[Tom_Doak]

I just read an interview on Golf Digest's web site with Martin Slumbers from the R & A, who said he was concerned about how far Bryson hits it now, in terms of the bigger impact it has on golf.


But he also said that they have delayed the second part of the Distance Insights report, because the pandemic has thrown everything off kilter, and they want to give the business a chance to get its feet back on the ground first.


That's how you can tell that they are not serious about making changes.  If they wanted to make changes, what better time to make them than when everything is in upheaval?  That's exactly when capitalists pounce on the opportunity to do things they want to do.


But when you DON'T want to make changes, that's when politicians say "it's too soon" to consider new policies and that "we don't want to be reactive," or "people need time to grieve."  So we might as well start grieving, because it sounds like this report is going to limit the options for change.

[Pete Lavallee]

Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?

[Steve Lapper]

Tom,


  There are two, distinctly different ways of interpreting Slumber's comments and the delay in the the Distance Insights reports.


  Your's is but one of them, with a dollop of natural bias and well-deserved cynicism. This might prove quite valid.


  The other interpretation is that the R&A may well be earnest in it's intent to address the excessive distance problem, yet is acting prudently in the disruptive times of an undefined health, business and labor crisis before enacting any kind of regulatory resets.


  Golf is thriving in certain locations, and struggling in others. Same for different segments of it's underlying industry. Covid-19, like it has to so many other capitalist endeavors, has unequivocally disrupted "business-as usual."


  It is most certainly a good part of the inflection point you insinuate, however as much as you and I would like to see strong measures taken to roll back the ball, bifurcate, or otherwise sternly address the crazy race for driving distances, any decision to do so can produce a negative impact on hundreds, if not thousands of companies and their employees.


  "Capitalists pouncing" occurs when disruptions provide new or fresh opportunities. Sure, I could see new ball manufacturers and landscape architects seeing a boon, but doing so at this moment will end up a zero-sum game...one with potentially negative consequences equal to or larger than what is gained.


  Which interpretation proves accurate remains to be seen? I absolutely favor some restraints imposed in whatever fashion reigns in the extreme distances seen amongst elite players. Sadly, the PGA pros and Gumby-like young guns are the models the industry relies on vs. the average players, public and private. That's a whole other problem, but nevertheless one intricately tied to the outcome of the report.


   I, for one, won't yet condemn the R&A for going slow this time around. A few more months won't matter all that much in the scheme of things.


 

[Tom_Doak]

Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?

Well, that IS a strategy, of sorts.  Many politicians favor it!


Years ago, what they all said was that they would approach the problem incrementally:  making rules about the grooves on club faces was going to be the first step.  After that, restrictions on the ball, and/or the driver, in whichever order made the most sense, but they never really got around to anything more besides banning anchoring of the long putter.


So my guess would be that's the strategy once again . . . make a new spec for the ball, see how much that affects the situation, and then consider further equipment rules. 


It has been so many years since these discussions started that I suspect the manufacturers have had a different spec for the ball that they could start working on optimizing for quite a while now; so making a change would probably not be as Draconian as Mr. Lapper suggests. But the companies with the biggest market share will fight it tooth and nail, regardless.

[Peter Pallotta]

If the easiest and safest and least expensive and most risk-free* course of action is to discuss an issue to death but in the end do nothing at all, why would any political/organizational leader choose any other course of action?

*Risk-free in terms of their own career paths and leadership positions. 

[Jim Hoak]

This not meant to be argumentative.  I'm just confused.
Let me state what I see as givens on this issue--
1)  The R&A/USGA can change the equipment specs under the Rules of Golf.
2)  The 99%+ of golfers who do not play professionally or top-flight amateur events do not need or desire a change in distance; in fact, they are not scoring any lower as a group than they were 20 years ago.  Some may hit it a bit farther than they did before, but the increase is miniscule and a reduction in the distance they hit the ball would be counter-productive to the growth of the game.
3)  The only way to affect the players who need to be reined in and not the others would be to bi-furcate the rules between pros/top amateurs and all the others.
4)  The pro tours have said that they are not bound to follow R&A/USGA rules in their events, and in fact they think the distance hit is an attractive part of their game.  Therefore, the only ones that would be affected by an R&A/USGA decision would be the ones who do not need it.  Bi-furcation won't work unless the tours go along.
This seems to me to be the dilemma faced by those who think we need to reduce the distance the ball is hit.  While I agree that it would be good to rescue classic courses from the longer-hit ball, I don't see the way out of this dilemma.  Sure, the R&A, the USGA, and the Masters could mandate a change for their tournaments, but what about all the others?
I have no answers.  It just seems to me that many people are ignoring this dilemma.  Without the pro tours on board, the solution cannot be achieved.  So an emphasis on the actions of the R&A/USGA is misplaced.

[Steve Lapper]

Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?

Well, that IS a strategy, of sorts.  Many politicians favor it!


Years ago, what they all said was that they would approach the problem incrementally:  making rules about the grooves on club faces was going to be the first step.  After that, restrictions on the ball, and/or the driver, in whichever order made the most sense, but they never really got around to anything more besides banning anchoring of the long putter.


So my guess would be that's the strategy once again . . . make a new spec for the ball, see how much that affects the situation, and then consider further equipment rules. 


It has been so many years since these discussions started that I suspect the manufacturers have had a different spec for the ball that they could start working on optimizing for quite a while now; so making a change would probably not be as Draconian as Mr. Lapper suggests. But the companies with the biggest market share will fight it tooth and nail, regardless.

  Tom,


   I hardly think "making a change would (sic) be as Draconian"as you suggest. I just think in a period of serious upheaval imposing major regulatory reform across a struggling industry doesn't make for smart timing sense.


  Naturally, your interests would prefer otherwise, but can you really justify this kind of regulatory shift (despite most every architecturally-inclined fan...self included) when so many livelihoods remain at risk? What happens to the line worker at the ball and club manufacturer or the club pro relying on his or her shop sales to make ends meet?


 In any period other than today's it makes sense to gradually or incrementally introduce change over a multi-year period.

[Thomas Dai]

Never trust a committee, even more so two committees either side of a 3,000 mile pond.
The R&A and the USGA could of course impose under conditions of competition a regulation limiting the distance the ball can travel and/or the spec of clubheads etc for The Open and the US Open and see which of the elite tour stars is prepared to buck their equipment manufacturer and play in the events. The players personal ego, vanity and legacy within history vrs their manufacturers clout.
And of course no limitation has to apply immediately. A date in the future, even a couple of years away, could be set during which time all the existing golf balls could be lost in bushes and ponds meantime the new spec ones are being manufactured ready for the big day.
I’m not holding my breath on this matter though.
Where’s a golf version of Ralph Nader when we need one? Public safety and the environment vrs equipment manufacturers.
Atb

[William_G]

I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers

[James Reader]

I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers

I’m genuinely interested in why you think it’s ‘good for the game overall’, William.  I’m struggling to see the benefits.  What am I missing?

[Pete Lavallee]

Steve,


Is golf really struggling right now?  Here in So. Cal. Courses are packed; people are queuing up at my local muni at 4:00 am to get tee times at the starters booth at 6:00! Tournaments are over subscribed and people who have been on the Men’s Club wait list list for 4 years will probably not get in next year because of this. Golfers need a fresh supply of balls and now would seem to be the ideal time to reengineer them, no?

[William_G]

I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers

I’m genuinely interested in why you think it’s ‘good for the game overall’, William.  I’m struggling to see the benefits.  What am I missing?

distance is exciting to see for pros, fun to watch a unicorn at this point
more interest in the game for sure
grow the game, more eyeballs
fun stuff
cheers

[Michael Whitaker]

The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.


Thank you!

[Jay Mickle]

The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
Thank you!

Wholly agree.

[Tom_Doak]

The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.

I'm not opposed to this approach, because I watched it happen in the U.K. when I was living there in 1982-83.  The 1.62-in ball was still legal outside the U.S. at that point, but the bigger ball was mandated for The Open and The Amateur Championships . . . that was all.  And it slowly but surely rolled back to everyone else, via peer pressure from better players at different levels of competition.


The difference between now and then was that the ball specs were ALREADY bifurcated, and had been for 50 years; and while the R & A did not give up on their spec for the public at large, they didn't have to invent something new and try to get everyone to comply. 


But I don't remember William_G's dad gaslighting us about how they were ruining The Open by not letting Nicklaus et al. drive it 40 yards further like they could with the small ball.  But I guess back then the public at large didn't fall for the corporate line that "eyeballs" were the most important metric of how things were going. 

[Carl Rogers]

Guess what!  Pro Golf was just as interesting when a 380 yard hole was drive and a 7 iron rather than 3 metal and a flip lob wedge.


I can play from 6400 yards (current ball and age 66) or the rolled back ball at 5800 yards.

[Jim Hoak]

Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone.  So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along?  That is what the Tours say they will do.  So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule.  The Tours can't be made to go along.  So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?

[Cal Seifert]

Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone.  So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along?  That is what the Tours say they will do.  So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule.  The Tours can't be made to go along.  So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?

Well most casual golf fans only care about the results of the tournaments held by the R&A, USGA, and Augusta national.

[Peter Flory]

Prior to 1921, it was "Gibson's choice" and any ball could be used.  From 1921-1931, the official ball was 1.62 inches in diameter and 1.62 oz.  In 1931, the USGA mandated the floater ball- 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.55oz (bigger and lighter).  After a year of everyone moaning about loss of distance, they amended it and increased the weight back to 1.62oz (so bigger, but the same weight). 

The USGA's reasoning behind the balloon ball was to "curb long-driving and to prevent old courses from becoming obsolete as a result of the 1.62-1.62 ball's constantly increasing ballistic properties."  HA!

Per the NY Times (11/21/1931):
"Curiously enough, the ball that was supposed to curb length, reward skill and bring back the use of clubs that were coming to be neglected, such as the spoon and the mashie, did nothing of the sort.  The skillful hitters began getting even more length down wind with it than they had with its predecessor and even with the wind adverse the loss of distance was negligible. 

But the duffer and the dub suffered, or at least imagined he did.  It was all well and good for others to inform him that whatever distance he lost of fancied he lost from the tee would be recompensed by the way the ball sat up, begging to be hit, through the fairway.  The 1.62-1.62 ball had got him off the tee and nothing else mattered. 

In a great many cases, perhaps most, those few 150, 175, even 200 yard drives that he had been getting with the 1.62-1.62 ball brought the only thrill of the game, and to take that away left nothing, or next to nothing.  He complained justily and the USGA officials heeded." 

Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!

[Peter Flory]

One other factor was that prior to 1930, not many clubs watered the fairways and distance was getting out of control.  In the early 30s, watering became more common.  If the floater ball would have been introduced 5 years earlier, it may have had more of a chance.  But... it may have taken a year of torture to make people happy with the eventual compromise. 





 

[Jeff Schley]

Prior to 1921, it was "Gibson's choice" and any ball could be used.  From 1921-1931, the official ball was 1.62 inches in diameter and 1.62 oz.  In 1931, the USGA mandated the floater ball- 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.55oz (bigger and lighter).  After a year of everyone moaning about loss of distance, they amended it and increased the weight back to 1.62oz (so bigger, but the same weight). 

The USGA's reasoning behind the balloon ball was to "curb long-driving and to prevent old courses from becoming obsolete as a result of the 1.62-1.62 ball's constantly increasing ballistic properties."  HA!

Per the NY Times (11/21/1931):
"Curiously enough, the ball that was supposed to curb length, reward skill and bring back the use of clubs that were coming to be neglected, such as the spoon and the mashie, did nothing of the sort.  The skillful hitters began getting even more length down wind with it than they had with its predecessor and even with the wind adverse the loss of distance was negligible. 

But the duffer and the dub suffered, or at least imagined he did.  It was all well and good for others to inform him that whatever distance he lost of fancied he lost from the tee would be recompensed by the way the ball sat up, begging to be hit, through the fairway.  The 1.62-1.62 ball had got him off the tee and nothing else mattered. 

In a great many cases, perhaps most, those few 150, 175, even 200 yard drives that he had been getting with the 1.62-1.62 ball brought the only thrill of the game, and to take that away left nothing, or next to nothing.  He complained justily and the USGA officials heeded." 

Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!

Peter also the "British ball" which was slightly smaller in diameter until the late 80's I think. It was used in the British Open under R&A rules, but not sanctioned by the USGA.  I hear it went further due to lower wind resistance.

[Thomas Dai]

Peter also the "British ball" which was slightly smaller in diameter until the late 80's I think. It was used in the British Open under R&A rules, but not sanctioned by the USGA.  I hear it went further due to lower wind resistance.

The 1:62" wasn't just a British ball. It was the standard international spec ball used wherever R&A rather than USGA regulations were followed.

The 1:62" ball could be used in The Open until 1974 when the 1:68" became compulsory. But the 1:62" was still being manufactured and was a legit spec ball to play in club golf until 1990. And the 1:62" did go further.
Did golfers and ball makers moan and complain and hint at legal action when we couldn't use the 1:62" anymore? No we just got on with playing.
atb

[Sean_A]

This not meant to be argumentative.  I'm just confused.
Let me state what I see as givens on this issue--
1)  The R&A/USGA can change the equipment specs under the Rules of Golf.
2)  The 99%+ of golfers who do not play professionally or top-flight amateur events do not need or desire a change in distance; in fact, they are not scoring any lower as a group than they were 20 years ago.  Some may hit it a bit farther than they did before, but the increase is miniscule and a reduction in the distance they hit the ball would be counter-productive to the growth of the game.
3)  The only way to affect the players who need to be reined in and not the others would be to bi-furcate the rules between pros/top amateurs and all the others.
4)  The pro tours have said that they are not bound to follow R&A/USGA rules in their events, and in fact they think the distance hit is an attractive part of their game.  Therefore, the only ones that would be affected by an R&A/USGA decision would be the ones who do not need it.  Bi-furcation won't work unless the tours go along.
This seems to me to be the dilemma faced by those who think we need to reduce the distance the ball is hit.  While I agree that it would be good to rescue classic courses from the longer-hit ball, I don't see the way out of this dilemma.  Sure, the R&A, the USGA, and the Masters could mandate a change for their tournaments, but what about all the others?
I have no answers.  It just seems to me that many people are ignoring this dilemma.  Without the pro tours on board, the solution cannot be achieved.  So an emphasis on the actions of the R&A/USGA is misplaced.

Jim

To be honest, the USGA, R&A and Masters cover a large percentage of the courses folks are trying to protect with new rules.

I don't have strong feelings about changing the rules because I truly believe it will not properly protect classic courses from being altered. The problem is wholly to do with people, not the rules of golf. If we have to have change, then I much prefer bifurcation. The tours can do as they will. I don't see any inherent problem with different rules for different events. Ya gotta break eggs to make an omelette even if in this case a great many people aren't hungry.

So far as the long ball being good for the game, right now is a great time to test the theory. It's my understanding that despite virtually no TV competition, the US tour TV viewing numbers are rather disappointing.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.

Unfortunately there are lots of big, strong 15-40 yr old amateurs who hit it as far or nearly as far as the elite players but are not tournament players, indeed not even close to being at that level. Elite and tournament players however, generally know the direction the ball is going to go. Your big, strong 15-40 old amateurs tend not to know where the ball's going to go, likely quite the opposite, and they thrash away frequently hitting it miles off-target, which is dangerous. And there are lots of these big, strong amateurs, and they are getting bigger and stronger every year.
The future ........?

atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Someone will have to help me out here.  I am failing to understand how DeChambeau putting on 40 lbs and adding 20+ yards has created anything new vis a vis the golf ball.  Is there anything else happening in the world of distance besides him that I don't know about?
I'll admit to being solidly in the minority here who opposes bifurcation, and the additional minority who doesn't understand the idea of a "roll back" to something that never existed in the first place.  But those aside, how does DeChambeau's approach to the game for approximately two months or so create some crisis that needs to be solved?  And if you want to attack the specific problem that he has created relative to other Tour pros, shouldn't we ban working out, or roll back protein shakes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()