[Phil_the_Author]

It occurred to me that there is an irony about distance when golf and baseball are compared. Consider:

1- Golf has always viewed the longest drivers as legendary and to be held in awe. Baseball has as well, even going so far as to have a popular television program in the 1950s and 60s titled "Home Run Derby" which was nothing more than one-on-one matches between home run hitters to see who could hit the most long balls; very similar to long driving contests.

2- The great courses of the golden age of golf, for the most part, were built between 1910 and 1935 and were built long enough to challenge even the biggest of hitters. The great baseball stadiums of the golden age, for the most part, were built during these same years, all with tremendous distances to the outfield walls that a home run would have to carry. THose that cleared the fences regularly were considered gargantuan hitters. 

3- Beginning in the 1970s, technology and athletic advances caused problems where once-long courses were no longer so and new courses were being built to greater lengths until now they are simply too far and take up too much property causing major financial viability issues for the game. They have also made the great courses now nearly obsolete and unable to be used to challenge the best players in the world in defining their greatness. The same thing happened in baseball, yet they adapted far differently than did golf. They built new stadiums to replace the older, now obsolete ones and brought the outfield walls CLOSER IN! They STOPPED technological advances in their tracks and immediately prevented aluminum or metal bats from being used for play in the major leagues as the competitive advantage would have made the expensive stadiums completely obsolete for the game, citing safety as the issue that would allow this to happen.

Today we have two sports where distance that balls are hit still fascinate and awe all who love their respective games. The day before every all-star game in baseball, the home run hitting contest is a sell-out and broadcast everywhere and the phrase "back, back, back, back, back..." gets muted by many who are tired of hearing it.

In a recent conversation I listened to how the U.S. Open will be going to "short" yet wonderful and venerable old Merion and a young man of all of 18 years of age who plays golf for a Pa. college remarked that the entire course needs to be lengthened and redesigned...

The irony of length in the different approaches to adapting to it in separate sports and the long-term effects on each are fascinating...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

Can’t help you with baseball but I would say that Golf is NOT about distance, if it was then we would have hole after hole well in excess of 600 yards. Golf is about the challenge of raising one’s game to meet the said challenges on a shot to shot basis, from the Tees, Par three and simple 4 foot putt.

This desire for distance is not based upon playing golf but a pointless distraction , a sort of cataract blinding the player into thinking that if its  long, its good,  when in fact it’s accuracy that counts. But boys will be boys, not matter how old they may be. Perhaps some will soon start thinking with their brains and not through their Dicks supported by distance aids, the Viagra substitute.

Distance is in real terms a non-starter, it’s a total illusion proving little – but then it stops the little boys having a temper tantrum and throwing their dummies out of the pram – certainly no reason to spoil good courses for a few who may think they are well hung but in reality come up very short when tested.

Melvyn   

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps some will soon start thinking with their brains and not through their Dicks supported by distance aids, the Viagra substitute."


Jeeesus, Melvyn Hunter "Melville" Morris Morrow of Ole Morrisonshire, you are a real piece of work, Pal. You keep that stuff up and you just might win a Pulitzer Prize one day!  

[Tim Martin]

Nothing about the composition of the baseball has changed since 1931. This clearly is not the case with the golf ball and certainly has impacted distance greatly. And the band played on.

[JESII]

The irony of length in the different approaches to adapting to it in separate sports and the long-term effects on each are fascinating...

as Sam Snead said to Ted Williams..."you don't have to play your foul balls".

In the realm of the long hitters/home run hitters; accuracy is exponentially more valuable in golf than it is in baseball. This fact alone warrants a different approach to adjusting ---EDIT IN---fields of play. The regulators have to make their best determination of where things could go...and more importantly...what it will mean to their respective sports.

[TEPaul]

"In the realm of the long hitters/home run hitters accuracy is exponentially more valuable in golf than it is in baseball. This fact alone warrants a different approach to adjusting."


Sully:

This is true and it is also what makes golf so fundamentally different from all other ball and stick and ball games in which the ball must be vied for between human opponents, unlike golf. In this sense golf might be really unique!

I think Max Behr put it best when he explained how all other games of the ball and stick and ball variety must be limited and defined in time and space otherwise they completely lose the dynamic and in fact the very purpose they were designed to serve.

As he went on to explain, this is just not the case with golf and therefore its playing fields need not be limited and defined in the same ways as the other ball games in which the ball must be vied for.

He concluded by stating that golf and its architecture (playing field) should give one the impression of unlimited space, and that this is why a golf course can actually be considered as something of the "other" opponent!

[Rick Wolffe]

Phil

Nice post...your point about the cost of golf due to the lengthening of golf courses is a travesty to the game for which the governing bodies should step up and take responsibility.


On a related note, let me ask this question:

Would it be a fair fight to have Tiger Woods play a match against Bobby Jones on the member's tees at Merion East, and Tiger has to play with Jones's hickory clubs and 1930 rubber balls, while Jones can play with a freshly fitted set of callway's and the latest ProVs?

Doesn't sound like a fair fight to me.

Oh, if we can't bring Bobby Jones back for this match, let's go with Lee Westwood and he can use his own clubs, but Tiger still has to use Bobby Jones clubs...we will allow Ralph Livingston to regrip and rewhip the clubs as his handiwork is superb.

Would this match be a fair fight?

Back to baseball would it be a fair fight to have a home run derby between Jose Bautista using his wooden Louisville Slugger and Albert Pujois using an aluminum DiMarini bat?

[RSLivingston_III]

Rick,

That would be fun. I think my set is good to go for Tiger and it would be interesting to see his level of feel with the clubs.
He would just need to swing them as intended. Swinging 100+% or more is not representative of the era and form of play.
Hey older guys, remember when the goal was something about an 85% swing - to enhance balance and control? It doesn't seem like it was that long ago that a reserved swing was the standard and swinging from the heels was reserved for special situations. I think it was with the (re) introduction of metal woods and Mr. Daley's rise to prominence that swinging as hard as possible all the time started to take over.

[JESII]

I've not read very much of what Max Behr wrote so this isn't a criticism of him, maybe it's a search for clarification...my understanding of his use of the word "freedom" is that the player should be free to hit the ball off in whatever direction they want without particular guardrails or indicators telling him where to hit and where not to hit it.

Let's take Tom's last paragraph..."He concluded by stating that golf and its architecture (playing field) should give one the impression of unlimited space, and that this is why a golf course can actually be considered as something of the "other" opponent!"

The words 'unlimited space' seem to match my understanding of his use of "freedom" but the very thing that makes golf a sport is the thing which limits the reality of actually using 'unlimited space'. The hole. Once the target is placed the golfer will only ever focus on the best way to get into the hole in the fewest strokes...not necessarily a straight line, although that should be the first instinct.

Perhaps Behr was just trying to coax people into finding a line somewhat away from the direct line, fine, but that's a pretty basic thought isn't it?

[Phil_the_Author]

Actually what I was trying to say was how two sports where distance is considered a feat of greatness handled technology in exactly opposite fashions. ONe, baseball, didn't allow it (metal bats, etc...) the other, golf, allowed it to go uncontrolled and get out of hand.

Yet in both cases, the great golden age playing fields upon which the wonder and history of the respective games were created have become museum pieces or are gone entirely...

We talk about "reigning in the technology of the game in golf as if that would have saved the wondrous 6,800 yard courses for major championships when the growth opf those same championships in size of crowds, depth of security and logistical needs would still have stopped the usage of most of them.

Smaller stadiums in baseball still allow for larger, greater and far more expensive luxury boxes which bring in huge revenues. Larger golf courses or clubs with second course allow for more corporate suites and more fans through the front gates who will purchase over-priced souveniers and way over-priced food driving up the monies brought in.

Is it possible the real problem with the game of golf isn't the technology and its advances in distance as much as it is the tremendous amounts of revenues generated for and by that very small group of individuals who are the sole beneficiaries of it, just as it is in baseball and other major sports?

[Greg Ohlendorf]

Ralph,

What a great thought. Wouldn't it be cool to see a match between two of today's stars playing Merion with a set of hickories? A sort of Shell's Wonderful World, but back in time. I can't see anyone breaking par.

Greg

[JESII]

Phil,

In my opinion, of all the perceived problems with golf the distance the ball can be hit today is pretty close to the bottom of the list...peoples reactions to how far the ball can be hit might be at the top however...

[Rick Wolffe]

Ok, let me expand on the cost side of the irony of distance...

Were not many of the great classic 18 courses built on around 100 acres plus or minus?

Were not the 18 hole courses of the last 30 years built on 150 acres plus or minus?

Does +/- 50% more land to build a golf course add cost to the game - from the cost to acquire to the cost to maintain? 

How are more costly golf courses good for the game?

From a land use perspective, how has golf been good for our environment if more land is required to build golf courses today than in the days of yore?

[JESII]

Rick,

I don't know the numbers but assuming you're correct I would say a couple variables work into that, very low on that list would be a requirement from long hitters.

[TEPaul]

"I've not read very much of what Max Behr wrote so this isn't a criticism of him, maybe it's a search for clarification...my understanding of his use of the word "freedom" is that the player should be free to hit the ball off in whatever direction they want without particular guardrails or indicators telling him where to hit and where not to hit it."



Sully:

I would say more no to that than yes. I believe Behr (and I sure have read him and endlessly) meant by "freedom" for the golfer not that he could hit the ball just anywhere but that he should feel that HE is the one finding his own way around a golf course. Obviously that goes right to the heart of options in play (strategic architecture) and pretty much against the idea of what we have called "shot dictation" archietcture (one dimeansionality).

[Brian Marion]

Baseball, and I use the term to describe those who control and "protect" the game at the highest level (MLB), has always sought to be able to compare the best players of different generations on an equal footing. All within the "modern" hard ball era.

So, in essence, today's long ball hitters can be compared to Ruth, Mayes, Aaron and so forth and hitters can be compared to Williams across generations. Baseball at the Major level is a stats driven sport and numbers and statistics drive everything about the game, the players, the managers, the GM's, the scout's, the writers and the fans. To be able to compare stats, the game must be kept on on similar level at some point.

Not so with golf as the USGA is charged with protecting the game, yet they have no real authority or power beyond their historical position. This comes to the fore every time there is talk of limiting the ball or COR or some other equipment advance. The manufacturers threaten legal action and the USGA can barely make a position.

In truth, if you took a survey of golfers, you would find that most follow the PGA TOUR rules here in the USA, not the USGA. Most golfers here follow what they see on TV, not read in a rather large and confusing to most book.

So, who controls the PGA Tour? Sponsors...and who are some of the largest sponsors on TOUR? Equipment companies, so by extension, who is controling golf?

Equipment companies through their dollars invested on TOUR and into the homes of golfers on Sunday!

That's why there will never be ONE ball like MLB baseball uses or strict limits on technology, it's how they make money, make bonuses and pay shareholders.

As one Senior VP of a major ball manufacturer told me once "you start on the PGA TOUR and everything else is secondary, everything starts with the TOUR."

So, comparing the two sports is interesting from a fork in the road look. Where baseball says no to aluminum and different balls optimized for different players(imagine that !!!!) golf has walked right down the road.

And I will disagree with anyone who says that golf is not about distance today, especially to the jnr high, high school and college generations coming along. While that may have been true at one time, the youngest generation has grown up "taking it over the trees" since they first held a club. If you don't think that correct, go watch a Div 1 or similar men's (and ladies!) golf team play a classic course. They don't "get it" because they have never had to think about a shot value or strategy in their playing life! Many I would bet don't know what those are.

Case in point, the Wake Forest golf teams use our own Dunlop White's Old Town as their "home course". However, they go to Tanglewood or Bermuda Run when it's tournament time because, as their coach told me, "it's too short and they have to get used to playing courses similar in length to the tournament course."

And Old Town has all the shot values and design strategy in the world but at the highest competitive levels, that doesn't matter.

[Jason Connor]

Nothing about the composition of the baseball has changed since 1931. This clearly is not the case with the golf ball and certainly has impacted distance greatly. And the band played on.

a) I think that's debatable.

b) Ballparks have actually gotten smaller (because owners know fans love the long ball).

[Tim Martin]

Nothing about the composition of the baseball has changed since 1931. This clearly is not the case with the golf ball and certainly has impacted distance greatly. And the band played on.

a) I think that's debatable.

b) Ballparks have actually gotten smaller (because owners know fans love the long ball).

What about it is debatable? The modern day baseball in both composition and size is the same as it was  80 years years ago. The golf ball is not.

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph,

What a great thought. Wouldn't it be cool to see a match between two of today's stars playing Merion with a set of hickories? A sort of Shell's Wonderful World, but back in time. I can't see anyone breaking par.

Greg

Thanks Greg, it would be fun and help prove some points about the history of the game.
Actually, I can almost guarantee competitive rounds by top players - if they practiced beforehand - would be eye opening. And depending on who, and how, they set up the rules of play, I can easily see sub-par rounds. The biggest problem is setting up realistic conditions. People don't realize how many courses were setup in the 7000+ yard range for tournaments in the 1920s. There are some articles that describe EXACTLY how some courses were setup for US Opens. You would be surprised how often they were adding tees much further back than the member tee yardages that are often quoted. I had one in particular that was really good, but have to research it again as I lost it last year. Just gotta go through a few dozen old mags....

[TEPaul]

I know very little about baseball and its history and less about its I&B and its history. But if one is going to compare it with golf one thing I would like to know is how many manufacturers supply professional baseball with its balls and bats?

[Brian Marion]

I know very little about baseball and its history and less about its I&B and its history. But if one is going to compare it with golf one thing I would like to know is how many manufacturers supply professional baseball with its balls and bats?

One baseball supplier

Very few bat suppliers, less than 5 I woudl guess and that number has risen in the past few years. as far as bats go, they are limited to length, weight and barrel circ and must be made from solid wood throughout. (no corking!)

[Greg Ohlendorf]

Ralph,

I would love to see those articles. I still think that even the best would have to practice a whole lot to be competitive with hickories.

I will never forget swinging your "anvil" of a lob wedge at Beverly a few years ago. Yes, one could hit a lob type shot with it, but isn't like clipping a ball off a tight lie with a brand new Cleveland 60 degree wedge!! And the low screaming shots to the right with stiff as a board wooden clubs might be dangerous to spectators!

Best,

Greg

[TEPaul]

Brian Marion:

Thank you for that info on baseball's I&B manufacturers and suppliers. Can you possibly imagine how much that changes things for baseball compared to golf??

[Brian Marion]

Brian Marion:

Thank you for that info on baseball's I&B manufacturers and suppliers. Can you possibly imagine how much that changes things for baseball compared to golf??

Hmmm,

if baseball went the way of golf, we would have:

Individual baseballs, optimized for each player. In fact, at every at bat, the pitcher would be given the player's Wilson/Rawlings/Nike bag of balls so that they could be pitched to him.

(or, in reverse, each pitcher has baseballs optimized for his pitch mechanics!)

Graphite/titanium/aluminum/maraging steel bats that are the optimum weight and length for each swing. Home runs now regularly carry 500+ feet.

Longer outfields because modern players are regularly hitting 200+ home runs per year. In order to compare eras, each ballpark center field fence is now 500 feet, at great cost to the city/park owner. Now, a guy hitting towering 540 foot homers can be compared to Mantle in the 50's because they both hit it into the cheap seats.

and games take 3x longer than they should.

Sound familiar?

[TEPaul]

No Brian, that is not really what I'm saying. Both golf and baseball I&B obviously have conformance rules and regulations on their I&B and they both have had for many years. But the real difference between baseball with its single ball manufacturer/supplier is there is no incentive whatsoever for the single manufacturer/supplier to try and cheat with those I&B rules and regulations like the multiple golf ball and club manufacturers and suppliers have with golf's I&B ruling entities (the USGA and R&A). In a way what golf is up against and always has been with its I&B manufacturers and suppliers is something like NASCAR's multiple manufacturers that have a built in incentive to cheat the rules and the regulatory system because of the endless competition with marketing. It's a technologic, economic and marketing game and it is about 1,000 time harder to manage and regulate than baseball. The fundamental reason for the difference with golf and baseball is baseball is a game where human opponents vie for a common ball which essentially makes a completely standardized ball both necessary and optimal for all. That is not the FORMAT STRUCTURE of the game of golf! In this way golf may be unique in this world as a world-wide ball or stick and ball game!! It has begun to just fascinate me why so few people seem to understand this even slightly, much less its component ramifications.

Or perhaps an even starker way to see the difference is for anyone to ask themselves----who buys the baseballs in organized baseball? And who buys the golf balls in organized golf? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()