Rollin’ back the ODS, then what?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here's what I see as the main differences.  

Today the ball goes longer and straighter and we're hitting shorter clubs into holes today than the past.  Don't forget that all clubs (not putter, obviously) have stronger lofts (probably on average 4 degrees, which is approx. one club difference) than in the past, so today's 9-iron is yesterday's 8-iron.

However, today's green speeds are a lot faster, making the putts on "severe" greens of yesteryear that much harder.  Though greens are "truer" than in the past, an advantage for today, Pebble Beach notwithstanding  

[TEPaul]

How should the USGA and the regional golf associations handle the differences between the competition ball and "other" balls for handicap purposes?

Since there has to be a difference considered in performance which logically should relate to score are golfers expected to notate which ball they use when posting a score? As we all know this is a question never faced by golf's organizations  before since there has only ever been on B&I standard for golf balls.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Can you detail why this is an important issue?

Why not just say that if you want to qualify for USGA events, you must do so with a competition ball.  The guys who really want to play in such events would probably just do so.  For the rest of the population, I have trouble seeing why it will really matter that much.

[Dan Kelly]

Tom I --

Tim asks a good question.

To your good question: I don't know enough about handicap computations to give you a good answer -- but I wouldn't think that having two kinds of balls would overtax the USGA's intellectual resources. Tournament rounds are already treated differently from Non-Tournament rounds, aren't they? It's not difficult for me to imagine that Competition Ball rounds could be treated differently, somehow (yes, I know: the "how" in "somehow" is your question) from Non-Competition Ball rounds.

I'm in no position to say what that "how" in "somehow" should be. But this I am sure of: It's not as though the current system produces perfect results, and we dare not fiddle with it.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

I'd like to hear Tom's answer too.  As he well knows, from previous discussions on this subject, it is not true that there is no expereince in handicapping in an envronment in which different sprecification balls were played.  They did it in all of the world except the US and Mexico when the USGA and R&A had different standards, up to the early 80's, with no problem.

Shame on you, however, Dan, for even implying that the current USGA handicap system is anything but completely perfect.  At the very least it keeps a small army of functionaries and factotums employed in these trying economic  times.

[TEPaul]

The reason I asked the question about how a "competition ball" would be handled for handicap purposes is this:

Heretofore (from the beginning) the USGA has administered the rules of golf under one set of Balls and Implements rules. All they deal with in administering all of golf, including handicapping, is conforming equipment and nonconforming equipment. A score for handicap purposes is not supposed to be submitted if any nonconforming equipment is used.

But if a "competition" ball is used, for the first time you basically have two separate sets of "conforming" B&I rules. So presumably either ball can be used when submitting a score for handicap purposes. But logically the two different types of balls "competition conforming" and "noncompetition conforming" have quite different specs and performances.

Say you rolled the competition ball back 10%. How would that translate into your expected handicap which is nothing more than your "estimated scoring potential" between either type ball? Would a player's scoring differential between either type ball be 1%, 3%, 10%?

There is any number of ways this expected handicap differential may be handled for posting and handicap purposes. There could be a separate "competition" ball designation when a score was returned when only a "competition" ball was used for a round. Presumably a "competition" ball could be piggy-backed with the "T" (tournament) designation if the USGA could somehow get all tournaments that now require the "T" designation to require the "competition" ball only be used!

Or would you need a separate handicaps for "competition" balls and "noncompetition" ball? Can any of you see any problems resulting in equitable handicaps when a single handicap is used to somehow blend the use of two separate types of balls with different specs and performances across someone's scoring record?

Somehow these things can be accomodated I'm sure but I really don't think the USGA will ignore the fact that logically different scores might be derived between the two different specs and performance characteristics of the two separate sets of "conforming" balls.

At the very least it will be far more of an administrative headache for all involved in handicapping in any way.

Is the proposal to institute a "competition" ball really all about how far the pros are hitting the ball today? If that's it, how about one set of B&I rules and regs, performance characteristics for professionals and another for amateurs, period?

It will also be interesting to see how the manufacturers view the production and marketing of a "competition" ball. Certainly it has to make economic sense to them or they won't agree to manufacture a "competition" ball. I was quite interested to hear how cheap Nicklaus said it would be for manufacturers to produce "competition" balls. I'd like to hear more on that from him!

What do you all think about the so-called "Walter Mitty" effect of marketing the same equipment to all golfers so they can see how they compare
? Ultimately would that important effect work better if all golfers were using the same regs and specs or different ones? More golfers than one would think believe they need the same equipment pro use and manufacturers play that delusion up! How would that one play out?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I've never worked in the golf ball industry, but would point out a few things:

a) most of the manufacturers already produce several types of balls, each with different specifications

b) they know how to produce balls with an ODS 10 or 15 percent less

c) it is highly unlikely any major manufacturer would drop out and not compete in this market

Frankly, we don't need the clout of the Nicklaus name to understand these issues.  It's pretty much common sense.  Any manufacturer who suggests otherwise simply isn't being honest.

As to the question of whether introducting a competition ball is a better alternative than simply lowering the ODS for everyone, I could go either way.

The key thing is to get people thinking more clearly about the difference between "absolute length" and "relative length" and highlighting the fact that, if anything, technology should be used to lower the cost of playing golf.

Our rebuttal to Callaway's "enjoy the game" should be:"people want to play more not pay more".

[Paul Turner]

Rich

I was there too (just).  And you're right, hardly anyone gave a hoot which ball was used.  

But then again, the peformance differences between the British ball and US were very small.  The British ball was about 10 yards longer for a drive in calm conditions.  You'd gain a few more yards into a strong breeze.

[Richard_Goodale]

Good point, Paul

When I am King, there will be two kinds of handicaps (if any).  One which represents how you do under competitive conditions, per the current non-US systems (and how the USGA may be moving with their "T" system), under which only scores played by the rules of golf, with B's&I's within standards, will be counted; and a "fun" handicap (per the USGA systems of today) which can be anything you want it to be.

Cheers

Rich

[Rick Shefchik]

Rich:

I think you've got your finger on the answer to Tom's question. I don't think there would be any more difficulty accomodating scores for handicap purposes if a player used both a Competition Ball and a Recreation Ball (or whatever we wanted to call it.)

Currently when you enter your score on the GHIN computer, you're asked to specify a number of elements regarding your round, including date, tees used and whether it was a tournament (designated on your handicap cared with a "T" next to the score.)

We could just as easily have a "C" appear next to each round we play with a Competition Ball, and your handicap card could carry two separate numbers: an overall number that relfected the blending of all rounds shot under all conditions -- Competition Ball, Tournament or Recreational Round -- and a separate number shot with the Competition Ball, if you chose to play it sometimes. For most purposes, the overall number would suffice; if you want to use handicaps for betting purposes, just agree that you're all going to use the same kind of ball that day. Obviously, tournament players would used the "C" handicap.

Dan's case for the competition ball makes unassailable sense; I can't see handicap issues standing in the way.

Rick

[TEPaul]

Sure, there're probably plenty of solutions for a competition ball for handicapping purposes, and some were mentioned. For every problem there's always some solution. It will be a lot of work for national, regional associations and on down though.

But still a "competition" ball would be the first time the rules making bodies have departed from one set of B&I rules--or any set of rules, for that matter. And this "competition" ball is only to solve the problem that the Tour pros are hitting it so much farther today, right?

How about a "Tour" ball for tour professionals if they're really the problem and maybe the only problem? Aren't they the ones these courses are getting redesigned because of? The "Competition" ball could be what tour pros (or even all pros) use. It could be a local Tour B&I rule. The US Open (and all other Opens) could adopt it's use in the "conditions of competition" since tour pros are playing.

That way you could just leave amateurs out of this! That way you don't even have to get into solving any handicapping problems because basically tour pros (or any pros) never use handicapping. And anyway, again, they're the problem and almost everyone on here seems to agree they might be the only problem with this distance issue!

[Dan Kelly]

Tom I --

You write: "But still a 'competition' ball would be the first time the rules making bodies have departed from one set of B&I rules--or any set of rules, for that matter. And this 'competition' ball is only to solve the problem that the Tour pros are hitting it so much farther today, right?

"How about a 'Tour' ball for tour professionals if they're really the problem and maybe the only problem? Aren't they the ones these courses are getting redesigned because of?"

I honestly don't understand your reluctance here. Would having two sets of B&I rules -- one overall set, for golfers at large; one set for competitions sponsored by the rule-making bodies (a set that the professional tours and other tournament committees could adopt locally) -- threaten the health of golf in some way?

The fact that something has never been done is absolutely no argument that that same something should never be done. If the USGA and the R&A were to accept that never-been-done-before view as a trumping argument, it couldn't have implemented any equipment rules in the first place! After all, before there were any equipment rules, there had never been any equipment rules!

I believe it's not JUST the PGA Tour professionals' length that jeopardizes the classic designs, and that makes necessary longer and longer, ever-longer and more expensive golf courses. It's the top amateurs' length, and the college players' length, and soon enough the LPGA players' length and the Senior PGA Tour players' length.

A Competition Ball solves all of the problems!

One more (unrelated to any of the foregoing) argument for a Competition Ball: Wouldn't it be FUN, Tom (and all of the rest of you), to play in some events -- as amateurs -- that required all of the competitors to use the same Competition Ball? Wouldn't that be fun in the same way, and for the same reasons, that it's fun to play in, say, a 7-Club Tournament? I say it would be -- and I can't wait.

[THuckaby2]

One more (unrelated to any of the foregoing) argument for a Competition Ball: Wouldn't it be FUN, Tom (and all of the rest of you), to play in some events -- as amateurs -- that required all of the competitors to use the same Competition Ball? Wouldn't that be fun in the same way, and for the same reasons, that it's fun to play in, say, a 7-Club Tournament? I say it would be -- and I can't wait.

My god YES!  I would LOVE that!  But I'd also dig an event where we each are issued a standard set of clubs, too... Don't mean to hijack this great conversation here, but that really struck me.

And Dan, you are making WAY too much sense in all this.  Who's doing the ghostwriting?  C'mon, you can tell me....

 

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

Actually, I'm just cutting and pasting notes I've received from Reed Mackenzie, the new head guy at the USGA.

We're old pals.  

Just kiddin'. I sent him a letter once, about a matter unrelated to the USGA. That letter cordially requested a reply. No reply was forthcoming.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

You must have loved Reed's profile in Golf Journal where he said, in effect, "my job as USGA President is not to do anything, but to be in the position for two years."

[TEPaul]

Dan;

I'm not reluctant to different ideas and changes, even radical ones.

But in golf organization and administration it's far better to look first and see where a problem really lies. And once you've done that as accurately as possible then look to see what any solution(s) to that problem may do as far as creating additional problems somewhere else.

When you say the argument that because something has never been done is no argument for the fact that something never should be done, you do have a point. But what you have to be careful of with that argument is that it isn't done simply for "changes sake" only! And in this way really analyzing both problems and their solutions is a better process than change for change's sake.

And that's precisely why regulatory and administrative bodies sometimes seem to be slow moving and even intransigent! They just don't believe that change for change's sake or the fact of doing something because it's never been done is a very good idea. And they don't respond that well to people who propose that either. They might however if that person would outline for them not only how their solution might solve an immediate problem but also all the other obstacles that may occur as a result of the change. If the change truly does solve a problem or problems and also doesn't create other problems in the process then change, even changes that may not have been considered before can only be a good thing!

I'm not saying I'm endorsing what the USGA is doing now, nor am I saying I don't think they should act on this distance issue. I very much think they should! I just have a different way of looking at this than you do, I suppose!

I just happen to think that they still can deal with this distance problem but in an overall context that would make a "competition" ball unnecessary and could also preserve the "one set" of B&I rules for everyone in the process. Naturally I'm talking about a "one set" of B&I rules overall distance rollback!

If they don't even attempt that (and I don't think they have much longer to wait to attempt it) or if they do attempt it and they can't pull it off, then is the time for a "competition" ball. A "competition" ball to me is a compromise measure! In other words if they wait much longer without doing anything a "competition" ball may be inevitable if the distance problem is to have any kind of solution and also if the USGA wants to stay in existence in anything resembling the form they are now in!

Why don't you tell me what you think is so wrong with a ball for tour pros, or even all pros? Call it a tour ball, a competition ball whatever you want to call it! And it could be an exception to the USGA's "one set of B&I rules" using a LOCAL Tour rule only!

Once the USGA agrees to two sets of rules for B&I there might not be any limit to manufacturers or golfers deciding that there should be many sets of B&I rules or even many sets of the playing rules for any and every situation. Then essentially the rules of the game will be completely fractionalized and basically a joke--and certainly an administrative joke as well!

If amateurs want to play with the "tour competition ball" because they think its fun then there is no reason not to. If their scores go up because of it they really aren't hurting anyone but themselves. And frankly the USGA's "handicap system" (the formulas and peer review) could probably figure out a way to deal with that.

All of this would seem more logical to me AT THIS POINT than a "competition" ball covered under a separate set of "conforming" USGA B&I rules.

I realize you might not agree with any of this Dan, but it's something I've thought about for years now and I believe what I say. The time may come for a "competition" ball under a separate set of USGA B&I rules and it may come soon but there is still time for other solutions that would be better and more comprehensive, in my opinion.

But they do have to act--and they need to act comprehensively and soon!

[Dan Kelly]

Doyen Paul --

(1) I can't imagine any problems that would arise from a Competition Ball.

Would you (or someone) please lay out the possible problems you envision?

(2) You write: "I just happen to think that they still can deal with this distance problem but in an overall context that would make a 'competition' ball unnecessary and could also preserve the 'one set' of B&I rules for everyone in the process. Naturally I'm talking about a 'one set' of B&I rules overall distance rollback! If they don't even attempt that (and I don't think they have much longer to wait to attempt it) or if they do attempt it and they can't pull it off, then is the time for a 'competition' ball. A 'competition' ball to me is a compromise measure! In other words if they wait much longer without doing anything a 'competition' ball may be inevitable if the distance problem is to have any kind of solution and also if the USGA wants to stay in existence in anything resembling the form they are now in!"

I agree with everything there -- and will merely add: If and when they do attempt it, my guess is that they won't be able to pull it off. The equipment manufacturers will ignore them (before and/or after suing them). The public will side with the manufacturers. And the USGA, by its intransigence -- by its high-minded (and I mean that respectfully, not sarcastically) unwillingness to acknowledge that the interests of Competitive Golf and the interests of Recreational Golfers are not synonymous -- will have forfeited its position as supreme arbiter.

I think we should bypass that bitterness and find a solution everyone will accept, before some court somewhere trumps the USGA. (I thought that the Tour and the USGA should have made an Exception to the Rules for Casey Martin, rather than fight a case they were certain to lose. By fighting that losing case, they let the courts be the authority -- a terrible mistake.)

That solution is the Competition Ball. OF COURSE that is a compromise! A compromise, in my view, is exactly what this issue -- like so many issues of politics and business -- requires.

[TEPaul]

Dan;

I already did lay out the possible problems I envsion with a competition ball at this point and I just can't do it again. Certainly you don't seem to agree with them but I would think you'd have noticed them.

I really don't agree with you on the Martin case either, although clearly both the Tour and the USGA (different cases BTW) realized going in that either way (win or lose) it would be a no-win situation for them but they defended what they believed in anyway! It was a public relations disaster and they certainly understood that going in!

Martin is a nice young man apparently but despite that I really don't admire the way he went about bringing that suit against the Tour. I'm not certain what the Tour's Nike or Buy.com cart policies are but he should have sued the Tour (if he was going to sue them) before he signed the Tour contract to abide by and play under their rules which clearly (right there in writing) included a walking only policy!

As nice as he may be and as touching as his case may have been or even ultimately tragic, sueing the Tour at the point he did seemed like simple expediency and working the inevitable public relations angle to me--which he did do!

And neither the Tour nor the USGA has any court as the "authority" in either of their rules making policies although clearly both did risk that possibility in both cases.

The Martin case was more significant of course and you will notice that the initial ruling, the Oregon judge, dedicatedly did not rule on the Tour's right or ability to make their own rules--including their rule to allow walking only! Initailly and ultimately the court only ruled on Martin himself and his ability to walk in the context of the Tour's no cart policy. If anyone else wants to ride on Tour they will have to bring their own case into court as did Martin.

And the Tour's "no cart/walking only" rule still stands as it did before the Martin case, and no court excercises "authority" over their rules making ability at this point.

[JakaB]

I hope and pray we never have a competition ball...if we are forced to play among our friends with equipment different than what we may use in a USGA event it would be like playing basketball on a nine foot goal.   What separates this game from others is our right to dream of someday finding our game...we all have the ability to find the secret of putting or deveoping a short game that would allow us to qualify for a mid-am or to even lower our handicap to try to qualify for an event....the competition ball would take this away on a day to day basis...will any of us really play a ball 10 to 20 percent shorter than the rest of our regular playing partners play...I don't think so and if we do its in the face of giving up hope...of accepting the knowledge that we are through as competitive golfers...I have never qualified for an USGA event but every year it is my goal...not even realistic...but a goal...a dream...a crapshoot where I hold the dice....It is my decision if I want to practice my short game...It is my decision if I want to lose weight and do flexiblity exercises...It is my decision if I want to spend time with my family....Gravity and age are burdens upon my ego...My dreams and own sense of reality are mine to reflect upon during the rain...so we all need to play by the same rules no matter how skilled...and be allowed to chase our own carrots no matter how stale.

[TEPaul]

"...by its highminded.... unwillingness to acknowledge that the interests of Competitive Golf and the interests of Recreational Golfers are not synonymous...."

Are you referring to professional competitive interests or amateur competitive interests or both? We've had some pretty strong interests amongst amateur competitors and also a large contingent of recreational golfers for a long time now and I'm not sure how similar their interests ever were and they seems to have coexisted all this time under one B&I set of rules, so could you tell me how or even why that's changed and become unsynonymous enough to need a legislated second set of ball B&I rules?

Are you saying that there are now too many amateurs out there who hit the ball too far or that as we hit the 21st century that recreational golfers have simply lost their interest and willingness to play be the B&I rules as they have for 100 years? Or are you saying both?

[Richard_Goodale]

JakaB

One of the real beauties of the "competition ball" concept is that it is perfectly designed for people like you and I who sit at the fringes of USGA qualifying.  Play the ball against your buddies.  Learn how to really grind when you are starting off with a 10% distance disadvatange on every hole.  Take a look at their faces when you get your timing right and blow that "competition ball" past the best efforts of their ProV69's.  This is such an idea who's time has come that those whose ideas remain firmaly rooted in the past will never get it.

Cheers

Rich

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Paul --

Your wrote, a while back: "When you say the argument that because something has never been done is no argument for the fact that something never should be done, you do have a point. But what you have to be careful of with that argument is that it isn't done simply for 'changes sake' only! And in this way really analyzing both problems and their solutions is a better process than change for change's sake. And that's precisely why regulatory and administrative bodies sometimes seem to be slow moving and even intransigent! They just don't believe that change for change's sake or the fact of doing something because it's never been done is a very good idea. And they don't respond that well to people who propose that either. They might however if that person would outline for them not only how their solution might solve an immediate problem but also all the other obstacles that may occur as a result of the change. If the change truly does solve a problem or problems and also doesn't create other problems in the process then change, even changes that may not have been considered before can only be a good thing!"

I asked you to enumerate the problems you envision with a Competition Ball because you said we have to move slowly and carefully, so as not to create new problems, so that we can deal with "all the obstacles." You sort of implied that I was favoring "change for change's sake" -- which isn't at all true! I'm favoring change for golf's sake. (So are you, of course -- just a different change.)

You write: "I already did lay out the possible problems I envsion with a competition ball at this point and I just can't do it again. Certainly you don't seem to agree with them but I would think you'd have noticed them."

I noticed you envisioned two "problems" (a.k.a. "obstacles"): (1) handicap calculation problems; (2) two separate B&I standards.

You're right: I don't agree that those would be problems. They might produce some minor headaches, but in no way (IMO) would cause any permanent damage to the game.

You don't have to answer any further, Tom, if those are the only problems you envision. I was just wondering, from you and from anyone else: Do you envision any additional problems that would be caused by a Competition Ball and that haven't been cited here?

[TEPaul]

If there were enough amateurs out there interested in taking Shivas's list of equipment recommendations seriously a "competition" ball for amateurs would probably be a fine idea!

So I guess those who ply this "competition" ball idea for amateurs feel that in competition if everyone had to use it and even equipment like Shivas recommends then it would be great!

Maybe so, and I hope that's what you mean. But if you mean it's just more fun period to play with the equipment Shivas listed then why aren't you. Honestly how many of you guys who are saying this have played more than two rounds with a persimmon driver in the last 5-7 years?

[JakaB]

I just realized after Rich's post that the competition ball is being proposed by people who want to bring the professionals game and the average golfers game closer to the same level.  This logic is as flawed as all equalization through legislation turns out to be.   More bad golfers will play the professional tees...fewer people will practice to get better...it reminds me of bilingual education and welfare...people raised on crutches never learn to run.  If Woody Hayes was a feel good wuss he wouldn't have told Jack Nicklaus to concentrate on golf and give up football.   Now Jack in his ivory castle on high fade hill wants to help those of us will less talent by giving us a bogus ball...just spank us and send us on our way like Woody would have we're big boys and the range is just a short drive from home.

Dan...I wondered why Minnesota did not have the Olympic Torch ran through its state...and your logic on this topic exposes the reasons like the soil in a French Judges panties.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

You listed my two major objections or obstacles correctly.

On (1) I suggest you discuss that with the USGA or your regional association to see how they view those "obstacles". Or even call some regionals all over the country.

On (2) that's one I think needs very careful consideration before launching into more than one set of "conforming" B&I rules! And if you look back at my post where I mentioned that and the reasons I think that's not only problematic but potentially extremely dangerous to the long term health of the game, I think you'll find out why I say that. You may not agree but those are my reasons and I don't consider them trivial at all and if you'd like to discuss it at length, by all means call me! 610-353-2966.

Rich:

Your last post?! Ahem--you're definitely "transcending" again! Get back down here on this globe where we all belong!