News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


OChatriot

Linking fashionable topics...

Climate change, degrading environment, fauna sick with plactics and chemicals... We should talk more about it.
Golf too slow, obsolete courses, McIlroy and DJ drives...We have heard and discussed the subjects at length.

How many millions of balls pollute our land, courses and lakes?
Could we not kill two birds with one stone there?

The golf authorities should impose a green ball  ;)  for all the right reasons, and at the same time use this occasion to cut their length by applying some new standards. "Using" the excuse of green behaviour to force the change upon the players and the manufacturers.

The benefits of that revolution should be immense in terms of PR for the sport, time spent on golf courses, boosting R&D at golf ball major makers, requalifying a lot of courses for tournament play, reduce the costs of maintaining or renovating courses, and for short-sighted people like me who cannot see past a 5 iron.

The cons are: some courses will be too long; but that's easier to fix than too short. And the arms race in ball length might pick up again at some point once the green process will be mastered. But at least we will have push the science of materials and gained environmental benefit. What's not to like?

I know some balls like this exist. And ARE shorter. But they are aimed at specific green-friendly customers.
I guess and hope that the major ball-makers are looking into the environment impact of their products.
Maybe it is that they are even ready. But stopped in their tracks by low guidance on sales, because of the short distance produced.

The USGA and R&A have a role to play here.

Better: they have a responsibility.



PS: apologies if that's been discussed before.









Peter Pallotta

Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2019, 11:29:55 AM »
Two thoughts, OC:
1. The approach & rationale you suggest might be the only one I can see ever fostering a change and foisting upon manufacturers a demand/requirement for shorter golf balls
But
2. I'd never understood the power & appeal of distance as well as I do now, after having introduced two new (adult) golfers to the game. Both thoughtful types who almost immediately embraced every aspect of golf, from the architecture to the strategies to the history & ethos to the shotmaking to the mental side etc. But what seems to appeal to them most of all is hitting that golf ball as far as humanly possible every single time!
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 11:35:38 AM by Peter Pallotta »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2019, 11:35:01 AM »
Funny thing, 90% of my lost balls are a result of me not hitting the ball far enough.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2019, 11:40:09 AM »
I believe it is part of the human DNA.


Every machine is built to go farther, faster, quicker. When we build these artificial machines with such success, how can we avoid turning inward, to our own machine?


Fnck, humanity is a tough gig. Gets more difficult with each generation.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

OChatriot

Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2019, 12:12:04 PM »
@ PP and RM

Sure...but it doesn't change anything. The guys that hit it miles today will hit the green balls further than anybody too. The ego game will still be very much on. Just everybody will be shorter full stop. You cannot compare apples and pears. If the rules say use these balls, they will. If they hit it further than you and me, good for them. The benefits remain.

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2019, 12:23:07 PM »
How many millions of balls pollute our land, courses and lakes?


What do you mean by pollute?  Is there any objective evidence that golf balls release harmful components into the air, water or soil?  Is that release different depending on media (e.g., salt versus fresh water)?  Given the volume of plastics otherwise being released in the world, is there any evidence that golf balls, if they contribute at all, are more than a de minimis issue?  Could it be solved in ways less expensive and intrusive (e.g., retrieval) than up-ending an entire industry and pastime?  I'd like to know the answers to these questions before authorities impose rules to fundamentally change the game we play on the basis of feel-good fad and fashion.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2019, 12:26:18 PM »
You can't discuss length of the ball without discussing the impact of a ball gong less far on the average golfer.  The only problem for the ball going too far is for the Tour players and the very low amateurs.  That's under 1% of golfers.  Reducing the length of the ball would diminish the game for the other 99%--and reduce the appeal of our game. 
The answer is to keep the current ball--maybe with green attributes added--but reduce the length for the 1% with a different ball.  But the PGA Tour has stated clearly that they won't do that.  So here we are!

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2019, 12:45:26 PM »
OChariot,


I appreciate the topic, I really do. It just seems this is so far down the list of what ails the world, its hardly even worth the time, much less the effort.


Having a flight limited ball for the pros makes sense, to stop the golf course lengthening arms race, but a few balls sitting in a ponds here and there, hard to see any measurable impact.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 03:21:31 PM by David_Tepper »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2019, 02:34:27 PM »
I'm in favour of a general ball roll-back of the current ball for many reasons including some that OC mentions in his opening post, and a considerable roll-back too, and if environmental considerations were to be a reason so be it.
atb


PS - I'm also in favour of a 'positive ball', a ball that is somehow propelled to go further than the current standard ball. A ball that would be specifically aimed at novices, the very old and the very young, the infirm or very short hitters.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2019, 03:12:59 PM »
....ending an entire industry and pastime?  I'd like to know the answers to these questions before authorities impose rules to fundamentally change the game we play on the basis of feel-good fad and fashion.


You don't think the game has fundamentally changed in the last 17 years?
sadly it wasn't "authorities", but a lack thereof-too busy butchering US Opens and building a war chest.
Funny the game seemed to be growing fine in the balata persimmon days, so measuring your johnson by your yearly 3 more store bought yards seems to have been counterproductive.....but then I guess pills that grow that are popular too
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2019, 03:27:39 PM »
You want to roll back the ball, fine by me, I've got nothing to add to a subject that has been beaten to death here many times over.  Not sure how johnsons figure into it, but whatever.  But if you're going to roll it back, do it for golf-related reasons, not because you think faux environmentalism is going to win you PR points.  The fact that they retrieved 50,000 golf balls from Pebble, etc., and a Stanford scientist found no ill effects to marine life from them sitting there for decades suggests to me that the real environmental impact is minimal at best.  I'm all for finding ways to keep balls out or retrieve them, but let's not let junk environmental science dictate equipment specs. 

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2019, 05:42:24 PM »
  Reducing the length of the ball would diminish the game for the other 99%--and reduce the appeal of our game. 



Why would reducing the flight of the ball diminish the game or the appeal for the other 99%?
Those great new senior tees everybody is building?
perfect. Walking back 100 yards to tee off after finishing a hole on a classic course? thing of the past.
Houses 100 yards off centerlines? suddenly safe
Average golfers get very little benefit of face caving low spin balls and clubs, and in fact if the governing bodiea were really concerned at all they could find a way to mandate spin balatalike balls for experts, without the characteristics of a Pinnacle, while returning the Pinnacle to its rightful owner, the amateurs-causing them to lose very little distance, while the elite would self bifurcate back to balatalike balls.
But they are busy studying knee high drops, 3 minute lost balls and making up crap like "penalty areas", outlawing anchoring while still allowing it with forearms and blind eyes(Langer/McCarron), and making us grasp someone's intent when interpreting what just happened, rather than simply ruling on what just happened.


Bowling shot itself in the foot when 200 games became commonplace and 300 games suddenly weren't that rare.
Golf will never be easy, no matter how far people hit it, but that doesn't mean ever increasing distance doesn't have some negative effects on all players and fields of play.


The game can't possibly be better when 5-6 sets of tees are needed where 3 used to do just fine.

"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

OChatriot

Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2019, 04:32:06 AM »
That's under 1% of golfers.  Reducing the length of the ball would diminish the game for the other 99%--and reduce the appeal of our game. 

Absolutely not. That's a very bizarre and unbalanced idea.  It doesn't matter if you hit it 300 yards or 250. What does it change?
It's all RELATIVE.  The game was as fun 50 years ago. And, again, those that hit it further will still hit it further than average.
I guess you're happy when you reach a par five in two? Whether it is 480 yards or 550, if you used the same clubs it doesn't make any difference. You might hit D+5W and the pros might hit D+5i on both holes with different balls. And?

About Bernie's question  "What do you mean by pollute?" :
Really??

Let's not get heated and jump to conclusions. Of course it needs study, time and support for the industry etc
The idea is not to have this starting blindly tomorrow.

My point is: most agree that the game becomes too long and slow, most agree that it is bad for the architecture and the costs of maintenance, most understand that distance is relative, most understand that current golf balls cannot be harmless to the environment.

Associating the two concepts looks just obvious in our current world. Time-hungry people, costs control, water and pollution management will push this agenda.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2019, 06:29:39 AM »
I heard an interesting suggestion during a podcast.  Someone stated that what if we thought about the distance issue more in terms of, 15 years ago, how would you have felt if someone said for the next 15 years courses will become 15 yards shorter each year.  I think it was suggested as a bad thing, but I thought it sounded a very sensible first step in creating yardage appropriate courses.  So long as it doesn't require walking forward a load, it makes much more sense to make courses shorter than to create equipment to make balls go longer.  That is if we look at the issue in a binary way. Of course, there is nothing binary about golf...which is one reasons I find the game so appealing. 

Those in the game still haven't clocked that courses should be shorter, yet the knee jerk reaction to modern smash mouth golf is to add yards to courses.  It doesn't make much sense to me, especially when the argument of "trying to recreate original yardage intention as the pros played the game X number of years ago!" is thrown in the mix.  This cannot be achieved without a significant jump in course length.  Besides, why is it we constantly measure the worth of a design through the eyes of the pro?  The pro game should be one of the last touchstones unless a course is specifically designed for pros...and I am all for that so long as the pros use it fairly often...which is sadly, is rarely the case. And this is why the elite player should rarely be a material consideration in design...they don't turn up often enough to worry about.
 
I spose there is some traction with the idea of the distance gap being so large between the elite and decent handicap golfers that it is harder to understand the product on tv.  Yet, for me, that is really about the tours providing an attractive product.  Thats their worry, not mine.  Either they produce something I want to watch or they don't.  There are more than enough tv alternatives to occupy my time. 

Altering courses to accomodate the long ball has always been a bugaboo for me, mainly because as I stated above, in the big picture, it doesn't make sense because courses need to be shorter, especially if we want to attract female golfers to the game...which we should do.  I believe that people will always change courses regardless of how far the ball goes.  There is plenty of evidence of this in the past and there will be plenty more to come.  To think that our great classic courses will automatically be protected from bad decision-making because the ball is rolled back is naive thinking in the  extreme. 

For sure, this is a 1st world problem which gets far more ink than it deserves because it is far more complicated an issue than simply the ball goes too far.  Golf will be greatly served when more women get involved in design, ownership and management.

Ciao
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 06:38:41 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2019, 12:47:42 PM »

What do you mean by pollute?  Is there any objective evidence that golf balls release harmful components into the air, water or soil?  ...

Why do you waste our time with this? All you have to do is Google golf ball pollution to find out.
I Googled and read the first two.
1. Urethane covers disintegrate and invest fish like other micro plastics.
2. Zinc content seeps out and covers the underwater ground poisoning aquatic life.
 ::)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2019, 12:57:34 PM »
You can't discuss length of the ball without discussing the impact of a ball gong less far on the average golfer.  The only problem for the ball going too far is for the Tour players and the very low amateurs.  That's under 1% of golfers.  Reducing the length of the ball would diminish the game for the other 99%--and reduce the appeal of our game. 
The answer is to keep the current ball--maybe with green attributes added--but reduce the length for the 1% with a different ball.  But the PGA Tour has stated clearly that they won't do that.  So here we are!

More  ::)

The amount golfers play golf has diminished during the time period of the long ball and other equipment advances. So I don't think you can predict reducing the length the ball travels will hurt golf participation. You have to remember that the farther the ball travels means the farther it goes astray, and the more hassle and time wasted there is in searching for astray balls.

The ball travelling shorter means that the weaker players are now not so glaringly shown up for their weakness, and can be part of the group more readily.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2019, 01:04:56 PM »
Garland, I went a little deeper, checked what I could from what the Stanford guy published and put on his website.  My takeaways - From the girl who got the whole thing started: “The exact chemicals golf balls might be releasing and whether they are a problem for the surrounding ecosystem remains a mystery, Weber adds, but that might be the topic of future studies.”  From the Stanford scientist who did the study: “No ill effects on local wildlife have been documented to date from exposure to golf balls.”  I'm all for retrieving balls or preventing their entry to begin with.  But changing equipment specs based on USA Today "pollution" headlines would be foolish.
This is also a great idea I uncovered in the research.  Surprised no one has thought of it before.
[/size]“Training people to shoot more accurately could help reduce the number of balls landing in the oceans, says Sabine Pahl, a social psychologist at the University of Plymouth in the U.K. who has worked in the area of protecting marine environments and energy efficiency."
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:30:33 PM by Bernie Bell »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2019, 01:08:13 PM »
Garland,

According to this article, it takes "100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally"....but not to worry, humanity on its current path will kill the planet long before most of them are gone.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/11/04/littering.golf.balls/

Bob Montle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2019, 01:10:42 PM »
Do what Jack Nicklaus was suggesting thirty years ago.
Go to floaters.
Balls must have density less than water and be larger than a specified diameter.

My mixed golf league played with floaters back in the early 80's.

The women found almost no change in their distances with the floaters.

The faster you swung - the more distance you lost.  Slower swings lost little.
Is that not what we are wanting? 
Current 220 yd drives would go 200 yds.
320 yd drives would only go 275.

And the balls would float - reducing pollution.

"If you're the swearing type, golf will give you plenty to swear about.  If you're the type to get down on yourself, you'll have ample opportunities to get depressed.  If you like to stop and smell the roses, here's your chance.  Golf never judges; it just brings out who you are."

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2019, 02:06:54 PM »
Garland,

According to this article, it takes "100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally"....but not to worry, humanity on its current path will kill the planet long before most of them are gone.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/11/04/littering.golf.balls/

Time to stop thinking linearly Kalen.  ::)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2019, 02:11:15 PM »
Bernie,

All you have proven is that Stanford scientists are lazy too. The too failed to use Google to find documented harm.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2019, 02:21:20 PM »
-
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:28:17 PM by Bernie Bell »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2019, 02:47:33 PM »
Garland,

According to this article, it takes "100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally"....but not to worry, humanity on its current path will kill the planet long before most of them are gone.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/11/04/littering.golf.balls/

Time to stop thinking linearly Kalen.  ::)

As opposed to what?

If you know how to exploit the time warp effect of a black hole, without being smashed into oblivion in the process, by all means out with it.  Until then, our frame of reference is certainly linear...

But back to practical reality.  My bet would be things like commercial fishing, every day trash, and fertilizer/chemical runoff into the worlds water ways has by order of several magnitudes a far far larger effect on aquatic life....
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:49:05 PM by Kalen Braley »

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shorter balls...that preserve the environment and the legacy
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2019, 02:50:50 PM »
Garland,

According to this article, it takes "100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally"....but not to worry, humanity on its current path will kill the planet long before most of them are gone.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/11/04/littering.golf.balls/


Realistically, we don’t kill the planet in these scenarios, we just make ourselves less likely to survive!!


Based on survival of the fittest, I’m not so sure we should any more