[Ben Lovett]

When Concord was grounded it was a major step back in technology. It leads me to the question should we embrace newer technology? You can look at it from multiple angles; equipment, maintenance and construction
As a greenkeeper we can provide finer surfaces these days, is this a bad thing!
Newer modern courses can be built on difficult sites!
Other sports for example cycling, the equipment evolves every year
I suppose this is a bit of ramble and I don't really know which side of the argument I lie

[Tom_Doak]

As a greenkeeper we can provide finer surfaces these days, is this a bad thing!

Yes you can.

But are we going to keep making them faster and faster to the point that greens have to be completely flat in order to be playable?

We have already reached [if not exceeded] the upper bound of sensible green speed.  When we get to the point that greens have to be flatter than 2%, which is really the minimum they need to be in order to surface drain, then it's game over.

[RussBaribault]

I think it's very good for the game to enbrace technology. Whatever it may be, especially equipment.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

One of the problems in the tech debate in golf is that it's always a binary argument.  Either it's always "The ball must be rolled back and big headed drivers must be outlawed!" or "Why should I have to play inferior equipment just because Joe Tour Pro is obsoleting courses!"  What we need is a sensible compromise on a BALANCE between balata ball performance, and modern ProV1 class performance, so that we can at least CAP the average championship course yardage in the neighborhood of 7000 yards give or take 300.  There shouldn't be any restriction on driver size beyond whats already there, as it helps the average player make decent contact.  The first rule of an argument is you must accept the form of the argument.  Most arguments on golf tech are framed badly by those holding extreme positions one way or another, eliminating any hope for consensus.

[jeffwarne]

As a greenkeeper we can provide finer surfaces these days, is this a bad thing!

Yes you can.

But are we going to keep making them faster and faster to the point that greens have to be completely flat in order to be playable?

We have already reached [if not exceeded] the upper bound of sensible green speed.  When we get to the point that greens have to be flatter than 2%, which is really the minimum they need to be in order to surface drain, then it's game over.

Fairways are getting close to or past the enjoyment level at some well funded places.
Super tight and fast to the point where good contact is increasingly difficult for the majority, but makes it very easy to spin the ball for the very elite few who can actually put club on ball.
So we use technology that makes it harder to hit the ball solidly, then build equipment to make it easier .

[Mark Pavy]

I agree with your point jeff. Green speeds are one thing, but playing off bermuda fairways that've been 'primo' treated and gone into semi-dormancy on a crappy soil base is not much fun.

[Ken Moum]

One of the problems in the tech debate in golf is that it's always a binary argument.  Either it's always "The ball must be rolled back and big headed drivers must be outlawed!" or "Why should I have to play inferior equipment just because Joe Tour Pro is obsoleting courses!"  What we need is a sensible compromise on a BALANCE between balata ball performance, and modern ProV1 class performance, so that we can at least CAP the average championship course yardage in the neighborhood of 7000 yards give or take 300.  There shouldn't be any restriction on driver size beyond whats already there, as it helps the average player make decent contact.  The first rule of an argument is you must accept the form of the argument.  Most arguments on golf tech are framed badly by those holding extreme positions one way or another, eliminating any hope for consensus.

This is precisely why I have been advocating for a lighter ball for several years.  There's some evidence that a lighter ball will actually help women and seniors, and there can be no doubt that it would have the effect most luddites seem to yearn for on the longest hitters in the game.

Things it would do:

Curve more, especially into the wind -- just like the balata.

Decelerate at a slightly higher rate -- which means we would see a clubhead speed/distance curve that was closer to balata balls

Sit up slightly better on short grass -- which would help amateurs and have almost no effect on pros

Sit up a bit more in the rough -- not sure what the effect would be.


Now, the USGA tried this once before.  In 1931.

Most golfers don't know that before 1921 there weren't any ball standards.  In 1921 they said,  "The weight of the ball shall not be greater than 1.62 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.62 inches in diameter. The Rules of Golf Committee will take whatever steps it thinks necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced."  (my bolding... if only to note how silly it was to say that.)

Then, feeling that it wasn't enough the USGA changed the ball to 1.68 inches and 1.55 ounces.

And the crap hit the fan.  Everyone hated it.  But you have to remember that these were vestigial balata balls that were pretty damned hard to keep on the golf course the way they were.

So shortly after they put the weight back to 1.62 ounces, leaving the ball, in America, at 1.68"

I believe that if we lowered the max weight to 1.55 or even 1.58 ounces.

Now, if you want read a nice essay on this read Jon Vander Borght's essay here:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/

Personally, I think that if you put it in the context of today's low-spin balls, he actually makes a pretty good case IN FAVOR of a lighter ball.

FWIW, there's even a US Patent issued to some folks who say they have proof that a lighter ball would benefit short hitters

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47931460/Golf-Ball---Patent-5497996

[Tim_Weiman]

One of the problems in the tech debate in golf is that it's always a binary argument.  Either it's always "The ball must be rolled back and big headed drivers must be outlawed!" or "Why should I have to play inferior equipment just because Joe Tour Pro is obsoleting courses!"  What we need is a sensible compromise on a BALANCE between balata ball performance, and modern ProV1 class performance, so that we can at least CAP the average championship course yardage in the neighborhood of 7000 yards give or take 300.  There shouldn't be any restriction on driver size beyond whats already there, as it helps the average player make decent contact.  The first rule of an argument is you must accept the form of the argument.  Most arguments on golf tech are framed badly by those holding extreme positions one way or another, eliminating any hope for consensus.

Tom,

No reason the pros shouldn't play persimmon and balata. It is much better to emphasize player skill than competition between scientists in the back room

[Ben Lovett]

Tom,
It is amazing the amount Course Managers hear about green speed these days. I have people who would not be let on pst golf courses constantly complaining about speed. I concentrate on smooth and healthy and whatever speed I achieve be it! But then it has been pushing 50'c this week. Plus as described by Ian Poulter I have elephants buried on most my greens!

[Sean_A]

Technology is great, but there needs to be a balance between conditions/equipment and cost.  To me, we are at the point where technology should be directed toward money saving, not improving conditions.  Conditions are fine most everywhere and if they aren't its a budget issue, not a technology issue. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

There are more than two sides to the tech argument! Its very complex.

Look at pesticides - we had mosquitos and malaria, they developed DDT with a single purpose in mind, but it had environmental effects.  So now, new pesticides are formulated to be more environmentally friendly, AND meet public perception needs, never considered way back when.

There are a thousand examples of mowing equipment developed to fit needs, such as Pete Dye steep banked bunkers.  I agree with Sean, but think most tech was really developed to make things more efficient and cost savings.  Most wanted to do that AND mow better as well.

When I saw this thread title, however, my mind went to things like range finders.  Tying this to the Millennia's thread,  I can't help but see how a generation raised on video games and smart phones won't want more tech involved in their golf experience.  More GPS, more stats on swing speed, distance, wind, etc.  Melyvn will respond on Facebook, I am sure, but that is how I see golf changing.

And, for the most part, I'm okay with that.   No one made me king. I can't control it.  Won't waste energy complaining about it. I'm going to let it develop how the masses want to see it develop, whatever that is. I see golf as being stronger for being able to adapt over the centuries and globe, not weak. 

[Garland Bayley]

I think it's very good for the game to enbrace technology. Whatever it may be, especially equipment.

Artificial grass on the fairways will do away with the divots, and all the wrangling for relief from them.
Then if we make artificial grass as fast as possible, we can flatten the fairways, because who wants the ball to roll back to their feet after hitting it 200 yards uphill. But, no matter, because on a flat course Joe Blow will be blowing it beyond all reason, with drives over 500 yards, and we can do away with those pesky par 4s and par 5s, and have all par 3 courses, thereby creating a big boom in golf, because everyone calls for more par 3 courses to introduce the game to beginners with.

 

[Paul Gray]

Embracing technology is all good when it improves the game. That should be the one and only test. Effectively shrinking courses does not improve anything.

[Ken Moum]

I think it's very good for the game to enbrace technology. Whatever it may be, especially equipment.

Artificial grass on the fairways will do away with the divots, and all the wrangling for relief from them.
Then if we make artificial grass as fast as possible, we can flatten the fairways, because who wants the ball to roll back to their feet after hitting it 200 yards uphill. But, no matter, because on a flat course Joe Blow will be blowing it beyond all reason, with drives over 500 yards, and we can do away with those pesky par 4s and par 5s, and have all par 3 courses, thereby creating a big boom in golf, because everyone calls for more par 3 courses to introduce the game to beginners with.

 

 

K

[Paul Gray]

Tell us Russ, why do you think it's good?

[Andrew Moss]

As a greenkeeper we can provide finer surfaces these days, is this a bad thing!

Yes you can.

But are we going to keep making them faster and faster to the point that greens have to be completely flat in order to be playable?

We have already reached [if not exceeded] the upper bound of sensible green speed.  When we get to the point that greens have to be flatter than 2%, which is really the minimum they need to be in order to surface drain, then it's game over.

Tom, absolutely spot on!!! I like greens that are well paced but not to the point that we lose the ability to shape them in the future.  It must be getting harder to get the balance right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()