[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting on the hockey curve analogy.  Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita of the Hawks were the first to do that, in the early 60's.  No rule against it, and when they did put a rule in, they didn't take it back to flat sticks, they just set a maximum it could curve.

Sounds like the recognized the advantages of the curve blade, but took a guess as to "how much was too much."  I recall that too much curve just allowed too much puck control.  They limited that, while allowing the increased ability to hit the slapper.  Not sure if it was done scientifically or not, or just a guess.

USGA sure uses science to make its decisions, and probably faced the same dilemma - how to best use the new tech, but how much is too much?  Many think they guessed wrong, I know, but they sure did consider trying to strike the best balance.  Especially true when they want the one set of rules, and consider the millions of avearge players who need distance, vs the 100 pros who hit it "too far", whatever that is.

[Garland Bayley]

The are not regulating the factor that caused the latest distance boom. In the middle of the last century past, each time a factor came up that would cause a distance boom, or other detrimental action by the ball. They put a regulation in place to counter that development. This time they have not. Sorry if I got a little loose with my regulation specification.

This post is so wrong that it is impossible to know how to respond.  Truly remarkable.

In what way is this wrong?  The main reason the ball goes so much further today for pros and amateurs with sufficient swing speed is because they figured out how to make a ball with multiple layers, to allow reducing the spin rate for drives without compromising it for short irons and the short game.  No pro could play with a ball that maintained that same low spin rate for every club in the bag, unless it had just rained 2".

If they simply regulated in this one area, enforcing some sort of relationship between the spin rate off a driver and off a wedge, they could fix things.  But the USGA is afraid to do so, because they are now operating more as a hedge fund than as a sports governing body, and are afraid of losing their quarter billion dollar money pile.

Thanks Doug,

Good to see someone understands the ball situation.

[David_Tepper]

"Good to see someone understands the ball situation."

Garland -

I am having a hard time understanding what kind of fight you are trying to pick here.

Everyone here understand the ball situation! The ball goes further than it used to, at least for some golfers capable of generating high swing speeds. No one has said that it doesn't. Clearly, some of us have legitimately differing opinions regarding how big a deal that is.

With regards to other sports and how they have changed, it is clear that there have been profound changes in the nature of how just about every sport is played over the last 100 years. Do you agree with that?

Given that every sport is different, those changes have manifested themselves in different ways. Remember, there was a famous golfer (Nelson or Snead, I think) who said the biggest cause of change in golf over his lifetime was "the lawnmower."

DT      

[Garland Bayley]

David,

The situation I was referring to was the unregulated spin and its effect on distance. A.G. seemed to think that was wrong. Doug responded that it is correct.

Sports have changed. No question about that. However, as far as I can see the answers to all my questions posed at the top are still no. Got some misguided responses on some, lots off examples off the topic of the questions posed, but really no 100% negations for the most part. The questions were posed to be loosely analogous to golf, and you probably noticed some of Melvyn's issues in there.


Does this mean Melvyn was right?

 

[Ed Oden]

Garland, do you really believe your own responses or are you just playing devil's advocate to further the discussion?

[David_Tepper]

"However, as far as I can see the answers to all my questions posed at the top are still no."

Garland -

In that case, it would appear that you cannot see very far.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

"However, as far as I can see the answers to all my questions posed at the top are still no."

Garland -

In that case, it would appear that you cannot see very far.

DT

Well, I don't see real well and just had eye surgery so maybe you can show me where someone proved that the answer was not no.
Also, did I mention I'm getting old and my memory isn't that great either.

EDIT: Just one example. There has been some challenge to the basketball still being leather. However, according to the history of basketball link provided, the NBA uses a leather basketball. I can understand public schools etc. going to other materials for cost savings, but when it comes to the best practitioners that can afford any technology, they still use leather.

[David_Tepper]

"so maybe you can show me where someone proved that the answer was not no."

Garland -

Maybe you were asking the wrong questions. How is whether or not size of basketball courts changed in any way relevant to golf? As I mentioned before, the basic dimensions of a basketball court have been part of the rules of the game for decades.

The fact is that basketball over the years has made a number of dramatic changes that have impacted the nature of the game:

1) made the foul lane wider
2) introduced the 3-second foul lane violation
3) introduced the 3-point shot
4) introduced the shot clock
5) disallowed (and then allowed) zone defenses
6) disallowed goal tending
7) disallowed (and then allowed) dunking

Other than the size of the cup, has there ever been a rule regarding the length of a hole, the size of a green, the depth of a bunker, the proper length for cutting grass anywhere on the course, etc.? We all know the answer is no. You are setting up straw men to make a fallacious argument.

Each sport has coped with change in the ways thought best by their caretakers. What has happened in golf is no different.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

David,

The question was have basketball courts changed in size? Your answer in essence admits they haven't.
However, if I were to ask you if TOC at St. Andrews has changed in size, or ANGC, you would have to say yes.
Why? Primarily the poorly regulated ball.

Now lets not get into a basketball discussion, because I am in favor or raising the hoop, doing away with the shot clock, and doing away with the 3 point shot. As hall of fame basketball coach Ralph Miller used to say, they should give three points for getting the ball closest to the hoop to shoot, and 1 point for people casting it up from 25 feet.

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

To repeat my earlier post

"Everyone here understand the ball situation! The ball goes further than it used to, at least for some golfers capable of generating high swing speeds. No one has said that it doesn't. Clearly, some of us have legitimately differing opinions regarding how big a deal that is."

Golf courses have been changing in size for 150 years. The game will survive and, I suspect, grow whether or not some courses remain viable as venues for "championship golf." 

DT

[A.G._Crockett]

David,

The question was have basketball courts changed in size? Your answer in essence admits they haven't.
However, if I were to ask you if TOC at St. Andrews has changed in size, or ANGC, you would have to say yes.
Why? Primarily the poorly regulated ball.

Now lets not get into a basketball discussion, because I am in favor or raising the hoop, doing away with the shot clock, and doing away with the 3 point shot. As hall of fame basketball coach Ralph Miller used to say, they should give three points for getting the ball closest to the hoop to shoot, and 1 point for people casting it up from 25 feet.

It is, of course, an absurd comparison.  Basketball courts have remained the same size; true enough.  But the real difference between the basketball court and golf courses is that golf courses have never been standardized, and never will be.  Additionally, you might have noticed that basketball courts are indoors, and changing the dimensions presents some problems, no?

Yes, golf courses have gotten longer.  You choose to attribute all of that to the ball and equipment, which of course is not correct.  But for goodness sake give everybody a break and quit beating this clearly dead horse about other sports changing less and other sports not depending on knowing distances, etc.  It is just silliness on your part for the sake of argument.  It's neither original nor accurate, which is a terrible combination.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Garland

You make some interesting points but maybe didn't explain well enough why the other sports haven't changed or why they have changed.
Now Track & Field is basically dead as a spectator sport in America.  But I can remember there was controvesy in the high jump when the Fossbury Flop started and with the fiber glass pole vault.  I don't think those changes advanced(not the heights but quality) the events, but the rule makers couldn't decide what to do about it until it was too late.  Everyone had changed and it is difficult to go back.  In basketball you wouldn't need so many new rules if the size of the court was increased.  However try telling a team owner he is going to have to lose the courtside seats.  Can you imagine watching the skills of today's players on a bigger court, I think it would be an even better game.
I think most rule changes, and there have been many in other sports were to make the game better or more entertaining.  I don't know anything about hockey, but I suspect the better stick allows the talented player to show off his skills more?  Moving the goal posts to the end of the end zone kept football from becoming a contest of field goals.
Can we definitely say that the new equipment in golf has made the sport better?  Do the seniors and hackers really enjoy the game more and play better with new equipment?  Participation in golf is trending downward for the past 10 years, for many reasons, but has new equipment helped slow that downward trend?
Garland I think you have a few people thinking a bit, sorry most just dismiss your post without studying the historical and context of the rule changes.

[Dan King]

Jeff_Brauer writes:
USGA sure uses science to make its decisions, and probably faced the same dilemma - how to best use the new tech, but how much is too much?

They test most things, but they decided hell with testing for distance measuring devices. This would have been a fairly simple test. Measure how long it takes people to play a round of golf at a course. Then hand 50 some people distance measuring devices and see if it speeds up or slows down the days play. My guess is they didn't do any such test because they knew the test would show the devices slow down the game and that would ruin their justification for allowing these devices.

Cheers,
Dan King

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
 --Abraham Lincoln

[Garland Bayley]

...
Can we definitely say that the new equipment in golf has made the sport better?  Do the seniors and hackers really enjoy the game more and play better with new equipment?  Participation in golf is trending downward for the past 10 years, for many reasons, but has new equipment helped slow that downward trend?
...

I have asked on a club design website whether they have any scientific studies showing, for example, hackers playing any better with the new equipment. They had no studies. What they have are studies that show a high MOI club produces a slightly better result when not hit perfectly. When I pointed out there are teaching professionals that say their high MOI clubs are reducing the learning abilities of their students, the members made out like I was MHM or something. Go figure.

[David_Tepper]

Lynn Shackelford -

To quote (or paraphrase) your basketball mentor: "you can't have progress without change, but not all change is progress."

DT

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff_Brauer writes:
USGA sure uses science to make its decisions, and probably faced the same dilemma - how to best use the new tech, but how much is too much?

They test most things, but they decided hell with testing for distance measuring devices. This would have been a fairly simple test. Measure how long it takes people to play a round of golf at a course. Then hand 50 some people distance measuring devices and see if it speeds up or slows down the days play. My guess is they didn't do any such test because they knew the test would show the devices slow down the game and that would ruin their justification for allowing these devices.

Cheers,
Dan King

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
 --Abraham Lincoln

Dan,

I have read studies where they (not necessarily the USGA) have done such a study, claiming a result of speeded up rounds. Of course, if the instructions on the first round were, eyeball it and hit it, and the second round were measure it and hit it, I'm pretty sure the second round would be longer.

[Garland Bayley]

Lynne Shackelford -

To quote (or paraphrase) your basketball mentor: "you can't have progress without change, but not all change is progress."

DT

David -

To quote (or paraphrase) Anthony Gray: "you loose points for your spilling."

[Dan King]

Garland Bayley writes:
I have read studies where they (not necessarily the USGA) have done such a study, claiming a result of speeded up rounds.

Yeah, I remember those studies. They were done by Bushnell.  Can you guess why those would not have been reliable?

Cheers,
Dan King

Let us ever remember that our interest is in concord, not in conflict; and that our real eminence rests in the victories of peace, not those of war.
 --William McKinley

[Garland Bayley]

Lynn,

If you would be so kind, I would like your reaction to this refutation I got on another thread.

"Points #10 and 11--Yes; basketball players judge EVERY shot by markings on the court that help them determine distance from the basket, and QB's look at yard markers and first down markers as they throw."

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Basketball players don't judge EVERY shot by markings on the court.  Put them on a court without lines and they would shoot about the same, probably with a slightly lower percentage.  Generally speaking you develop a sense for where you are by the markings on the court, which assist when you go up for a quick jumper before zeroing in on the rim.  Otherwise the brain measures the shot almost instantly when you look at the rim.  The lines give you a guide for whether you should shoot or not.  Too far out, and the coach, who sees those lines, takes you out of the game, assuming you miss.
John McPhee wrote a book about Bill Bradley and titled it "A Sense of Where You Are."  It explained for the author how a player develops a sense by noting the markings on the court and the basket itself, through hours of practice.
I cannot speak for football, but if a quarterback is going to be aware of the yardage markers before throwing a pass, he is probably too late in his release.  I suspects a receiver is more likely to be aware of the yardage lines.

[Jason Thurman]

...the members made out like I was MHM or something. Go figure.

Go figure...

As far as basketball goes, many NBA players, including Kevin Durant and Jalen Rose, have talked about how they can shoot shots by feel when they know by markings on the court where their feet are. This is what enables NBA-caliber shooters to connect even when someone like Shane Battier has a palm in their eyes. Much like golf, the elite players can shoot precisely by knowing their distance, while most mortals are stuck using feel and luck even with the same information at their disposal (hence the lack of 30 handicappers becoming 7 handicappers when handed a range finder).

Still, as Melvyn proved, it's probably not worth it to enter into a debate with someone convinced he's correct no matter how many times he's been proven wrong. Your thesis fails Garland. Plenty of people have pointed out examples that disprove your stance here. Time to move on.

[Mike Benham]

I check in now and then, but rarely post anymore.

Cheers,
Dan King

I think we can put this claim to bed ...

[Dan King]

Mike Benham writes:
I think we can put this claim to bed ... Wink

5212 > 1945

Cheers,
Dan King

Perfect numbers like perfect men are very rare.
 --Rene Descartes

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

I'm going to take Lynn's assessment over yours if you don't mind.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Lynn!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()