties are, are equally advantageous or disadvantageous to either side.

Part of the historical philosophical problem with the Ball is that first it was valued for its singular integrity...eg. did this Ball last over many rounds in different climates?

Everything that I have read has said that when Guttie was promulgated, the distance and performance properties were secondary adjuncts to the primary improvement, the Guttie did not disintegrate and could be used over and over again - and a third property...it was cheaper than the Feathery.  Almost immediately, it was recognized that a Guttie played and nicked up a bit flew even better than the way ti did when you first hit it and so and individuality of player to choice of ball was started right there...you started to nick it with a knife, they were much cheaper to experiment with and you knew you had a ball that was meaningfully different than your opponents.'

Ironically, when the Haskell emerged, the very, very very first versions had no scoring or dimples (we would now say) and it had been nearly forgotten that it was the markings on the ball that prevented a ducking flight after a certain distance (so impressed were they with the sheer, bounding distance and acceptable short game feel).  When it was remembered that they had to be scored to make a true flight, twenty guys started making molds and patterns and manufactures - and the line between standardization, governance and proprietary interest was immediately blurred; it still goes on today.  This caused Haskell to not realize the full patent value of "his" basic invention...the rubber-cored, wound ball.

My best information is that this all happened within the first 100 grosses of the Haskell ball as they hit the pockets of the first 2000 guys that were engaged and/or interested.  Within eight months, and with golf blossoming from hundreds to hundreds of thousands at the same time, and feeding off the rubber-cored/wound ball, there were 30 brands of rubber-cored Ball on the market and that would grow into the hundreds before ebbing.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the ball went from being precious thing, produced by an oligarchical structure  valued more for its specific durability and general performance to a disposable thing produced by an oligarchrical structure valued little for its general durability and on entirely its specific performance.

My entire take on what could be done about the ball is governed by trying to keep the oligarchical structure proprietarily happy by selling a disposable thing but introduce another disposable thing for them to sell - to the specific limited clientele that negatively impact the other 99% of our experience of classic, contemporary and future GCA and interests - which have their own economic impact.

cheers

vk

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

It's that golf is the only or one of the very few ball or stick and ball games where the ball is not vied for between human opponents. When one really begins to think about that it becomes more apparent why it's I&B has probably always been done as it has been. At least it's apparent to me.

[RSLivingston_III]

TEP,

I don't really know either about the other sports, but they are unlike Golf in that the Ball is shared by the competitors, whatever it's properties are, are equally advantageous or disadvantageous to either side.

Part of the historical philosophical problem with the Ball is that first it was valued for its singular integrity...eg. did this Ball last over many rounds in different climates?

Everything that I have read has said that when Guttie was promulgated, the distance and performance properties were secondary adjuncts to the primary improvement, the Guttie did not disintegrate and could be used over and over again - and a third property...it was cheaper than the Feathery.  Almost immediately, it was recognized that a Guttie played and nicked up a bit flew even better than the way ti did when you first hit it and so and individuality of player to choice of ball was started right there...you started to nick it with a knife, they were much cheaper to experiment with and you knew you had a ball that was meaningfully different than your opponents.'

Ironically, when the Haskell emerged, the very, very very first versions had no scoring or dimples (we would now say) and it had been nearly forgotten that it was the markings on the ball that prevented a ducking flight after a certain distance (so impressed were they with the sheer, bounding distance and acceptable short game feel).  When it was remembered that they had to be scored to make a true flight, twenty guys started making molds and patterns and manufactures - and the line between standardization, governance and proprietary interest was immediately blurred; it still goes on today.  This caused Haskell to not realize the full patent value of "his" basic invention...the rubber-cored, wound ball.

My best information is that this all happened within the first 100 grosses of the Haskell ball as they hit the pockets of the first 2000 guys that were engaged and/or interested.  Within eight months, and with golf blossoming from hundreds to hundreds of thousands at the same time, and feeding off the rubber-cored/wound ball, there were 30 brands of rubber-cored Ball on the market and that would grow into the hundreds before ebbing.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the ball went from being precious thing, produced by an oligarchical structure  valued more for its specific durability and general performance to a disposable thing produced by an oligarchrical structure valued little for its general durability and on entirely its specific performance.

My entire take on what could be done about the ball is governed by trying to keep the oligarchical structure proprietarily happy by selling a disposable thing but introduce another disposable thing for them to sell - to the specific limited clientele that negatively impact the other 99% of our experience of classic, contemporary and future GCA and interests - which have their own economic impact.

cheers

vk

VK,
I would be VERY interested in any information you have regarding the Haskell being released smooth and not in a bramble pattern.
I think you meant that the early gutties started to be hammered with a straight edge and/or chisel. I have never seen where a knife was used. Maybe for early line-scored balls before the line-score molds came out?