[Niall C]

I find even among golfers who are ready to admit that the standards of course and ball should be in true proportion, a disinclination to limit in any way the tools used in playing the game. They have a feeling that things should be allowed to develop themselves in any direction they please, and that "a man has a right to play with any ball or any club he likes." This idea of development is a very right and proper one in certain spheres, but a game does not seem to meto be one of them. The first thing we do when we start to play a new game is to lay down fixed rules and limitations; not otherwise can any game be even begun. The history of a game is, to a great extent, the record of the rise of inventive features which have been developed or checked according to their fitness for assimilation with existing conditions

It is sometimes argued that the rubber ball is an improvement on the gutta in just the same way that the gutta ball was animprovement on the feather. But the primary gain which the gutta ball effected was one of durability and cheapness; it did not make the scierntific calculations of the builders of the game of no avail, for, as far as we know, no such scientific conditions existed. I have never seen any evidence in the writers of old time which suggests that courses were laid out with a view to testing shots of known length or character; the greens semm to have been placed in well-guarded positions so as to bring out the cunning of the player rather than the athletic side of the game.

Golf today is far otherwise than in these lightly thought-out feather days. At present time an invention which has the object the defeat of existing conditions must place itself in antagonism to a game which is the resultant of years of theory and thought. We are not going to pull down St Johns Wood in order to encourage the development of the cricket bat. We have determined the limits of our grounds, and have measured them so that they have the proper capacity for bringing out the highest possible ability of the player, provided no outside agency upsets our equation.

So said John L Low in 1901 in response to the advent of the Haskell. Looks like the technologfy argument has been running for over a hundred years. It doesn't really give any confidence that technology will ever be stopped, mores the pity.

Niall

Edit: the above appeared in Golfing on 23rd October 1902 and not 1901.

[Jason Topp]

While I generally favor a ball rollback; I am not sure the fact the issue has been debated for over 100 years helps the argument.  It has been a good 100 years.

[BCrosby]

Niall -

Thanks for posting the Low quote. As with so many issues related to the game, Low was ahead of his time. A remarkable man who is sadly under appreciated.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'd say there was more of an impact on the game when gutta replaced feathers than Mr Low mentions in his essay.
  
http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1954/540613.pdf


edit: The winner's score in The Open dropped by three strokes when gutta replaced feather, and it dropped 3.4 strokes when rubber replaced gutta.
        The impact each had on its predecessor was nearly equal, as least in a scoring capacity.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

Thanks, great article.

As I have mentioned on this site on many occasions technology has not been controlled. The so called wise Old Men of The R&A never knew what they were looking at, believing their station in life was sufficient to allow them to make decisions. Yet they hardly made any, when called upon to do so they dithered. Late in the 20th Century they have allowed carts to be used for the able-bodied golfer and permitted the use of distance aids. These two activities are the core of the game of Golf; nevertheless our Lords and Masters allowed a game built upon walking and thinking to be turned into a near circus. They have done a total disservice to the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.

Yet not content they refuse to seriously address the ills that their own management (if one can really call it management) have created.

Technology needs to be controlled, it’s a simple lesson other sports have grasped, and yes this was known years ago. They never listened in the late 1890’s and have continued to this day believing they have the answer however their record proves otherwise.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I feel the point being made is that the Gutty did more in giving golf the stable platform to become consistent. We know the problems of the old feathery which was very expensive (approx 6-8 more), its regular urge to change shape, certainly when moisture was about plus the stitching was not always as it should be. The Gutty floated , kept its shape and the moisture had not affect although it could shatter from time to time. Overnight the feathery was replaced by the gutty which allowed many more to take up the game as it became more affordable. It was quite regular for the R&A Gentlemen to lose around 6 ball in one round, that could not be sustained by the average man.

Nothing wrong with technology but it needs to be measured and controlled to maintain the consistency, not hand out improvements to a player because he can afford to purchase the latest club or ball. Rules are there to offer a honest playing field, to control the credibility of the game and I believe Low was touching on that within his article.

Melvyn

[JESII]

I didn't realize we were forced to play the newest equipment...


or to ride carts...

[Adam Clayman]

He laments the loss of cunning. Surely the direction architecture took, reinforces the fact this loss occurred. What does " everything right in front of you" say about cunning?

The reality that people like it easier, is reason enough not to give it to them. But anyone can build a hard course. So the devil is in the detail of how you make the course challenging.

Is there subtext of Joshua Crane disdain?

[BCrosby]

Adam -

Interesting that you mention Crane. Crane would have epitomized everything Low hated in golf architecture.

Ironically, Crane and Low were born the same year. But by the time Low had retired from the scene, Crane was still just arriving. I don't know of any public exchanges between them. But I would love to have heard Low's views of Crane. Low could be a devastating writer.   

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, While I didn't specifically direct the question to you, I wanted to. But, I figured I would just put it out there, allowing anyone to respond. I'm glad you did.

It's interesting to hear they were contemporaries. It makes me wonder if there wasn't a sea change in the mindset? Which begs the question, was this sea change a result of an America influence? I say that, Knowing how frustrated CBM became, when Chicagoans started changing some of the fundamental principles, learnt from his time with Old Tom.

My thoughts are that once the R&A, USGA put a rule in place restricting equipment, they opened the door to the recent criticisms of doing nothing to combat the I&B changes. This Masters illustrated to me, how the way layer, is now the status quo. A result of confidence gained from rarely miss hitting the ball, with any swing speed.

Addiction is defined as continued action in the face of adverse circumstance. Clearly there's been adverse circumstance affecting owner operators worldwide. The R&A is likely insulated from this perception because they have raised their fees and become so much richer, they don't see the problem.

 

[JESII]

This Masters illustrated to me, how the way layer, is now the status quo. A result of confidence gained from rarely miss hitting the ball, with any swing speed.

Adam,

Can you explain this sentence a little more for me? It seems to cut to the heart of the primary concerns of improved technology but I'd like to flush it out a bit...

Do you think the events of this years Masters illustrated the flaws/fallacy of the game benefiting from improved technology?

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I noticed the kids, Day, Rory, etc. swinging with such confidence and vigor, that it made think how different that was with the old equipment.

Even Tiger's mind must remember what miss hitting persimmons was like, and that memory might have someone of his age and caliber swinging a bit tentatively.

This could explain why the 20 somethings appear to be dominating. They never had to worry about the miss hit because their implements have designed that aspect almost completely out of the game.

Hope that covers it for you. Just an observation on my part.

[JESII]

Adam,

I think they hit plenty of balls sideways, at least in comparison to the best young players of any generation...but the fact that it doesn't faze them seems to be the result of technological advancements beyond just a giant driver club head and low spinning balls. I think the confidence from the tee comes from an unbelievably high confidence (borne out of success) at getting the ball up and down from anywhere near the green. I think this is a result of technology in maintenance (consistent healthy rough, easy bunkers and smooth greens) and clubs and balls.

If that's true, what could be done?

I've argued against any ball and club concerns on here for two reasons...1) I feel it impact too few participants directly and the indirect costs should be eliminated with common sense (why do we need a 7400 yard course when 9 people a year play those tees?) and 2) Roll back the ball/clubs 10 or 20 percent and the top guys will still figure out a way to hit it this far again...this is just a hunch based on watching the best athletes and scientists figure out better ways to do things for a long time...

[Bill_McBride]

Sully, I noticed the kids, Day, Rory, etc. swinging with such confidence and vigor, that it made think how different that was with the old equipment.

Even Tiger's mind must remember what miss hitting persimmons was like, and that memory might have someone of his age and caliber swinging a bit tentatively.

This could explain why the 20 somethings appear to be dominating. They never had to worry about the miss hit because their implements have designed that aspect almost completely out of the game.

Hope that covers it for you. Just an observation on my part.

Adam, my son David just turned 40. He has never hit anything but a metal wood.  Do you think Tiger ever hit a persimmon?

I certainly miss that feeling of a flushed persimmon, but not the mishits!

[Adam Clayman]

Bill, Anybody that was once on the Mike Douglas show, surely hit a persimmon. I may have been too limiting, by calling it persimmons, my real intention was "older equipment".

Sully, I agree the question is not easily answered. I too was originally skeptical about the rollback. Not because it wasn't warranted, but, because I just didn't see how they could put the genie back into the bottle. I've since seen the repercussions of increased costs to build and maintain the monstrosities built. But the key for me in becoming a roll back advocate was when course records started to fall. The kid from Alabama's 57 (or was it 56?) sealed the deal.
My observation during the Masters was primarily made when we saw them swing drivers. As for the short game and maintenance, I lament the softening of slopes on those wonderful greens. They appear to have taken the ability of the player to read the terrain, to being able to read the shaper's blade.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adam

It has never been a drive to impose my wishes or stop anyone from playing golf. My intentions has always been to draw attention that THERE IS A PROBLEM – which is getting more serious as the years go by. The R&A are unreliable when it comes to protecting the game so we need to raise the issues, making sure they are there out there even if it does piss off a lot of people.

The game and the courses are worth the effort, the current and future players deserve toexpect a fair and good value for money without being tricked into believing that it was their skill and not the equipment that has resulted in their improved score.

The inward feeling of realising that it was you that achieved that score or prize and not the latest set of clubs is unbelievable, spurring one on to greater pleasures and challenges. 

Add to that we will be able to keep the great courses and Holes that have been so much a part of our lives for so many years.  Hopefully the final result would be allowing the designers to have the sites and freedom to produce normal size golf courses for GOLFERS at a fair price for payment of fair Fees.

It’s never been about just preserving the game, but of maintain the quality of the game thus allowing our children and our grandchildren to taste and enjoy the pleasure that we enjoyed in our own youth.

The down side is that you will be seen as being on my side, but do not fret because you are on the side of protecting the qualities of a great game.

Melvyn

[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn, You are correct, The first step is to get them to realize there is a problem. As I said earlier, their (R&A) increased revenue stream would be a deterrent to that conclusion. I have no problem aligning myself with your motives. And, I don't think you're preaching to the choir, because there are plenty who don't see the problem. I can only surmise that my wasted youth, of excessive golfing, allowed me insight into the importance architecture plays in keeping our interest and stirring our souls. And that's without having grown up on Links golf. It's very easy for people to be satisfied with their courses, that is, until they actually do go out and play it everyday. Then they'll see if it holds up to the test of being compelling enough, in all circumstances, day in and day out.

I also agree with Sully when he says a 10-20% rollback will be ineffectual. The real question is what are the specifications for the I&B that will return the sport to being challenging, fun and compelling, while lowering the time it takes, and all costs associated. Early 1960's seems about right to me, but, anything pre-1997 would be better than what we have now. The irony will be for the clubs that spent all that money to soften, and lengthen their venues, if hell does freeze over.

[Niall C]

While I generally favor a ball rollback; I am not sure the fact the issue has been debated for over 100 years helps the argument.  It has been a good 100 years.

Jason,

I get where your coming from and I too appreciate some of the advances. For instance I recall learning the game as a kid with cut down hickory shafted clubs that stung the hands every time I mishit a shot, which was often. Would I want to go back to those clubs ? Absolutely not.

What I think is interesting about Lows quote is that he specifically is talking about how the new golf ball nullified some of the challenges of existing courses. It didn't make players any better, it just mean't that the ball helped overcome their deficiency in skill. You then get into a cycle of changing the course to give back the challenge and that then being nullified by some other technological advancement. When you think about it in those terms it seems the advance in technology and corresponding change of the course to compensate is a complete waste of effort.

It occured to me more than ever watching the Open at St Andrews last year that the biggest impact of ball technology is not how far they fly but how they react when they land. I watched on one hole where the pin was tucked at the bottom of a reasonably pronounced downslope such that the approach shot coming over the mound was at a disadvantage compared to one from the side or at least should have been. I saw any number of players get enough check to stop the ball from even as little as 20 yards out and this on supposedly fast and firm greens. When they can do that, wheres the premium to be gained in placing your ball ?

Bob

When I get my self sorted in the next week or so I'll ping some more JLL to you on the email.

Niall

[John_Conley]

This could explain why the 20 somethings appear to be dominating.

 

GOLFWEEK World Rank

1) Luke Donald - 33
2) Lee Westwood - 37
3) Matt Kuchar - 32
4) Steve Stricker - 44
5) Graeme McDowell - 31
6) Nick Watney - 29
7) Rory McIlroy - 21
8 ) Martin Kaymer - 26
9) Tiger Woods  - 35
10) Phil Mickelson - 40

If your reference is to the fact that some Major titles are currently held by young players, don't forget these guys don't have other Top 10s in Majors.  Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, and Shaun Micheel won big tournaments in the last decade.  It doesn't mean they were "domiating" professional golf.

[Adam Clayman]

The word "appear" qualified that statement which was influenced heavily by  the opening rounds at ANGC. World rankings move a little slower than the timeliness of that sentiment I intended. But otherwise good catch John.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()