[Niall C]

What is unique about ANGC, CPC and Seminole?

How they're governed ?
I should have included PV.

There are lots of exclusive clubs with small memberships and difficulty in access.

Could you name 5 in the U.S. with golf courses of similar quality ?

Patrick

I assume from your posts that you think that if any of these clubs adopted this approach that this would lead to others following and eventually everyone in golf playing with this new type of ball. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Let me make several observations;

1. These clubs are I believe members clubs and unless I am very wide of the mark most of the members will be average golfers. How many of them will feel the need to give up yardage to turn the clock back to how the game used to be ? Indeed, I wonder how much the average Seminole member pays each year for new equipment just to get that added bit of distance.

2. Even if the turkeys did vote for Christmas, what difference do you think that would make on anyone else ? I would suggest that its been a very long time since the game as a whole took any heed of the "top" clubs. These days its all about the constant jousting between the manufaturers and the regulators with next to no input from the clubs.

3. Speaking of regulators, I think I'm right in saying that the spec of the ball is already set out therefore how likely is it that a club, any club including ANGC, would bring in a "rule" in direct violation of the rules of golf ?

Just some thoughts.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I assume from your posts that you think that if any of these clubs adopted this approach that this would lead to others following and eventually everyone in golf playing with this new type of ball. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I'm correcting you.
The primary purpose would be to play those unique golf courses as they were intended without having to lengthen the course or alter any of the features.

Let me make several observations;

1. These clubs are I believe members clubs and unless I am very wide of the mark most of the members will be average golfers.
How many of them will feel the need to give up yardage to turn the clock back to how the game used to be ? Indeed,

Clubs develop their own unique cultures.  Oakmont is a good example with regard to their green speeds.  Green speeds on sloped greens that few clubs would embrace.   Similarly, the clubs I cited could easily adopt their own unique culture that focuses on the ball/distance.

I wonder how much the average Seminole member pays each year for new equipment just to get that added bit of distance.

I wouldn't know.

2. Even if the turkeys did vote for Christmas, what difference do you think that would make on anyone else ?

Seminole closes in May, when the members return to their Northern clubs.
I think you underestimate the degree of influence of clubs like Seminole and their memberships.
Certainly you've heard of the influence ANGC has had on maintenance practices.
Why not the ball ?

I would suggest that its been a very long time since the game as a whole took any heed of the "top" clubs.

Then you're out of touch with reality.
ANGC and courses televised on the PGA Tour continue to influence golf in the U.S.

 These days its all about the constant jousting between the manufaturers and the regulators with next to no input from the clubs.

Where do you think the regulators often belong ?

3. Speaking of regulators, I think I'm right in saying that the spec of the ball is already set out therefore how likely is it that a club, any club including ANGC, would bring in a "rule" in direct violation of the rules of golf ?

I think you're wrong and have NO understanding of the ball specs.

The ball specs state that a ball can't be SMALLER than 1.68 inches in diameter.
The ball specs state that a ball can't weigh MORE than 1.62 ounces

Hence, the LIGHTER ball would NOT violate any regulations

Hope that helps.

P.S.  Please refamiliarize yourself with the rules of golf

Just some thoughts.

Niall

[Niall C]

Patrick

Thanks for correcting me on my assumption.

I take your point about membership of ruling bodies and top clubs however that is different to individuals having an infliuence and clubs having an influence. In the old days the clubs ran the championships, certainly on this side of the pond, until the R&A effectively took over. Prominent members of the R&A who were also members of top clubs elsewhere (eg. WH Fowler, HS Colt, John Low etc) continued to exert a controlling influence however they did so as individuals rather than representatives of other clubs that they were members of. Thats a big difference.

If you think thats not the reality now and I'm out of touch then I would be very pleased to hear more about it. Incidentally I thought that the set up of tour courses was down to the Tour, that being so, how would clubs have an influence there ?

As for the Rules of Golf, no need to refamiliarise myself with them as I've never bothered to read them in detail. The basics suffice, eg play it where it lies and if in doubt take the penalty drop.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Thanks for correcting me on my assumption.

Niall, it wasn't an illogical assumption.
The trickle down theory is one that I've advocated for years, but, that theory has its genesis at ANGC and the Masters.

This issue isn't about universal dial back, it's more about freezing the impact of distance on a course, especially a land locked course, by providing a ball that keeps the architecture relevant.

I take your point about membership of ruling bodies and top clubs however that is different to individuals having an infliuence and clubs having an influence. In the old days the clubs ran the championships, certainly on this side of the pond, until the R&A effectively took over. Prominent members of the R&A who were also members of top clubs elsewhere (eg. WH Fowler, HS Colt, John Low etc) continued to exert a controlling influence however they did so as individuals rather than representatives of other clubs that they were members of. Thats a big difference.

YOU made the quantum leap to the ruling bodies, my thoughts were more local in nature.
Clubs develop their own unique culture.
Oakmont is a perfect example of that.
They, the membership, revels in the pace of those greens.
When you play Oakmont, you accept their terms, their maintainance practices and their playing conditions.
They, the membership, doesn't care if you three, four or five putt.

Extending that culture to include a "club ball" seemed to be a natural at clubs with an existing culture.
PV, ANGC, Seminole and others have the foundation for those cultures.
While support is rarely unanymous for any venture/project/set-up, I can see support for the concept of a lighter ball, especially at clubs where members also serve on committees of the ruling body.

If you don't do anything, the distance problem is only going to get worse.

So, you can sit back and lament the destruction of great old courses or attempt to come up with alternatives that seek to preserve them.
Especially on land locked courses.


If you think thats not the reality now and I'm out of touch then I would be very pleased to hear more about it.
Incidentally I thought that the set up of tour courses was down to the Tour, that being so, how would clubs have an influence there ?

The "Tour" has no influence over the set-up of ANGC, Seminole, CPC or PV.

As for the Rules of Golf, no need to refamiliarise myself with them as I've never bothered to read them in detail.
The basics suffice, eg play it where it lies and if in doubt take the penalty drop.

Obviously you don't play with your friends for money.
The rules are there to help you, you should be familiar with them

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Since a lighter ball has been legal all along, why hasn't anyone made one and marketed it to, for example, women golfers as a way to increase distance. Could it be that its benefits are not sufficient to overcome its shortcomings?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Since a lighter ball has been legal all along, why hasn't anyone made one and marketed it to, for example, women golfers as a way to increase distance.

Garland,

How would it increase distance ?

Could it be that its benefits are not sufficient to overcome its shortcomings?

What are the benefits ?  What are the shortcomings ?

[Ken Moum]

Garland,

How would it increase distance ?
[/color]

Pat,

Read my posts #45 and #49....

Here's the text of 45:

I've been advocating a lighter ball here and elswhere for several years. A John VanerB. has noted in his essay, the 1.55-ounce ball was a monstrous failure in 1935, but he forgets that those balls were  ALL  balata.  Today's balls are far easier to control, which IMHO is a huge part of why today's top players are so damned long.

I watched Gary Woodland grow up in Topeka, and unlike the other really good players I have seen mature, (including the Byrum boys when I lived in Pierre, SD) he never had any fear of the ball leaving the premises.  IOW, he and others of this era learned the game while using a muchm much nigher percentage of their potential power.  Back in the 60s, Jack won some long drive contests @ 300-yards, but never attempted to swing that hard in competition on the course.

The fact is that  a lighter ball would bring shotmaking back for the best player not because the ball would be shorter, but because it would harder to control, just like a balata ball.  But the hidden benefit of it is that this effect would barely be felt by people with lower swing speeds.  Especaiily with today's lower spin balls.

In fact, there's an existing patent that claims that a lighter ball will actually go FARTHER for juniors, women and seniors.  see http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html

The lighter ball would sit up a little better, stay in the air longer, and generally be less difficult to maneuver.

I want to see a ball that weighs 1.55 to 1.58 ounces.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

As a Senior/Super Senior, I can't fathom how a lighter ball would go further for me.

Easier to manuever means more difficult to control, which I like, because it returns shotmaking to a more prominent role.

I never thought of the better lie (sitting up) but, that would be an incremental advantage.

Did you ever play the old, smaller R&A ball ?

[Tim Nugent]

Patrick, intuitively I would have to agree with you.  I remember those "British Balls".  This thread also brought back the practice of rolling balls on a table before a round to make sure they weren't out-of-round.
What if we went the other way and instead of proposing a lighter (and less controlable ball) we kept the weight the same and made the diameter larger.  I have never seen any data supporting this but it just seems to me if that smaller ball went farther, than a larger ball wouldn't (more friction due to the larger surface area?)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

In our group, the one that has been playing together for more than 45 years, one of the fellows played a larger ball for years.

I think Spaulding may have been the manufacturer, but I'm not sure.
I forget the name of the ball, maybe Magnum.  He's a pretty good gambler and one not prone to giving up an edge.
I never tried the ball so I can't speak to it's performance relative to my Titleist/s.

It would seem that it would take more retooling to produce a larger ball with the same weight than the same size ball with less weight, but someone more familiar with the manufacturing of golf balls could speak to that issue.

He also used the Atrigon (sp?) driver, but I think he may have invested in that company

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()