[BHoover]

Mike, I wonder where the millennials who were surveyed are located? If they are all urban dwellers in places such as NYC or DC, which is my guess without reading the NY Times article (too cheap to get a subscription), then the results don't surprise me. But if that is the survey base, I wonder how it represents all young people in places such as Charlotte, Nashville, Jacksonville, Dallas, Houston, Omaha, Seattle, etc (not to mention those of us in the ignored and oft derided so-called flyover country)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Was baseball "debased" by softball or even "wiffle ball?"

There's a difference, an enormous difference.

They're not playing softball, whiffle ball and baseball at the same time on the same field.

And, when they're playing softball, it doesn't preclude you from playing baseball.

[BCowan]

I wonder how many of those people who played whiffle ball and softball, buy tickets to MLB games and watch on TV???  I don't watch Baseball anymore due to pace of the game (too slow) and also due to liberal slap on the wrist steroids policy. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

The Guttie became popular because it was much cheaper, much more durable, and much easier to produce. The basic technology was state of the art for about 50 years.  I don't really think one major change every half century or so is all that analogous to what we see with today's equipment.

David,

I agree the rate of change is increasing in society and golf.....but not sure it changes the basic point that those who love golf will innovate to make it better in their eyes (and sometimes wallets) and that Old Tom was similarly motivated to any modern day entrepreneur.

Just think about it - if 1% of golfers come up with golf related inventions, more will arrive when 25M play over 25K.

Other than agronomy issues (although they are mostly sponsored by the USGA can anyone come up with a golf changing invention by a non golfer? Probably some, but I can't think of them right now......

[Keith Grande]

Range finders and GPS devices

[Keith Grande]

Most of the major sports have control over the ball used in play.  Baseball, basketball, football, soccer.  In baseball, they even have a restricted flight ball for games in Colorado.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And the USGA doesn't? You may not like what they have as rules, but they do control the ball, no?

In reality, the Colorado baseball you mention is probably more a reason for the USGA to adopt different balls, cups, whatever to try to level the playing field for all levels and adapt golf to different levels than it is an example of the need for golf to do more to control the longest hitters.

Also, I suspect that range finders were adapted to golf by golfers, even if the tech came from the military.  Of course, by that standard, graphite shafts and lots of other tech stuff came from military or other fields, and when de-classified, got used in a variety of applications.  

Next up....night goggles for night golf!

[Keith Grande]

There is one "official ball" to be used on field of play.

[Lou_Duran]

I agree the rate of change is increasing in society and golf.....but not sure it changes the basic point that those who love golf will innovate to make it better in their eyes (and sometimes wallets) and that Old Tom was similarly motivated to any modern day entrepreneur.

Perhaps in very superficial ways.  For the most part, man is animated by most of the same things as he was hundreds of years ago.  He has progressed greatly in terms of satisfying his basic physical needs which perhaps has allowed him to be a bit more narcissistic and concerned about his self-importance.

As to golf, it is still 18 holes played on courses often modeled on the classics (with variations on some 15-20 hole concepts) with clubs which bear considerable resemblance to the early tools of the game.  I am not interested enough to research it, but I wonder if a good percentage of the distance gained since 1900 isn't explained by the evolutionary change in height and weight, physical conditioning, and advancements in swing techniques and instruction. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland dou you have a citation of where the usga said that?  Thanks.

As I have indicated to you before, I'm not very good at recording citations. However, I think I may have read it in Geoff's book when I was rereading it for the Dustin Johnson thread.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You seem to be arguing that because one change over 160 years ago was good for the game, then we must also embrace all other changes - no matter how silly or rapidly paced - as also being good for the game.  I don't buy that logic.   Some changes benefit the game, some don't. And in a game steeped in tradition and constrained by its courses, constant willy-nilly tinkering risks a destabilizing impact.

Golf was extraordinarily expensive in the time of the feathery.  Reportedly, a single ball could cost as much as golf club, and they sometimes only lasted 2 rounds, and featheries fell apart when they got wet.  In Scotland.  The "golf manufacturers" at the time - like Robertson - resisted the change because they made money off the feathery, regardless of what was good for the game.   Same story with the Haskell fifty years later.  The manufacturers of the time - the pros who produced/sold the guttie - resisted the change because they were making money off the guttie.  They also resisted because the ball was of much greater benefit to the masses that it was to the top golfers, which is the opposite scenario as with the ball changes that have so screwed up the game today.  

As for innovations that came from outside of golf, I fail to see the relevance.  The Haskell was created by a golfer, but one who worked for a rubber company, not a golf equipment company.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou and David,

Not sure how globally I endorse accepting all change, although I think I do accept it more than some here as probably both inevitable and logical evolution (much like evolution in the bigger sense of survival of the fittest)  That said, I don't care to turn this into a ball rollback discussion (again)

Good to know that so much change was aimed at affordability.  Not surprised at that, or the fact that profit motive was the driver for both the progress and resistance to progress in golf.  Again, inevitable, IMHO, given human nature.

As for the relevance of innovations outside of golf, well I was just musing out loud.  It may not be relevant at all.

[Brent Hutto]

I am not interested enough to research it, but I wonder if a good percentage of the distance gained since 1900 isn't explained by the evolutionary change in height and weight, physical conditioning, and advancements in swing techniques and instruction. 

Every time I have broached that idea it has been roundly shouted down by the self-styled "purists" who insist that Dustin Johnson is no more athletic than Jack Nicklaus and that the fact he can produce prodigious clubhead speeds is 100% due to equipment. Unlike everything else in life apparently strength, flexibility, speed and swing technique of golfers reached a permanent level of perfection some time in the 1950's or 60's.

[DMoriarty]

Brent,   Discussions on equipment and technology would be much more productive if you'd give the hyperbole and mischaracterizations a rest.  
____________________________________________________________


Lou,  Obviously those things probably have had some some impact, but I don't think the facts support the hypothesis that evolution and working out were the major causes of the distance advancements.  But if you ever come across facts that do support your theory, I am all ears.  

As I understand the statistics for top golfers (unfortunately the only stats we have) the jumps in distance directly correlate to advancements in technology.   While correlation does not prove causation, the correlation does cast serious doubts on theories suggesting that evolutionary physical changes and workout habits explain the gains.  For example, here is a chart I've posted before showing year over year gains in distance by those golfers switching to the ProV1x in 2003:



I don't think such single year jumps in distance for the subset of players switching to the ProV1x can be explained by human evolution or even by better workout regimes, unless you think these golfers mutated superhero style, or suddenly got in shape in the few week offseason.

[Garland Bayley]

Mark King may be debasing the game with a 15 in. cup, but he also is quoted in Schack's book saying the distance advantages don't come from increased physical prowess. He says the players come in for two days and gain 15 yards from optimizing their equipment.

I think the people that talk about these golfers being such fine physical specimens insult the physical laborers of the US that put in 8 hour workouts 5 days a week 50 weeks a year. Tiger seems about the only golfer that even approaches the workouts that some people do just to earn a paycheck.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

There's a big difference in altering equipment versus altering the field of play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I seem to recall an article assigning relative % to the increases in Pro Tour distance - balls, shafts, heads, and club tuning all play a part if I recall correctly. Or, as above, "total club optimization".  Progress....you can't stop it (old adage)

[DMoriarty]

Jeff don't want to get into another prolonged discussion on distance, but let's not pretend that these nutty distance increases are unavoidable, unstoppable, or even un-reversable.  Golf is a game subject to rules, and the rules determine whether or not "progress" stands or falls.

Has "progress" been unstoppable in baseball?   If so, then how come the game still fits on generally the same playing fields as it did over a century ago. I am not baseball historian, but I think I read that many modern ballparks are actually smaller now than were many ballparks a century ago.

[Garland Bayley]

Frank Thomas foresaw the likelihood that ODS could be breached. "Thomas led the creation of the Indoor Test Range (ITR) in the late '90s that addressed the problem of varying launch angles and inconsistent testing conditions. The new test would retire Iron Byron and actually made it possible to cap the maximum overall distance the ball flew, no matter who was at the wheel of the car and what engine was driving their ball."

ITR was referred to as "optimization" and was shown to equipment companies, thereby informing them how to beat the ODS, and when the USGA announced plans to put it in place allowed the equipment companies to fight back. It was doomed when Frank Thomas left "to pursue other interests", and was replaced by Dick Rugge a former Taylor Made exec.

The above information is also from The Future of Golf.

Geoff writes that after dumping the new test the USGA gave no explanation for doing so. Recently I read an article where a USGA official said they did not change, because they would cause bankruptcies. My thinking on this is that Top Flite had made its entire business based on the balls that would be suddenly nonconforming, and that includes their new Strata which brought spin to the Top Flite line of balls. Therefore, there is a good chance they would have bankrupt Top Flite.

So I guess my info was not from Geoff's book.

[David Kelly]

Mark King may be debasing the game with a 15 in. cup, but he also is quoted in Schack's book saying the distance advantages don't come from increased physical prowess.

While watching The Masters online this year Luke Elvy was talking about how ANGC had been lengthened over the years to keep up with technology. Scott McCarron chimed in that it wasnt so much technology that increased the distance the ball travels as it was the improved strength and size of "today's players".  As he was talking 54-year-old Fred Couples steps up to the 18th tee and launched his drive down the middle of the fairway where it came to rest about 30 yards past Webb Simpson's, 28 and Lee Chang-woo's, 20, golf balls.

[Mike Sweeney]

As he was talking 54-year-old Fred Couples steps up to the 18th tee and launched his drive down the middle of the fairway where it came to rest about 30 yards past Webb Simpson's, 28 and Lee Chang-woo's, 20, golf balls.

Yes, but mechanics still rule over fitness.

Bubba and Fred Couples have that very upright high swing that gives them power. Couples also has a rhythm that keeps it in control. Not sure how Bubba does it as he swings so hard and is longer as a result.

While Couples has always had a bad back, my guess is he has some weird ability to stretch certain ways that I certainly can't. That rhythm of his (and Ernie Els too) is a gift of genetics/god.

[DMoriarty]

Sure, but Couples would be a long hitter with any equipment. In the mid-1980's his drives averaged around 275 yards, which was long at the time.  In the mid 00's he was 20 years older, but his drives averaged around 300 yards. That increase is not explained by genetics or physical fitness.

[Adam Clayman]

The mere suggestion of changing this great sport, is debasing. Even some of the greatest ball strikers have made asinine suggestions, but mostly, they seem to come from the truly uninitiated.


Accommodating all level of players is like handing out welfare indiscriminately. When the dole stops, the recipient will invariably spit in your face.

[Mike_Young]

Argue all you want.  At the end of the day the free enterprise system will figure it out.  If a golf course can't figure how to be profitable it will go away.  It's that simple. 
Small owners are entrepreneurs and will figure it out.  The so called " 50 most important people in golf" types will continue to fly to conferences and mesh with all the other corporate guys that attended said conference and pat each other on the back and give each other a few awards which they rotate around annually.  they will jet off to some unknowing high net worth sucker in Asia or Europe and convince them of their abilities and charge a fee to continue the mess they developed here.  The "management" business types have zero clue how the actual owner operated courses, which make up most of the golf world but who don't attend the conferences, work. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Just finished watching a documentary on ABC about two high school football teams that merged in Philly. Reminded me of Hoop Dreams.

Dick's Sporting Goods was the sponsor and their ads fit seamlessly with the documentary:

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/dick-s-taps-amateurs-make-case-sports-matter/292025/

Dick's funds high school sports programs but they are very smart how they do it:

Dick's expects it will fund between 75 and 100 teams -- but there's a catch. The teams must raise half the money they need themselves, with marketing, public relations and counseling support from Dick's, which will then match the other half. "We think America does care and wants to mobilize behind this issue," Ms. Hobart said. "But it's also very important to us that these teams learn to fundraise...so they can fund their team for years to come."

I am not sure how this fits with golf but Dick's has a big golf business and there has to be a tie-in somewhere...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()