[Garland Bayley]

...The spectators would know when the pro tracer says the tee ball went 270 and the pro wasn't hitting SW into 50% of the holes.

The lucky young men of today are probably recording as many of those pro-tracers as possible to show their lady friends and reap the benefits of such a show.

Chicks dig the pro-tracer?

For 99.9% of the chicks in the world, that is the only way they are going to see the long ball. This is of course because 99.9% of golf nuts don't have the long ball to show them.

[Pat Burke]

I've gotten involved in this many times, and it's like talking about global warming or politics..
1) I'd be ok with an equipment roll back
      A) my suggestion would be to test optimization between metal woods and balls.     A specific combination goes too far, they cannot be used together in competition
2) IF. A supposed tour ball is mandated, I believe you are setting up a problem.  Changing equipment, balls ,etc is a hazard of many tour pros.  As we learn the game, we also learn our tendencies, and make changes to our swing as well as equipment to find the best combination to compete.  Let's say the 1997 Maxfli HT is the ball decided upon.  Most tour players would make the switch and figure it out with new specs and have those balls available to practice at every event and their home TPC or other practice site.  Honestly, there would be a number or percentage who this will kill, and a number who will excel, but the easiest switch, which WOULD  take time for the majority would be made reasonable well.


What about non tour players.  Less access to the equipment and practice sites, unless wealthy or fortunate, and especially after some period of time, the tour players would have used this equipment and settled in for a couple years, and kids coming out of lower levels not mandating this equipment or with access to prepare for it would be at an incredible disadvantage when they joined the tour.


At every level down we move the line of demarcation, I believe you set up a disadvantage for a group.  That's why I personally, and Unscientifically prefer an across the board cut if anything
My two cents worth a penny thoughts

Pat:


1)  There's no reason a Tour ball spec has to be as specific as "the 1997 Maxfli".  The specs could be just like they are now, except with different numbers, giving all the ball companies a chance to compete for business.  In fact, they would insist on it.


2)  The great thing about bifurcating the ball, is that it tends to want to seek that new level over time, at all levels of play.  When they made the small ball illegal for the Open and Amateur in the late 70's, all the better players who switched, were the ones who soon demanded the big ball be mandatory for other major tournaments; and then those players demanded it be mandatory for minor tournaments, club championships, etc.  The governing bodies didn't have to legislate anything; the players did it for them.  I'm not sure how long it was before the R & A actually made the small ball illegal for club play, but by that time, most people had switched anyway and there was no furor about it




Jason T:  Yes, Mike Davis was talking about a different ball for certain courses.  But the players are not going to want to try to adjust to different equipment on the eve of a major championship, so I can't see how that would ever fly.

Tom,
I was using the Maxfli simply as an example.  If we talk about a competition ball for pros per se, I feel there will be a level that gets impacted heavily. Professiona golf for most is junior, HS, college/amateur, low level professional, to top level professional.
If the ball is ratcheted back for tour pros, those entering that level will be at a bigger disadvantage than already exists.  At each level, if you move up to equipment that has been played for some time by your competitors and you have to learn it, it's a huge disadvantage....again, only in my opinion.  It's the reason I would prefer a roll back across the board, though it could Impact the business of golf for a bit

[John Chilver-Stainer]

John,

1985-2000?

 
Garland,
 
 
Maybe you are too young to know - or too old to remember!!!   
 
Here’s some interesting history which I’ve gleaned from the Internet and a close relative who was part of Taylormade when it hit big.
 
In a nutshell, when Taylor Made was bought in 1984 by Saloman SA, the distance a golf ball could travel started increasing a lot and hasn’t stopped since.
 
Gary Adams, the founder of Taylor Made had an idea to make a metal driver head, which combined with the then recently introduced 2-piece ball, could achieve more distance than with the tour standard wound ball.
 
Saloman SA, the ski product manufacturer, bought Taylormade in 1984 and applied their R&D department to refine the metal head. The improved metal head technology was heavily promoted and soon was getting global sales thanks to increased distance and consistency.
 
Taylormade Pocket History
http://beforeitsnews.com/sports/2013/07/the-history-of-the-taylor-made-golf-company-2517540.html
 
Statistics from the USGA, taken from Jason Topp’s thread, illustrate that the average increase in distance on the PGA tour in 1985 (260yds) had increased by 22 yards in 2003 (282 yds) compared to the 2003-2016 (290 yds) of 8 yards. The increase in distance of Taylor Made products had already begun in 1985, but the average statistics do not reflect this till 1995 when the majority of the golfers tied to rival manufacturers started matching Taylor Made.
 
Unfortunatly the USGA did too little to deter the increase in distance.
Maybe they were “caught in the headlights” by Karsten Solheim of Ping, who in 1989 took USGA to court for banning his clubs for $100 million.
During this period of uncertainty the golf manufacturers were openly promoting annual improvements to their products which increased the distance of the golf ball.
 
Summing it up over a glass of beer:
- The golf manufacturers increased the distance since 1985 by 30 yds 
- The golfers loved increased distances and kept buying the new products.
- The USGA had their hands tied behind their back and went into denial of changes
- The R&A heads looked the other way from beneath the sand.
- The new golf courses and existing long golf courses could adapt to the changes
- Thousands of existing small courses could no longer contain a “long drive” and be challenging and  became mere unprofitable “tracks”
 
Market forces were king, as Mose Alison, the hipster jazz guy, once crooned
“the best are sposed to come in first, at the mercy of the worst”
 
Bifurcation is a small recompense.
 
I don’t think Mike Davis is saying the ball should be rolled back for PGA Tournament or universal golf, but rather saying – it would be fun if one also had an 80% ball to compare players on a shorter course.
 
I’m not sure where 80% comes from, as a 20% reduction would knock 58 yards off a 290 yard drive giving 232 yards. An 90% reduction equivalent of 30 yards would give a 1985 drive of 260 yards for a pro.
 
Maybe a “reduced” ball could make shorter courses more relevant again.
 
In the meantime  the “long” ball can continue to be a marketing tool for the golf manufacturers and massage the egos of the gullible golfers.
 
Maybe in another 30 years we’ll be talking “Trifurcation”, maybe we should now.

[Garland Bayley]

John,

1985-2000?

 
Garland,
 
 
Maybe you are too young to know - or too old to remember!!!   
 
Here’s some interesting history which I’ve gleaned from the Internet and a close relative who was part of Taylormade when it hit big.
 
In a nutshell, when Taylor Made was bought in 1984 by Saloman SA, the distance a golf ball could travel started increasing a lot and hasn’t stopped since.

In 1984 the PGA tour averaged 260 off the tee. In 1990, the PGA tour averaged 262 off the tee.
 
Gary Adams, the founder of Taylor Made had an idea to make a metal driver head, which combined with the then recently introduced 2-piece ball, could achieve more distance than with the tour standard wound ball.
 
The 2-piece TopFlite had been travelling much farther than the wound ball for a long time before that.

Saloman SA, the ski product manufacturer, bought Taylormade in 1984 and applied their R&D department to refine the metal head. The improved metal head technology was heavily promoted and soon was getting global sales thanks to increased distance and consistency.
 
Taylormade Pocket History
http://beforeitsnews.com/sports/2013/07/the-history-of-the-taylor-made-golf-company-2517540.html
 
Statistics from the USGA, taken from Jason Topp’s thread, illustrate that the average increase in distance on the PGA tour in 1985 (260yds) had increased by 22 yards in 2003 (282 yds) compared to the 2003-2016 (290 yds) of 8 yards.

It is pretty commonly known on this website that the disruptive technology was the three piece ball that combined the effect of the TopFlite and the wound ball. This technology took PGA tour driving from 272 in 1999 to 291 in 2011.

The increase in distance of Taylor Made products had already begun in 1985, but the average statistics do not reflect this till 1995 when the majority of the golfers tied to rival manufacturers started matching Taylor Made.
 
Unfortunatly the USGA did too little to deter the increase in distance.

The USGA was very close to putting further limits on the ball, but decided they would put a company that depended on distance out of business by doing so. So they decided not to go ahead with the regulation. Although the article I read by their former technology head did not say, I assume it was the TopFlite company they would have put out of business, as all of their balls of any market penetration were low spin distance balls.


Maybe they were “caught in the headlights” by Karsten Solheim of Ping, who in 1989 took USGA to court for banning his clubs for $100 million.
During this period of uncertainty the golf manufacturers were openly promoting annual improvements to their products which increased the distance of the golf ball.
 
Summing it up over a glass of beer:
- The golf manufacturers increased the distance since 1985 by 30 yds 
- The golfers loved increased distances and kept buying the new products.
- The USGA had their hands tied behind their back and went into denial of changes
- The R&A heads looked the other way from beneath the sand.
- The new golf courses and existing long golf courses could adapt to the changes
- Thousands of existing small courses could no longer contain a “long drive” and be challenging and  became mere unprofitable “tracks”
 
Market forces were king, as Mose Alison, the hipster jazz guy, once crooned
“the best are sposed to come in first, at the mercy of the worst”
 
Bifurcation is a small recompense.
 
I don’t think Mike Davis is saying the ball should be rolled back for PGA Tournament or universal golf, but rather saying – it would be fun if one also had an 80% ball to compare players on a shorter course.
 
I’m not sure where 80% comes from, as a 20% reduction would knock 58 yards off a 290 yard drive giving 232 yards. An 90% reduction equivalent of 30 yards would give a 1985 drive of 260 yards for a pro.
 
Maybe a “reduced” ball could make shorter courses more relevant again.
 
In the meantime  the “long” ball can continue to be a marketing tool for the golf manufacturers and massage the egos of the gullible golfers.
 
Maybe in another 30 years we’ll be talking “Trifurcation”, maybe we should now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()