The irony of distance...

[Brian Marion]

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? 

Gotcha! I misunderstood your post.

You are dead on the money.

[Sean_A]

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...

Sully the Sage.

Ciao

[Phil Benedict]

The best analogy to golf is tennis, where technological change has been embraced, fundamentally changing the way the game is played at the highest levels.  Opinions vary on whether the change is for the better.

In tennis it's about the racquets and the strings, not so much the balls which if anything have been slowed down.  Serve and volley has disappeared because the ball travels so fast with modern racquets that the server doesn't have time to get in to a good position to make the first volley, inside the service line.

The game can still be beautiful - witness the matches in London over the weekend - but it's not the same game Rod Laver or even Bjorn Borg played.

Technology has probably improved tennis for the recreational player, who can hit the ball harder and with more spin than was possible with wooden racquets. 

Has technology made golf better for the recreational player?

[Tim Martin]

The best analogy to golf is tennis, where technological change has been embraced, fundamentally changing the way the game is played at the highest levels.  Opinions vary on whether the change is for the better.

In tennis it's about the racquets and the strings, not so much the balls which if anything have been slowed down.  Serve and volley has disappeared because the ball travels so fast with modern racquets that the server doesn't have time to get in to a good position to make the first volley, inside the service line.

The game can still be beautiful - witness the matches in London over the weekend - but it's not the same game Rod Laver or even Bjorn Borg played.

Technology has probably improved tennis for the recreational player, who can hit the ball harder and with more spin than was possible with wooden racquets.  

Has technology made golf better for the recreational player?

Phil-I think you would have to say that technology has made the game more fun for the recreational player. You hear so often guys in their fifties say they are hitting it as far or farther than they did in their thirties and forties because of the new equipment. Additionally the mishits are minimized with the advent of cavity backs, big headed drivers and fairway metals, as well as putter technology and composition. As someone who played a fair amount of tennis back in the day getting my hands on a Prince racquet was a game changer both in the level of performance and fun. Those small headed Davis racquets were pretty to look at much like an old blade iron but not so easy to hit on the sweet spot.

[TEPaul]

Phil Benedict:

You're right that tennis at the top level sure has changed and it's probably mostly due to the racket evolving.

I never played tennis much but I did go to Forest Hills annually in the 1950s and early 1960s. That is of course grass and the ball does not bounce on grass anything like composite courts. That was the U.S. Opens and the era of Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Trabert, Seixas and then later guys like Stan Smith, and a bit later Arthur Ashe. The gals were the likes of Margaret Court and Althea Gibson et al. The rallies were a lot longer and some matches could take forever as it was just before the beginning of the Van Alen Scoring System (VASS). I thought the players were a lot more stylish back then----two handed shots and excessive power in serving and returning were not much part of tennis then. It seemed like it was a whole lot more side to side strategy, and more often the beautiful back court lob compared to today's ultra power tennis. Trabert was really strong but even his style was nothing like players today or even the next generation like Connors and MacEnroe.