[JMEvensky]

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.

True,nobody gets to use their own baseball,football,etc.

But,IMO,that still doesn't mean that the regulatory bodies of golf should get a pass.I think it's more a question of "how much effect do you want the new/different ball to have on the game".

MLB decided that the "live ball" was better than the "dead ball".But Rawlings doesn't amp up the ball every year.They found a limit and stayed there.

I realize that there's really no way to put the genie back in the bottle.Too many people have too much invested in the current arrangement.

[V. Kmetz]

RSSL,

I meant a chisel and I meant a guttie...indeed.  I was saying knife for graphicism

If I misled by saying scoring or markings, that was very indeed early, with chisels and then molds

The paint on the first Haskell balls filled in the light Silvertown mold scoring and caused the ball to duck.

But pages 54-57 o Scotland's Gift have CBM's somewhat detailed account of his knowledge of the origins o the Haskell, the fact that the initial paint covered the mold markings, the realization that the mold scoring were every bit as important as the properties of the invention itself, the distribution and the Foulis' brother's attempts to mold them their own way...and a taste of the proprietary disputes that ensued.

cheers

vk

[TEPaul]

"But,IMO,that still doesn't mean that the regulatory bodies of golf should get a pass.I think it's more a question of "how much effect do you want the new/different ball to have on the game"."


Jeff:

That's true, but let's not forget that construct is something of a modern perspective. The finest of the old world observers and philosophers on the game of golf such as Macdonald and Behr believed that golf was something akin to a game or sport of the old fashioned "sportsman" who believed that the dynamic with golf was to bring the ball and implements down to that very fine level that would JUST sustain him to deal with his NATURAL opponent-----the golf course. In the case of a fish for a SPORT fishersman that was the finest balance of line test and skill and with a hunter it was the finest balance to do with the lightest rifle and shot when he considered his game (what he was hunting).

To them it was not for some regulatory body to tell them what to use-----it was for THEM to do it for themselves!

But I suppose when it came to competition IN GOLF the deal breaker at some point became----what if someone wanted to advantage himself with I&B with something that his opponent did not think was particularly "sporting?"

[Steve Lang]

  then one must certainly throw in the punitive rules structure of golf into the length mixture..  if its not limited by a rule, why not use it?

[Ken Moum]

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.

You'll have to explain to me why Tylenol, Advil and Aleve not only still exist as brand names, but why they spend all that money advertising them when Acetamenophen, Ibuprophen and Naproxin sodium are all available as geenrics for a fraction of the proce.

FWIW, I believe that any tournament ball will trickle down for two reasons:

First, the line is likely to be drawn somewhere between the PGA Tour and State Championship golf. That range is full of struggling pros, top amateurs, college golfers and wannabes.

Second, wherever it's drawn, the players who are striving to move up to that level will need to play and practice with the tournament ball. But they play a lot of golf with guys at their level. The pressure will be on from the "better players" to make the tournament ball mandatory at a lower level.

For example, if it's required for the USGA national championships, anyone who wants to qualify for them will have to practice with the tournament ball. Distance control is a HUGE deal for those players, and minor changes in the ball affect them quite a bit.

But in their local tournaments, even State Championships they'll be competing with guys using the modern ball. They are NOT going take that lightly.  And because they are the best players, their opinions will have weight.

Its even more of an issue for college golf, where a significant number of players are Tour wannabes.  Do you think they'll be happy with having to switch back and forth for competition?

Even upper-level high school golfers would be adversely affected.

There's only one simple answer, and it might actually help the seniors, women and juniors by giving them a bit MORE distance… make the damned ball lighter.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I have broached the subject on many occasions. Ball and club technology has for the most part been left to chance over the years, certainly not led by the R&A who also not surprisingly dithered over the ball size for many years before finally falling into place in the 1920’s.

My point throughout is that technology (ball and club) has totally outstripped that of the courses. From the start it may not have been obvious to all but the initial priority was to obtain first a ball that was sustainable prior to completing a set of clubs to comply with all aspects of a golf course. Whilst the learning process was slowly generating a head of steam, none seem to consider implementing serious controls,  that would balance technology with the courses.

My view would be to pre-set the ball travel and distance of that at the time of the swap over of the Gutty/Haskell ball. As for the clubs, I feel a serious discussion needs to be undertaken to utilise technology to improve reliability but not increased distance, stroke or face detail. This need for distance is killing the game. It should IMHO be all about skill and accuracy not based upon how long to can hit a ball.  If we cannot change then at let’s implement penal traps and hazards for those long hitters. One suggestion may be to suggest that we might even require twin stone walls with a minefield of bunkers in between to catch the distance boys. Yet why go to all that trouble when a roll back of the ball is the simplest and most cost effective way forward.


Technology was left to run its course from the start. Back then they had the excuse they were looking for consistency, from uniformity of the ball and its shape to its ability to be used in the wet (being Scotland and Links golf it gets wet). The Gutty was the first real ball but shattered yet the Haskell seemed the answer.


Perhaps we should readdress the whole issue and pre-set the ball and golf equipment based upon the introduction of the Haskell. After all playing with Hickory is most enjoyable and is as close we have today to what made golf great when it was exported all around the world. No player should be allowed to improve his/her performance due to the equipment, it should be totally down to skill and his/her ability and not by an outside aids or high tech equipment. Where is the honour in that? Golf is about our ability to rise to the challenge not to have our equipment do it on our behalf. 

So the question is where to start, my suggestion is set the current clubs and ball to replicate the game as it was when played with the new Haskell. Roll back to that date. But it’s important that the ball and clubs complement our courses.

How can people play golf with the latest equipment, see their score improve and not believe that in some way the equipment is responsible – it send out a simple message, we are cheats and as long as our score goes down we do not care. Yet that is not the reason many on here play golf we play it for the fun, the challenges and many more reasonsbesides, but never to openly be regarded as cheats. We need clear direction from our Governing Body, we all know there is a problem but until someone in power actually admits it we are going to continue conning ourselves while modifying our great courses to accommodate this lie which is hurting not just our game but threatening our quality courses.

We do not need long hitter, we desperately need a massive injection of simple common sense.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Guys...

Threads like this are precisely why I started playing with hickories, gutties, etc.  And that was to see specifically what the differences are that technology makes on the game.

I've noticed a few major effects of technology on the game...and correspondingly a change in golf course architecture (most likely).

First, playing with pre-1900's hickory clubs (smooth faced irons, no sand wedge) makes bunkers a SERIOUS hazard.  You don't just grab sand wedge, pop it out, and move on.  It takes real thinking and planning to simply get out.

Second, smooth faced irons don't cause the ball to bite on the greens...rather it rolls out a lot more.  Again, rather than eye the pin, fire for it, have the ball bite and stop...I need to look at the green and see how the ball will run out.

Thirdly, distance is a major factor.  There is a chart early on in this thread that talks about how far the elite players hit the ball with certain eras of golf balls.  NOT ME!!!  My gutty tee shots go 140ish on average...even when using an r9 driver...not the 190 listed.  

So, putting this all together in terms of architecture.

The third point is easy...you don't need a 7,000 yard course.  The chart from Scott M's work clearly illustrates that point.  And the quote that CBM didn't think that Merion needed to be longer than 6,000 yards.

Point 2 rears its head BIG time when I play hickory golf on modern courses.  If I have to get over a hazard and stop the ball on a green before it runs into another hazard behind the green, that is an issue.  Say lofting a ball over a creek onto the green and stopping it before it rolls into a bunker behind the green.  That is really challenging for me.

And this kind of leads to point #1...greenside bunkers.  They can be serious hazards.  In fact, some (like Big Bertha on Rivermont) I need to play backwards out of with my hickory clubs (no sand wedge remember).

Anyway, Ralph is WAY more of an expert on hickory and/or gutty golf than I am...but that is what I have noticed first hand regarding difference between modern technology and hickory golf.

BUT here is the key to me...it is the same game.  You still have to navigate the course and put the ball in the hole.  It is just in the modern game you have a more robust arsenal, therefore the courses need to be more challenging (deeper bunkers, more demanding accuracy around the green, longer) to give the golfer the same mental stimulation.  But it is the same game, if you play it the same way...brain vs. the land.

PS...I've asked for a set up persimmon's and blades for Christmas, so maybe next year I'll be able to see the differences between hickories, persimmons, and modern technology on golf course architecture.  Aren't you guys excited!?!?!?   

[JESII]

Ken,

When I said "Brand" I meant parent company...I used the wrong term.

When Tylenol came on the market it had 5 - 10 years of market protection with its patent. During that period individuals develop loyalty to the drug and would be reluctant to change...that was my point.

Under this proposal by VK there will be no market protection so the only reason someone will play the Callaway version of the Tour ball is because they like Callaway the company.

[TEPaul]

The R&A and USGA's 2002 Joint Statement of Principles for Implements and Balls:




Joint Statement of Principles

   As the governing authorities for the Rules of Golf including equipment Rules, The R&A in St. Andrews, Scotland and the United States Golf Association (USGA) have continued to monitor closely the effects of advancing equipment technology on the playing of the game. The R&A and the USGA are also aware that this subject has attracted wide-ranging comment and a number of conflicting views. History has proved that it is impossible to foresee the developments in golf equipment that advancing technology will deliver. It is of the greatest importance to golf's continuing appeal that such advances are judged against a clear and broadly accepted series of principles.

The purpose of this statement is to set out the joint views of the R&A and the USGA, together with the framework of key principles and policies which guide their actions.

In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment.

While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game.

The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players.

Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.

In determining any future amendments to the Rules, or to associated procedures that may from time to time prove necessary, the R&A and the USGA will continue their respective policies of consultation with interested parties, including the use of notice and comment procedures, and will take account of the views expressed. The achievement and maintenance of worldwide uniformity in equipment rules through close coordination between the R&A and the USGA is a clear priority.

The R&A and the USGA are concerned that, on an increasing number of occasions, new products are being developed and marketed which potentially run counter to the principles expressed in this statement. These product launches, without prior consultation with the governing bodies, can lead to considerable difficulties in formulating appropriate equipment rules and to undesirable conflicts between manufacturers and rule makers. The R&A and the USGA intend to bring forward proposals designed to improve procedures for the approval of new products.

The R&A and the USGA believe that the principles stated in this document will, when carefully applied, serve the best interests of the game of golf.

[Melvyn Morrow]

 A Joint Statement of Principle Bullshit sound more like it Tom

So Tom,  we have the words, always he words but where is the action, the understanding and the most importantly the dialogue between the R&A and all the local clubs.

Who do they listen too, why do they take years to react.  A simple sign that they are taken matter seriously might help. Most of all who do they believe they represent, the equipment manufacturers or the ordinary Golfer. If it’s only the Rules why do they insist upon changes to Open Courses (2010 The Road Hole Tee).

Action speaks volumes.  Tell us what is going on after all is it not us poor golfers that ultimately are the pay masters.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

In one of your earlier posts on this thread you said in your view the two regulatory bodies for I&B in golf----eg the R&A and USGA should take distance limitations back to about the distance the golf ball traveled when the Haskell ball came into golf. That was in 1898 and 1899. Are you even aware of the fact that the R&A and USGA were not even in the business of testing or regulating golf's I&B at that time? The USGA did not even begin doing that until 1942, and honestly I'm not even aware that the R&A ever really has. I think I could find seventeen people at GMGC who are as up-to-speed on what's going on in the world of I&B as the R&A.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Who are The R&A, never came across the name before. Can't come from St Andrews otherwise I may have had some contact with them. Wonder who purchased my father old home, which was also Old Toms.

Tom I am aware of the history of St Andrews and golf, certainly in Scotland, clearly you have not read up all the reports on the ball issues post WW1, so I will say no more.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

The R&A I'm referring to in the context of this thread (the entire history of significant distance increases) actually has a most interesting history in and of itself, not the least of which is its recent iteration since 2004 in the context of administering to and regulating I&B.

And yes, I believe I am very familiar with the reports and the history of ball issues since WW1 and even before WW1 and including how they have played out with and by the administrations of the R&A and USGA.

[Bryan Izatt]

I was intrigued by the following paragraph from the Statement of Principle (my bolds added):

"The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase."

Does this suggest that if player conditioning were to result in increases in club speed and hence distance that they would try to regulate conditioning or roll back the ball to deal with it.  Or, would they regulate fairway mowing heights or softness to rein in further increases in distance?  Or, is rolling back the ball the only practical way to deal with further increases in distance regardless of which factor or combination of factors is causing it?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

I have suspected for some time that the part you highlighted was essentially a sort of clever legal catch-all mechanism whereby the regulatory bodies were putting the manufacturing world on notice that they reserved the option of taking action on I&B in the future no matter what it was that they felt was negatively influencing golf via I&B. I have felt that that wording was their way of proving in a lawsuit that they were not just springing something on a manufacturer if they got sued for restraint of trade. The lawyer for the defendant could just stand up and produce the 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles and ask the plaintiff why he didn't read it before doing something that might be deemed non-conforming. I asked the USGA about that the other day and I was told that no that is not a clever legal mechanism and that they really mean all of that you highlighted!

The wording that fascinates me though is not what you highlighted but this:

"The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further SIGNIFICANT increases in hitting distance at the highest level are undesirable."

To me the obvious question is what does the word "significant" mean to them at least as to its degree?  

[TEPaul]

And Bryan, I also believe that perhaps the other most significant word in that entire statement is the word "skill" which the statement claims it is trying to protect with I&B Rules and Regulations. I think they may want to at least think about what-ALL the word "SKILL" means to them!

What is "SKILL" in golf? Is it just physical or is it also psychological or intellectual or some combination thereof?

[JMEvensky]

TEP,in your opinion,does the USGA believe there's a problem with the golf ball going too far/too straight for elite players?

[TEPaul]

I would say that depends to some degree to who you talk to.

However, I would also say that most in the know might allow that the golf ball may be the easiest fix to effect a distance roll-back of some sort but that it was definitely not just the golf ball that created the distance spike in the last fifteen years or so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()