Raise the goal to 11' or rollback the ball, what's the difference?

[Jim Nugent]

John - I kind of agree with you - In every sport, players have gotten stronger, faster, smarter, and overall more skilled.

I was watching the 1984 Open Championship tonight, and today's swings are so much better.  Most of the players in '84 still had the "Noonan" reverse-C where today's golfers are chiseled with scientifically based swings.

Are today's swings better, or are they just better tailored to today's equipment?  Don't know, but I remember an experiment several years back where one of today's real good touring pro's played a round with 1960s or so equipment.  He had a terrible time, often hitting 230 yard drivers, the ball squirting off right and left. 

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I agree with you that the NBA commissioner is doing a better job than the powers of the golfing world, generally.

But they have not done anything to roll back the ball, so commenting on what effect it would have is a bit speculative.  I agree with you 100% that the set-ups for tournaments have gotten over the top, but they are doing that to compensate for being afraid to roll back the ball.  Perhaps a better comparison would be that the NBA has not pulled in the sidelines and forced everyone to play down the middle of the court.  [Instead, they added the three-point shot.]

The thing about rolling back the ball is, it wouldn't take any temptation out of the game overall, because the holes are all differfent lengths.  It would just change the holes where that temptation came into play for different golfers.  That's different than raising the basket, which would affect everybody because all players are shorter than the basket.

Hell, you're from Indiana.  Do you think they ought to be driving 300 mph at Indy?

[John Kavanaugh]

Hell, you're from Indiana.  Do you think they ought to be driving 300 mph at Indy?

If that were so the Indy 500 would still be the greatest sporting event on the planet. I get goosebumps just thinking about the Darwinesque thinning of the masses as cars fly from the track into the beer swigging numb nuts that attend that borefest.

[Jim Franklin]

This is a great game and series because the NBA and its fans are not scared that the players are the stars. Mike Davis could learn a thing or two from David Stern. Tiger proofing has turned into fun proofing.

Couldn't agree more.

[A.G._Crockett]

David,

How many eagle putts have you had this year?  Are you willing to have fewer next year for the good of the game?  What is even more interesting, but may not apply, is the question of how many rounds did you muck up trying to get another eagle putt?

One of the things that you roll backers don't get is the beauity of temptation. When you roll back the ball you take away God's greatest test.  The test of temptation. Take away our desire to drive par fours or reach par fives in two and you remove that evil voice on our shoulder. Is that what you want?  Are you that weak that you want those decisions made for you?  Please, man up and take control of your own life.

John Kavanaugh,
This is my favorite post of yours in a long time, maybe ever.  Spot on.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a great game and series because the NBA and its fans are not scared that the players are the stars. Mike Davis could learn a thing or two from David Stern. Tiger proofing has turned into fun proofing.

Couldn't agree more.

Here is all you need to know about the US Open and having a bunch of 7 handicappers setting up a golf course with the idea that nobody should break par:

On the 18th hole, Justin Rose hit a PERFECT drive, and then hit a PERFECT 5 iron that never left the flag, two shots a good as any you will EVER see in championship golf under that sort of pressure. 

His third shot was a chip with a 3 wood.

Watching the US Open being won in reverse by the player that backs up the least has become an exercise in futility.  If I wanted to watch golfers have train wrecks I'd record my Saturday morning points game and watch that.  The contrast with the NBA playoffs is stark; we're getting to watch great players make great plays game after game.

[Terry Lavin]

This is a good NBA series, because it features two very good teams that are well matched and well behaved.  Not a single technical foul called on either team or coach.  But there are only two other good teams in the league these days and one of them, Indiana, wouldn't have made it into the playoffs ten years ago.  There has been a huge talent dropoff in the league.  The quality of play during the regular season is just plain abysmal, with very little defense or offensive discipline.  The game has gone to hell.

But as to the main point, I don't find this an apt comparison to golf.  In basketball, only the sneakers are better equipment-wise, and Mike Miller made a 3-pointer last night with only one shoe on!  The ball is the same.  The court is the same.  But the talent is diluted because of too many teams and too few players with significant college experience.  They come into the league with talent and attitude, but too many are not particularly coachable.  Sure, they are better conditioned, but the game has devolved into a mosh pit of grabbing, bumping, three-pointing and dunking.  No rim height change would make a difference one way or t'other.

As for golf, the players are better conditioned and I guess one could argue that the coaching is better, but the equipment changes are unbelievable, just in the past twenty years.  Big-headed drivers, hybrids, shaft technology, putter construction, you name it, everything is light years better in the past two decades.  Then there's the ball, for Chrissakes.  All of this is great for regular chops like me, but it has caused tournament golf to really enter a bitter phase of length, punishing rough, brick hard turf and giant, yawning bunkers, ultra-fast greens, all in an effort to keep up with technology.  

The easiest fix, of course, is a tournament ball.  But the pros don't want that, because that would take away some of the myth making about their talent.  When a player of middling talent (insert any of 100 names here) can average over 320 yards in driving distance, it's turned into a joke.  Hell, ten years ago at Olympia, Jonathan Byrd (no bomber is he) hit a drive 340 yards on the final hole, leaving a wedge into a long par-4.  When distance means nothing, and it doesn't mean a darned thing on tour, they will resort to the other remedies which leave a real bad taste in my mouth, because a lot of it trickles down to regular club golf.  People at private clubs still plead for greens that run at 12 on the Stimpmeter.  Many take pleasure in seeing impossible hole locations, especially if they can impress their guests.  And there's no denying that the overwhelming majority of play is from tees too far from the hole.  This all derives from the inability of the ruling bodies to do anything about technology.

Not that anything will change.  Even here, the rising chorus is one of praise for another murder setup at our national championship.  The more things don't change, the more they'll stay the same.

[Brent Hutto]

I've had two eagle putts this year. Prior to six weeks ago, my lifetime total number of eagle putts was zero.

What changed? A year ago I moved from the 6,200 yard tees to the 5,750 yard tees at my home course.

I hit the ball about 200-210 yards with a driver. If my ball were rolled back, say, 15% then I'd be hitting those drives 175 yards. I am not sure I'd care to move up to play the course from 4,800 yards. The course's design features are as awkwardly placed for me playing it under 5,000 yards as they would be for a big hitter playing it from over 7,500 yards. The roll-back would definitely have some trade-offs, even if judged a Good Thing on balance...

[Jason Thurman]

Terry, you strike me as someone who probably watches very little NBA basketball but still makes sweeping generalizations about the league, largely based on a revulsion to how Allen Iverson looked in 1999. I meet people like that all the time. They watch an occasional playoff game, talk about how the teams from the good old days were better because they used the post game and shot midrange jumpers well, and complain that there's no intensity in the league and they'd rather watch college basketball. I think the worst quote I ever heard was "I just like to watch a game that actually means something," as though seeing a team of Calipari's one-and-doners try to play offense against a Bo Ryan team that's making a mockery of the game of basketball is some sort of window into the soul of James Naismith.

What basketball fundamentalists who bemoan the death of the post-up and the mid-range don't understand is that those particular pieces of offensive execution have now been proven to be extremely inefficient and poor strategies for scoring. Where you see undisciplined offense, I'm assuming you see Rockets and Nuggets and Warriors. In fact, those teams are arguably the most offensively disciplined in the league. The Nuggets in particular this year were amazing. I don't think I watched a single possession of theirs where the ball didn't touch the paint, and they got an open 3, layup/dunk, or trip to the free throw line out of what seemed like 90% of their plays. The only offense more beautiful to watch is the Spurs when it's clicking, and I don't think I've ever seen a machine hum like that one.

As for the idea that the Pacers wouldn't have made the Playoffs ten years ago, you've clearly forgotten how awful the post-Jordan Eastern Conference was. He almost carried the Wizards to the Playoffs that year, and I can assure you that Wizards team wasn't as good as this year's Pacers team.

With respect though, I gather that you're a decent player and would expect that you play at quite a few clubs with solid playing memberships. Places like Olympia may still need to defend themselves from everyday players with wild hole locations or very stiff rough. However, my home course still doesn't have a single plus handicapper. For the guys I hang out with, the new equipment makes the game more enjoyable. I suspect that's true for the HUGE majority of golfers. If you keep the rim in basketball at ten feet, guys like me who can't dunk can still have a good time playing with guys who can (or even against them, but with is better). Raise it to 11 feet though, and Blake Griffin and Lebron will keep right on dunking but my three point shot is only going to drop 1 out of 5 times instead of 2 out of 5. As you mentioned, too much play already occurs from tees to long. Do you really think people are going to swallow their pride and walk up a tee if equipment gets rolled back? I think they're more likely to walk home.

If the pros are so great, let them shoot 59. But leave the equipment that makes the game more fun for everyone else alone. Hitting the ball far is more fun than hitting it short, and the game is still challenging enough to be enjoyable for guys like me.

[Terry Lavin]

Jason,

You said, "Terry, you strike me as someone who probably watches very little NBA basketball but still makes sweeping generalizations about the league, largely based on a revulsion to how Allen Iverson looked in 1999."

In fact, I've been a Bulls season ticket holder for nearly thirty years and I follow the game closely.  I've probably been to as many games in person as you've seen on television.  I've been to countless playoff and Finals games at home and on the road.  We may disagree and you might think I'm a "fundamentalist", which makes me chuckle, but my distaste for the game is borne of watching a lot of games closely, not from a casual fan standpoint.

As for your last point, I agree that the equipment should be left alone for us mere mortals.  Game improvement equipment grows the game for regular players, but it has had a chilling effect on the professional game, IMHO.

[Josh Tarble]

I still don't know where I stand on the equipment issue.  I keep flip-flopping on what I think should be done.  But I do know having the same equipment is both a gift and a curse for golf.  I wish golf would take more of a cue from basketball in that aspect. 

In basketball, no amateurs are even dreaming they could step on the court with Lebron, yet in golf there are so many golfers that think they can play the same game as the pros, whether it's for one shot, one hole or one round.   The fact is, pros play a game unfathomable to most amateurs.  The equipment may have made it too easy/too far/unskilled, whatever, for the pros and 1% of players, but for the other 99% of golfers, it's made the game much more enjoyable because now they can make an occasional eagle/birdie/par and imagine they're playing with Phil Mickelson.

To really change the game, the fundamental attitude of all golfers needs to be changed into thinking more about match play/speed of play/less about par/etc. and realize they are not playing the same game as pros.  Until that happens, nothing substantial will ever really change.

[Brent Hutto]

I can't play basketball against LeBron but I can certainly shoot an NBA basketball at an NBA basket while standing on an NBA court. And I will have exactly the same chance of making the shot as I would using the hoop over my next-door-neighbor's driveway.

[Joe Hancock]

I wouldn't have an issue with the equipment if it didn't have an adverse affect on the field on which the game is played. But, it seems, that because we can hit the ball further, we negate that added pleasure by lengthening the courses. Seems silly to me. It also adds cost to course maintenance, which isn't good for anyone.

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

I wouldn't have an issue with the equipment if it didn't have an adverse affect on the field on which the game is played. But, it seems, that because we can hit the ball further, we negate that added pleasure by lengthening the courses. Seems silly to me. It also adds cost to course maintenance, which isn't good for anyone.

Joe

Joe,

Balls don't lengthen courses, people lengthen courses.  What makes you believe that a tournament ball would stop course owners or members of great clubs from changing their course in ways that make it tougher and more expensive to maintain?

Can anyone name a single instance in human history where technology was rolled back by the hand of man and positive results incurred?

[Joe Hancock]

I wouldn't have an issue with the equipment if it didn't have an adverse affect on the field on which the game is played. But, it seems, that because we can hit the ball further, we negate that added pleasure by lengthening the courses. Seems silly to me. It also adds cost to course maintenance, which isn't good for anyone.

Joe

Joe,

Balls don't lengthen courses, people lengthen courses.  What makes you believe that a tournament ball would stop course owners or members of great clubs from changing their course in ways that make it tougher and more expensive to maintain?

Can anyone name a single instance in human history where technology was rolled back by the hand of man and positive results incurred?

I can't justify anyone's decision to lengthen a course any more than I can justify a tourney ball or a rollback. I'm just pointing out ramifications that, to me, don't seem good for the game.

Joe

[Dan Kelly]

Can anyone name a single instance in human history where technology was rolled back by the hand of man and positive results incurred?

This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure it's the right one. It's hard to think of any significant occasions in human history when technology has been rolled back -- to good or ill effect (not that rolling back the ball would qualify as significant).

Isn't the question "What rollbacks in technology would make life better"?

About those, we could argue. And no doubt would.

[Tom_Doak]

Hell, you're from Indiana.  Do you think they ought to be driving 300 mph at Indy?

If that were so the Indy 500 would still be the greatest sporting event on the planet. I get goosebumps just thinking about the Darwinesque thinning of the masses as cars fly from the track into the beer swigging numb nuts that attend that borefest.

  Ok, great answer.  But I noticed you ducked the other part of my post.  That being, if you roll back the ball, you don't ELIMINATE temptation, you just change which holes are tempting for which players.

Right now the really tempting holes for the pros are the 550- to 580-yard par five holes.  I know that you're not thinking of them, you're thinking of you and your friends and the 480- to 510-yard holes that you can try to reach in two ... which used to be the holes that were tempting for the pros, back when Big Bertha was still an artillery piece.

What you're not acknowledging is that whatever you are gaining in temptation on the 500-yard holes, you've lost on the 440-yard holes which have now become routine.

[Peter Pallotta]

The Reagan-Gorbachev Arms Control Treaty has probably been of some use, vis-a-vis ensuring the ongoing survival of the human race.

The problem isn't the technology, it's the absurd definition of a course 'holding its own' that's the problem. Thousands of members at hundreds of quality old courses across American just watched the entire golfing media fall on its knees in praise at how grand old Merion 'stood up' and 'held its own' against the best golfers in the world, with 'holding its own' referring to the even par-280 final score. And they all went to bed Sunday night dreaming that, one day, they too might be able to crow about their course 'holding its own'. Can you imagine the money, time, labour and chemicals/inputs needed to have most courses, heck, any course, meet that standard?

The problem, in short, isn't technology, it's the human mind, fallen, as it so clearly has, from the original state of grace that Max Behr and Dr. Mackenzie once wrote about....

[John Kavanaugh]

Hell, you're from Indiana.  Do you think they ought to be driving 300 mph at Indy?

If that were so the Indy 500 would still be the greatest sporting event on the planet. I get goosebumps just thinking about the Darwinesque thinning of the masses as cars fly from the track into the beer swigging numb nuts that attend that borefest.

 Ok, great answer.  But I noticed you ducked the other part of my post.  That being, if you roll back the ball, you don't ELIMINATE temptation, you just change which holes are tempting for which players.

Right now the really tempting holes for the pros are the 550- to 580-yard par five holes.  I know that you're not thinking of them, you're thinking of you and your friends and the 480- to 510-yard holes that you can try to reach in two ... which used to be the holes that were tempting for the pros, back when Big Bertha was still an artillery piece.

What you're not acknowledging is that whatever you are gaining in temptation on the 500-yard holes, you've lost on the 440-yard holes which have now become routine.

My only defense against that logic is my firm stance against bifurcation.  I don't want to play golf with that same silly feeling I use to get when I dunked on an 8 foot goal.

Everything you say above is entirely correct for the world at large.  What it does not address is my specific desires on given holes I have played hundreds of times.  Temptation is obviously a very personal matter.

I think I could be perfectly happy playing a tournament ball at the Red course simply because I currently have no expectations for where my ball should land.  In that way it is not a roll back at all.

[Tom_Doak]

I think I could be perfectly happy playing a tournament ball at the Red course simply because I currently have no expectations for where my ball should land.  In that way it is not a roll back at all.

Bingo.  The main argument against rolling back the ball is that golfers don't want to admit they're getting older and they are no longer as good as they used to be ... they still want to go for the par-fives like they did in their youth.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think I could be perfectly happy playing a tournament ball at the Red course simply because I currently have no expectations for where my ball should land.  In that way it is not a roll back at all.

Bingo.  The main argument against rolling back the ball is that golfers don't want to admit they're getting older and they are no longer as good as they used to be ... they still want to go for the par-fives like they did in their youth.

Yes, we want to be entertained during our leisure activities.  I don't golf to live longer I golf to live better.

[Bryan Icenhower]

I am reminded of Lee Trevino in the just released documentary saying he drove the ball 240 and Jack drove it 260-280 during the 71 Open.
 
240 is my hybrid
260 is my 3 wood
280 is my drive

Which of the potential causes that have been brought up in this thread allows me, a 9+ handicap to hit the ball further than or equal distance to some of the great players of my lifetime:
Is that because I am bigger and stronger than the above?
Do I have a better swing due to coaching?
Is it in the turf conditions?
Or is because of the main piece of equipment in the game - the ball and the club?

[Garland Bayley]

Can anyone name a single instance in human history where technology was rolled back by the hand of man and positive results incurred?

Little league bats have been rolled back, and fewer kids are getting hurt.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am reminded of Lee Trevino in the just released documentary saying he drove the ball 240 and Jack drove it 260-280 during the 71 Open.
 
240 is my hybrid
260 is my 3 wood
280 is my drive

Which of the potential causes that have been brought up in this thread allows me, a 9+ handicap to hit the ball further than or equal distance to some of the great players of my lifetime:
Is that because I am bigger and stronger than the above?
Do I have a better swing due to coaching?
Is it in the turf conditions?
Or is because of the main piece of equipment in the game - the ball and the club?

Bryan,

It is what you are smoking.  You, a nine handicap, do not drive the ball anything like Jack did in 71.

[Garland Bayley]

There are 35 handicaps that drive the ball farther than Jack did in '71. Usually golf is a choice between long and straight. Many choose long. Jack didn't have to choose.