[Jason Thurman]

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.

Yep. And don't forget a fourth option - use the handicap system to compete equitably at your current skill level.

For the guys that want a souped-up ball for weaker players, are you already playing from the shortest tees on the course? Or do you want a special ball so that you don't have to play where the chicks play?

These balls already exist. The Polara golf ball flies straight. The Bandit golf ball goes way longer than a regulation ball. No one I know plays them. The golf course is where we come to get away from regular life. We all live lies and put up with silly bullshit in real life. No one wants to do it on the golf course. If you can't hit it far or straight, let your handicap go up and check your ego. You'll still win plenty of money off crappy younger golfers like me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Before I begin, since I have no clue how far up my waders the pile will be prior to 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.

Gib,

I'd agree that the more random nature of the hazards was more efficient in interfacing with the broader spectrum of golfers
NGLA might be Exhibit "A"

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

Agree again

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?  

I agree and attribute that trend to the influx of individuals who rode into GCA on the coattails of their success on the PGA tour.
They were not "natural" or creative talents, rather they tended to be "mechanics" who designed courses methodically or with a favoring of their own perceptions of how to play the game.

Whether the course is set up for women or my father's buddies at 4000 yards 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.

Again, I think you have to delve into the depth of their talent.
There are "artiste's and their are commercial ventures and their perspectives and designs differ significantly

I've said before the 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.

We agree again

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?  

Because, like a flesh eating virus it will consume the very spirit of the game.
It would erode both the integrity and the challenge, and the game would cease being golf.

Tom Doak alluded to the prior bifurcation when he gave you the clue about the R&A ball and the USGA ball.
Unification was good for the game, bifurcation would have the opposite effect because there would be a constant techno war to produce the ball that goes the farthest.  It would undermine everything you love about the game and the strategy involved in playing the game.

Think, my good friend, how a "hot", "hotter' and even "hotter" ball would ruin the architectural values and the intended interfacing with the architectural features.


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.

Where does it end ?
There's a reason that the "one ball" rule came into play.
Now you want to take that reason and expand it exponentially.
It wouldn't be good for golf.

I fear that you've sucuumbed to the dark side under the influence of the most powerful force on earth.

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.

But, we play by the same rules and we play with conforming equipment.

Do you remember when Arnold Palmer came out and endorsed a non-conforming driver ?

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.

That would be the first step in dismantling the game.
It would quickly deteriorate into a "super" ball competition.

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.

Gib, then you have to question the intelligence of those elderly people who would subject themselves to torture and pay a King's ransome to do so.

As David Suskind said, there are no bad TV shows, only bad audiences.
Is it the same for golfers ?

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.  

Gib, my good man.
Before you had your dessert that night, I received the phone call describing the "action" at the table.
Our old buddy Rich Short was in attendance, and later, David Fay admitted to me that he was "putting you on"
Whether he was ernest or not, remains to be debated.
You do recall that he resigned from PV and joined Newport over an issue related to this thread   

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.

I understand your ongoing trials and tribulations, but remember, living well is the best revenge.
Don't let the turkeys get you down.

Just last night I was at a dinner party and was seated next to the fellow who starred in "Arliss"
Our host, whose son is currently living in San Francisco, started talking about golf.
We first discussed golf in L.A., then SF, and I mentioned my good friend from the Bay Area, the wild Armenian with the wristiest swing I had ever seen.  I told them to look you up, that you were one of the most interesting individuals that I had ever met.
The fellow whose son is living in SF is a really great guy.
I'm going to give him your contact info so that the next time he visits, you can get together.
He's top notch.

Our conversation was interesting in that I asked the fellow from "Arliss" how much he was playing.
He said, not very often, because it takes 5-6 hours to play and when you add in the time to get to the course and back, it's now an entire day

The fellow sitting to my left, was a member of a club for 3.5 years.
I asked him why he resigned.
He said, because it took too long to play a round, almost 5 hours, plus the getting there, getting ready and time to get home.

Earlier in the day I had received an invitation to attend a memorial dinner celebration for a former member/President of Hollywood.

And, I thought about the dichotomy of the situation.

Hollywood was designed/built as a championship test.
I have to imagine, based upon early photos, that it was more difficult than PV.
It had to have the most bunkers, in play, of any course I had every seen.
Yet, with that old equipment and old golf ball, golfers were getting around Hollywood in about half the time
modern golfers are getting around courses not nearly as challeging.

The answer to many questions, isn't to make the game easier by introducing "super" balls, it's to return to our architectural and cultural roots.

Dumbing down the game to accomodate the worst players is the formula for disaster, the formula for destroying the game.

I've lost yardage, especially with my irons, over the last few years, and especially after I damaged my knee.
BUT, I'm not looking to regain my distance or former form by opting for golf balls that will fly a mile.
I'm on the practice tee, beating balls in an attempt to gain more clubhead speed/distance

It's the challenge that's part of the lure.
Diminish the challenge, make the game easier and it loses it's inherent values.

End of medium rant     

[Tom_Doak]

Gib:

I'm not really an advocate of making the ball longer.  When I first read your post, the first guy I thought of was my old friend Archie Baird in Gullane, hitting the ball 140 yards at a time -- and playing seven days a week, and winning more than his share of the bets.

But the second guy I thought of was the 55-year-old guy who played through us on the 10th tee at Cruden Bay in the summer of 1982.  When he hit a rocket off the tee past our balls, I turned to the assistant pro who I was playing with (10 years removed from playing Division I golf in the U.S.) and gave him a "wtf" look, and he took his thumb and forefinger and squeezed them tightly together.  That's how much difference the old "small ball" made ... about 30 yards, and even more when playing upwind.

[Rich Goodale]

Gib

This is a great thread and this...

"I've said before that golf is supposed to be 18 different questions...."

is a good statement that could be made great if only expanded to:

"....golf is supposed to be 55 (as in "Homero Blancas") to 100+ questions...."

Every golf shot hit by every player who ever played or who will every play is unique.  This is one of the greatest mysteries of our game.

Rich

[Niall C]

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

Nonsense, the sooner we get back to hickory and gutties the better.

Niall

[David_Elvins]

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

Rich,

Maybe there could be a special ball that I could use that would save me the embarrassment of being out driven by you repeatedly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Small world, I met and became friendly with Archie Baird in 1992 and stayed in touch with him until his passing.

As to his winning ways, playing every day tends to groove your game even without the best of swings and power.

One of the things that impressed me about Archie was his pace of play.
He was beyond fast, and he often played with his faithful friend at his side.

Interesting and nice man

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom Doak,

Small world, I met and became friendly with Archie Baird in 1992 and stayed in touch with him until his passing.

As to his winning ways, playing every day tends to groove your game even without the best of swings and power.

One of the things that impressed me about Archie was his pace of play.
He was beyond fast, and he often played with his faithful friend at his side.

Interesting and nice man

Pat, you may have him mixed up with someone else.  I think my son visited Archie this summer.  Do you know who Archie married?  I bet Doak is the only one here who does know, maybe Ran.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom Doak,

Small world, I met and became friendly with Archie Baird in 1992 and stayed in touch with him until his passing.

As to his winning ways, playing every day tends to groove your game even without the best of swings and power.

One of the things that impressed me about Archie was his pace of play.
He was beyond fast, and he often played with his faithful friend at his side.

Interesting and nice man

Pat you may wish to edit this.  If you care to contact Archie agian I suspect he'll throw a Mark Twain quote straight back at you.  
He was in fine form and still hapily playing exclusively Matchplay, last August.

[Thomas Dai]

Reference golf ball related posts above, wasn't there a cheap golf ball in the 1970's-1980's called the 'Commando'? Solid rubber maybe? 1.62 inch, very soft/uncuttable.
ATB

[Rich Goodale]

Thomas

A good friend of mine once told me a story about following Seve when he played Ladybank in the late 70's/early 80s.  On one of his few wayward drives that day (he shot something like 64) the crowd was enlisted to search for his ball and a wee laddie found something and piped up:

"Mr. Ballesteros, would you be playing a Commando?"

[Thomas Dai]

"Mr. Ballesteros, would you be playing a Commando?"

Rich,

That's pretty funny. I can imagine Seve's dark scowl.

Perhaps a Commando like ball with its go-nowhere but spin like hell spec would be a good ball for the big-boy tour-pro's if they did end up playing a different spec ball to the rest of us. Should be no need for longer courses then!
ATB

[archie_struthers]

 

Gib , gave your idea lots of thought before responding .

However , after much rumination, it just won't work . As golf at its core is about enjoyment and competition , even personally , to remove half the equation skews the fun .  Keep thinking though and thank you !

[Craig Sweet]

Everyone wants to be longer...every magazine is devoted to telling you how to hit it farther.  It's human nature...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Everyone wants to be longer...every magazine is devoted to telling you how to hit it farther.  It's human nature...

Craig,

No one disputes that.

But, that's why the ruling bodies establish manufacturing specifications and performance standards.

An objective is for everyone to play with a relatively uniform ball, not balls with different performance qualities.

That's why the USGA went to the one ball rule.

[Doug Siebert]

The idea of making a ball so shorter hitters hit longer, rather than longer hitters hit shorter is unique, and perhaps plays into human nature better since no one is "giving up" anything.

I wonder if it is possible to make it so it has no effect above a certain swing speed?  Maybe if you hit it with a 100 mph swing it spins like crazy so it'll balloon on you and go nowhere?  If everyone gets the benefit from it, you can promise there will be people using it who shouldn't, do the detriment of safety for those on opposing fairways, or houses lining the fairways (or maybe even the houses on the other side of the street of the houses lining the fairways)

It would pretty much be a surrender to a future full of 8000 yard golf courses, however.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

A friend of mine, involved in ball performance studies, told me that one of their studies indicated that high spin balls spun less as swing speeds increased, thus they were counter productive.

Since the old specs are archived somewhere, I don't see why you couldn't revert to the 1980 ball over a five year period.
That would allow inventories to disapate without financial loss.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

A friend of mine, involved in ball performance studies, told me that one of their studies indicated that high spin balls spun less as swing speeds increased, thus they were counter productive.

Since the old specs are archived somewhere, I don't see why you couldn't revert to the 1980 ball over a five year period.
That would allow inventories to disapate without financial loss.

They could do that, but there seems to be a lot of resistance to it even though it is clearly the right thing to do.  A lot of people have their egos too tied up in how far they hit, and create specious arguments about how it is unfair to roll the ball back if it reduces the gap between long hitters and short hitters (ignoring that there used to be a much smaller gap)

While I like hitting a 300 or even the occasional 350 yard drive, but if suddenly 250 was a bomb and 300 yarders were as rare as hen's teeth I wouldn't care.  After all, everyone would be in the same boat as far as losing distance, and if done right the shorter hitters would see little change.  It's going to happen to me and everyone else eventually, it is just a question of whether it happens due to age or rule changes

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

If the USGA and R&A adopted the 1980 ball, soon, regional, state and local associations would adopt it and then local clubs.

It would take time, that's why I suggested five years.

Look at the long putter, even though it's not due to have the methodology changed until 2016, golfers are already seeking alternate methods.  So people, even those that are resistant, seek to conform.

Golf remains a game of integrity, hence, playing by the rules is a measure of one's integrity.

I even reverted to my old, short putter................... and it works............................ most of the time.

[Garland Bayley]

Doug,

A friend of mine, involved in ball performance studies, told me that one of their studies indicated that high spin balls spun less as swing speeds increased, thus they were counter productive.

Since the old specs are archived somewhere, I don't see why you couldn't revert to the 1980 ball over a five year period.
That would allow inventories to disapate without financial loss.

Nobody is going to revert to the 1980 ball. All the machinery used to produce it has been junked. They will not invest in such machinery again. Besides, none of is high handicappers want a ball that we can ruin every third hole or so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

You're looking at this one dimensionally.

Concurrent with the reintroduction to the 1980 ball would be the abandonment of many to most back tees, returning golf to the form it enjoyed in 1980

[Pat Burke]

Question,
Does the 1980 Pinnacle go any shorter than a ProV1?

My instincts and messing around with old balls, tells me no

Science tells me....?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I don't think so either.  Plus, some portion of distance gains since 1980 can be attributed to 460 cc heads, lightweight graphite shafts, and club and technique optimization.  Would all they have to be rolled back too?

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think it's practical to produce a 1980 ball - i.e. wound with balata or soft surlyn cover.  I do think it would be practical to change the equipment rules to push things in a direction of a ball that performs in a similar manner, while still being as durable as today's balls and as consistently round/balanced as today's balls.

The USGA would need to create some test specs and work with the equipment makers to have balls made within those rules and see how they perform.  They could even sell them - I'm sure there'd be plenty of interest from people who'd pick up a sleeve or two to knock around and see how they perform.  I'd buy some "Titleist USGA test 2014A" balls, play a couple rounds with them and fill out an online survey, what the hell

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

Do you think it is possible to engineer a single ball that has an initial velocity of 150 mph at a swing speed of say 90 mph (smash factor of 1.67) and has an initial velocity of 170 mph when struck with a swing speed of 120 mph (a smash factor of 1.41)?  Assuming that they had similar lift and drag characteristics they'd both conform to the ODS.  I'm doubtful that it is possible to design and build such a ball.  If you were regulating such a ball you'd have to decide what the permissible slope of the distance/ swing speed line is.  If the slope matched the 1980's era, it would not of course satisfy Gib's original premise.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()