A Modest Proposal . . . . . . . please don't burn me at the stake.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

I agree.

Richard,

Do away with multiple tees. It worked for hundreds of years, no reason why it shouldn't now.

[Mike_Young]

My generation is the first generation to hit the ball further at 55 than at 30.  The guys that came of age during the ProV1 will lose distance as they age....

Not this old boy.....

agree...but you r 13 years older than myself....

[Bill_McBride]

My generation is the first generation to hit the ball further at 55 than at 30.  The guys that came of age during the ProV1 will lose distance as they age....

Not this old boy.....

agree...but you r 13 years older than myself....

Agreed, and the gap is widening!

[Tim Lewis]

To me this solution would have the same goal as having many different sets of tees, which is attempting to allow every player to experience the same strategies that good players do. Personally I don't understand why some people on this site feel that for a round of golf to be interesting, the player has to be able to "hit" the greens. This seems to be a contradiction to me since at the same time we praise the courses of the golden age for being fun and interesting for all different classes of player... and I'm pretty sure that those courses didn't have eight different sets of tees on each hole. Why do those of you who support this idea, and the tee it forward campaign believe that for a golf course to be interesting every player has to be able to reach the green in regulation?

[Dave McCollum]

Read this post just as I had to leave to take my body to a mechanic.  I’m back, six hours later, and am saying what I wanted to say before reading any of the discussion.  Sorry, at this late date, I’m certain I have added nothing of value.  Basically, I just wanted to encourage the Armenian to cut us some riffs.  More useless declaimers, when I saw that another Armenian was appointed majordomo of USC football, strangely, I thought of Gib.   

I’m on record here as agreeing with and advocating most of Gib’s proposal.  My minor quibble is his description about gaining compliance/acceptance with a competition or tournament ball as being a fool’s errand.  Public acceptance would be easy.  Nobody really cares what the pros do because nobody can relate to their games anyway.  As for the “various organizations to agree and enforce it,” really all that’s needed are the pro tours and only as a local rule for some competitions and courses.  Best, of course, if put in place for all pro tournaments—it’s the Indian, not the arrow—but that’s still the most reasonable solution no matter how it is applied.  The main drawback is the money paid to pros to endorse a certain ball.  They’ll get the money anyway for the rest of the gear and can endorse away on the TV spots.  Gib’s right, it all about the bucks, but requiring the pros to play the same ball won’t change anything.  Pros don’t buy golf balls.  Simply mold the message to those who do.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Actually, $500,000,000 doesn't sound like a lot of money. Isn't that about $20 per golfer if there are 25 million golfers in the United States?

Don't know if I am typical, but an average over the years, my "inventory" has probably been 2-3 dozen. As new golf balls came on the market, I never really changed the volume of my inventory. I just gradually worked through the old and replaced them with the new.

Besides that, on average, I have probably owned 2-3 sets of clubs (today I have 5 sets), so lots more money was tied up in equipment and balls were kind of a minor expense relatively speaking, especially when you throw in golf travel expenses, memberships, etc.

David Elvins,

You raise an interesting issue. As I have gotten older, many times I stood over a shot on a course I have played many times and thought about what I could do 25 years ago. On balance, I think it is more fun to play a hole in "regulation".

I can think of one par 4 on a muni course in Cleveland that sums up the issue. It is about 430 yards and a dog leg that requires a tee shot of about 270-280 for a clear shot into a very small crowned green.

About twenty years ago I played in a tournament on this course. There were 88 golfers that played and the median score was 77, which is exactly what I shot. Interestingly, only four players, myself included, made par on this hole.

Today, I have almost no chance to hit the green and, to be honest, the hole just isn't half the fun it used to be for me.

Don't know if I am ready to agree with Gib, but as Rich Goodale suggests, Gib may be right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

If it doesn't sound like a lot of money, just send me a check for one tenth of the amount and I'll call us square

[Thomas Dai]

Although maybe not as boundary pushing as Gibs worthily proposed 'superball', there are already specific 'lady' golf balls available, the Srixon Soft Feel Lady being one of them.

Does anyone in the golf business have any figures as to the proportionate sales of these lady specific golf balls in relation to overall ball sales.

ATB

[Rich Goodale]

IIRC, both Gib and Tom Paul (two of the finest golfers I have played with) used Lady Precepts when I first saw them play (early Noughties), even though their swings could not have been more different. One silky smooth and one neither silky nor smooth.

[Rich Goodale]

Gib

You are essentially arguing for multifurcation, and you are right, if you want the game to flourish.  Let's keep some standards for competitive golf, but for the other 99% of rounds that are played, let a thousand flowers bloom!

Rich

Wait,time out.There was a time when you espoused the "bifurcation will lead back to unification" theory.

Where the hell will multifurcation lead?(BTW--you should trademark multifurcation before it becomes just another Kleenex or Frigidaire)

Mr. JM

Vis a vis "bifurcation" I meant more to predict than espouse, and I was only talking about the "competition ball."  I still believe that this should be done (bringing more classic courses into play for the elite players and stopping the "size matters!" mentality amongst developers and even some GCAs....

As for Multifurcation(tm) if we want golf to survive, much less grow, we should realise that we have developed a world-wide series of monster playing fields, requiring at least 150 acres of (often) prime land and significant ongoing expenses to keep these playing fields (and their anciliary services) alive.  We should also understand that in the 21st century, most of the people who can afford our product do not have the time or inclination to make use of it, if "use" is confined to 5+ hour Bataan Death Marches around these playing fields, playing a game (if it is played strictly by the rules) which is extraordinarily difficult and often very stressful.

Fortunately, Multifurcation (tm) already exists, in many ways, some already already mentioned on this thread (multiple tees, availability of non-conforming balls and equipment) and some not (disinterest in playing strictly by the rules by the great majority of golfers, different handicapping standards for men and women, insistence that our playing fields be played as designed rather than how we wish to play them (rigid rather than flexible routing)).

If golf wants to prosper, it needs to accommodate the multivariate interests of its current and potential customers.  Even here in Scotland I drive by nearly empty golf courses almost every day.  What kind of business model is that?

End of today's rant.

Rich

[Thomas Dai]

IIRC, both Gib and Tom Paul (two of the finest golfers I have played with) used Lady Precepts when I first saw them play (early Noughties), even though their swings could not have been more different. One silky smooth and one neither silky nor smooth.

The Precept LADDIE was a damn good ball as well. With firm and fast conditions though, these softer-low spin balls don't like stopping on the greens, even with delicate cut shots and near-full-wedges, especially downwind, whereas with your ProV1's and Z-Stars you can play the one bounce and check shot, even with a half wedge, particularly if with good grooves. But this is getting away from Gib's original thread.
ATB

[Tony_Muldoon]

There is a sport where  balls have different specifications to reflect ability.  


Similar to the reluctance of older golfers to move up a tee, there is a reluctance for others to use anything but the elite ball.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21535.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Gib:

Talk is cheap.  Why don't you start manufacturing and selling the balls you want?

That is probably the future of golf, and that's what scares the USGA guys so much about bifurcation.  As someone from one of the equipment companies said to me 7-8 years ago, all of the equipment is now being made in China, and more and more of it is being designed in China.  So when the day comes that the Chinese decide they would rather compete with Callaway and Titleist than work for them, what happens when they decide they don't care about I & B specifications, if they can sell a new product?

It might have happened already, if China wasn't such a screwy place, and if golf development there wasn't still generally illegal.  But maybe it will never happen.  I am on my way out of China tonight, and happy to report that I don't have any plans to go back anytime soon.  They make everything so much harder than it needs to be, I don't think they will ever really get what golf was meant to be.

P.S.  If you need a prototype, I have one for you.  Hint:  it's 1.62 inches in diameter, and about 30 years old, when "bifurcation" was the way of the world.

[JESII]

I hate the idea...but don't have time to elaborate now.

[Garland Bayley]

The last thing we need is a bunch of seniors bombing super balls and insisting on longer courses.

For those of you that have not been paying attention, you already can buy nonconforming super balls to extend your length. Try buying them and teeing them up in your regular money game and see if you get caught. And if you get caught seeing whether your opponents don't tell you to go do something unthinkable to yourself.

Burn Gib, Burn

[George Pazin]

This proposal reminded me of one of the most interesting days I've ever had playing golf. I went out to my local muni as a single, and was added to a regular foursome that was missing their fourth. The oldest gent in the trio was maybe 65, and I was only 31 at the time. I was still trying to learn the game and only playing with irons at the time. He and I routinely hit our tee shots - my 4 iron versus his 3 wood - roughly the same distance, about 200 yards, maybe a scooch further (summer time rollin' on a baked out muni).

He shot 75 and I shot 93.

It was eye opening, watching him hit 3 wood approaches while I hit 8 irons. His were routinely closer, and when they weren't, he chipped and putted me to death.

I doubt he worried for even a moment about our respective length differences. We walked and talked and enjoyed our day.

Just think what we would've missed out on if he was hitting hepped up balls with his driver 280 yards.

Accept your limitations. Learn to adapt. That's a big part of the beauty of golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice post and perspective, George.

And, I guess like me, you're still trying to accept the limitations of putting up 93s more often than not!  

Good post by Gib as always - but I found myself wondering when exactly a bunch of crabby, smart-ass older guys like us suddenly got so loving and expansive and thoughtful as to worry about the experiences of other golfers  who, from what I can tell, aren't all that worried about it themselves, i.e. I don't think I've ever heard a 14 year old or a 70 year old or 40 year old woman complain that 'the ball doesn't go far enough' for them.

Peter

[Dan Kelly]

This proposal reminded me of one of the most interesting days I've ever had playing golf. I went out to my local muni as a single, and was added to a regular foursome that was missing their fourth. The oldest gent in the trio was maybe 65, and I was only 31 at the time. I was still trying to learn the game and only playing with irons at the time. He and I routinely hit our tee shots - my 4 iron versus his 3 wood - roughly the same distance, about 200 yards, maybe a scooch further (summer time rollin' on a baked out muni).

He shot 75 and I shot 93.

It was eye opening, watching him hit 3 wood approaches while I hit 8 irons. His were routinely closer, and when they weren't, he chipped and putted me to death.

I doubt he worried for even a moment about our respective length differences. We walked and talked and enjoyed our day.

Just think what we would've missed out on if he was hitting hepped up balls with his driver 280 yards.

Accept your limitations. Learn to adapt. That's a big part of the beauty of golf.

Great post, George.

As the older guy myself, now:

There aren't many greater competitive pleasures in golf than beating a younger, longer player -- are there?

Dan

[Rick Shefchik]

Gib,

I am going to disagree with you (and it seems almost everyone else).  

Golf is a great teacher of lessons that can be used throughout life.

Surely one of life's big lessons is to learn to grow old gracefully and accept your increasing limitations?  To be thankful for what you can do and accept what you can no longer do.

As Richard Choi replied, we already have a variety of tees to accommodate age and ability. We also have walkers, hearing aids, pacemakers, handicapped parking spaces, artificial joints, adult diapers, large-print books and early bird dinner specials. Life is full of ways older people compensate for getting old, and some of them don't involve gracefully sitting in a rocking chair on the front porch with a shawl listening to a Music of Your Life station. The super ball idea doesn't sound like something I want to try, but I don't see anything wrong with making the option available.

[Paul Gray]

Golf is a great teacher of lessons that can be used throughout life.

Surely one of life's big lessons is to learn to grow old gracefully and accept your increasing limitations?  To be thankful for what you can do and accept what you can no longer do.

A generation of baby boomers will disagree with that, methinks.  We have had (most) everything handed to us since birth, no?  We expect to stay young, no?  Granted, not all, but enough to have taken coddling to all time highs, at least imo.

got to give the audience what they came for.....IMHO

Jeff,

As the son of baby boomers, man up!  

I'm afraid I simply can't buy into the argument that "we've always got our own way so we deserve to continue to do so."

Whilst I'll shout from the rafters about the need for courses to be presented in such a way that favours a running game I can't abide any inference that everybody should, on their day, be able to shoot 65.

For me, humility is at the core of the spirit of golf.

[David_Elvins]

As Richard Choi replied, we already have a variety of tees to accommodate age and ability.

I have been a member of 6 clubs and not one of them has separate tees for different ages or abilities.  I am sorry, I just don't get the concept. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Allow me some leeway here and forgive me if I offend you.

I think this thread is a knee jerk reaction to the subtle to not so subtle pressure you may have felt from Lyne, posters and the redhead.

Tom Doak, saw/sees what the muddle of morons don't, namely that bifurcation can lead to the destruction of the game if bifurcation is misdirected.

Bifurcation in an attempt to throttle down the ball's performance is one thing, bifurcation that produces a suped up ball will lead to the bastardization and demise of golf as we know and love it.

Stop trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That was NEVER the goal of the early architects.

Golf is a difficult game where participants have choices.
1     Aspire and attempt to improve their games
2     Seek solace in equipment that performs where the golfer can't.
3     Diminish the challenge by altering the field of play.

Further pursuit of # 2 will destroy the game.
Ditto # 3.

Pursuit of # 1 will enhance the game.

I don't want to play with people who advocate #'s 2 & 3
I'll play with anyone who advocates # 1.

End of mini-rant.

[Rick Shefchik]

As Richard Choi replied, we already have a variety of tees to accommodate age and ability.

I have been a member of 6 clubs and not one of them has separate tees for different ages or abilities.  I am sorry, I just don't get the concept. 

David,

No gold tees? I'm surprised. They are being used increasingly often by our seniors. They are enjoying the game more. What's the harm? You don't have to play them.

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick,

Before I begin, since I have no clue how far up my waders the pile will grow before hitting the Submit button, let me apologize in advance for the lack of brevity in my levity.

I don't know Lyne from a bail of hey (twisted colloquialism to confuse the Ashes posters) - and given my belief that men and women ought to have clubs that exclude and provide respite from the opposite sex, I'm going to enter a plea of innocent on the charge of cloying sycophancy to the lone estro-gene in the Treehouse.

However, your assertion regarding the goal of early architects helps my argument for elasticity in the modern era. Classic links and the best early American offerings featured hazards sprinkled here and there in a much more naturalistic manner.

Weaker players tacked their way to the hole, using openings into the putting surface that encouraged the ground game. Thus, everybody enjoyed the game on their level; each swing of the club required some thought and strategy.

Now, the majority of the courses in this country are one-dimensional, repetitious, formulaic buckets of aerial-game dreck. We tend to focus on the elite tier, but 75% of the courses provide little more than an opportunity for fresh air and cart-ercise with a cooler of Budweiser. Fixing all the Nicklaus monstrosities so humanoids can play them is not workable in practical application - or is it impractical consternation . . . . . or tactical constipation?  

Whether the course is set up at 4000 yards for women and seniors is completely immaterial if the putting surface is a narrow ribbon of cement, oriented perpendicular to the line of play and balanced precariously atop a vertical monolith.

I've said before that golf is supposed to be 18 different questions, not the same jack-booted interrogation over and over again - followed by a bitch slap and a string of snowmen on the card.

Given the need to expand our demographic (read: generate some jing), it makes sense to rethink our rigidity. Classical chess is still the most popular, but switching things up with alternative setups can spice things up. Doin' the doggie still counts as gettin' some trim, capice? We already play different formats, why not with alternative pellets?  

Think of the golf course as a card table. Most of the time, you shuffle a standard deck and play your usual game. What is wrong with busting out the pinochle cards - or even something really kinky like Tarot? Gunners play with a Cayman today, Gib and Patrick with a Pro-V and Bill McBride the Wham-O.

Everybody seems to worry about handicaps and competitions, but the truth is 90% of the golf played every day is a group of friends on their local mud hole. I'm not suggesting we dismantle the game, just that we give everybody some different amusements. Play with three different balls and one course magically becomes three layouts.

The impetus for this thread really does stem from my caddy days - but also my disgust at watching elderly players try to get around hateful obstacle courses designed by arrogant pricks trying to humiliate the people who pay the freight for their obscene design fees.

David Fay once confessed to me over dinner that golf was his 4th favorite sport, after indoor tennis, baseball and basketball - and that he likes golf, but does not really love it. It makes me wonder why. BTW, the stories about Rees Jones and me that night are 50% gross exaggeration and 50% outright bullshit.      

P.S. Tom, if I ever get clear of these criminals chasing me in court, I'll cough up the dough for a prototype, but not made in China. The Lady Precept and Laddie were both made in Japan and given the advanced age of their population, it might be a fine starting point.    

[mike_beene]

Somewhat on point, our club is in the process of having a number of changes done to the course including moving a pond that sits on 11 over so that there is a ground game option for those who can't carry it. This has been something Bill Coore has evidently wanted to do from the time they started working on the course in the mid 90s.I hope I love to be old enough to appreciate it. There are a lot of people who have trouble with a 70 yard carry who love to play but we often forget them when we think about a course.