Chamblee on Distance

[Thomas Dai]

When does the scratch golfer have to start playing the tournament ball for competition?
How *does* a scratch golfer become a scratch golfer is their handicap is based off one ball and not the other?

+1 ... and furthermore would a low hcp amateur have to have two handicaps, one for each type of ball permitted in different kinds of event?
atb

[Jerry Kluger]

Baseball is different from golf in one major area and that is venues - baseball has teams that have owners who in turn own the venues and should there come a time where they had to do something about the ball going too far because of the ball or the bat they would no doubt dial back the ball because they own the stadiums and rebuilding all new stadiums would not be economically feasible.  Golf is played by individual members of the PGA Tour and nearly all of the venues where they play are not owned by the PGA Tour so there is no economic consequence to them should they continue to hit the ball farther and farther.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The golf-baseball bifurcation analogy has come up many, many times over the years, and while I agree with you that it's interesting, I continue to believe that it is a poor analogy at best, and not really helpful at all to the rule-making bodies of golf.

As you point out, amateur baseball went to metal bats for cost reasons rather than performance issues, which the exact reverse of what is being discussed in golf.  Professional baseball stayed the same, and remains that way, and the metal bats used by amateurs have been constantly changed, most recently to more accurately mirror the equipment being used by the pros.  I don't think any of that is instructive for golf.

And the idea that bifurcation has worked in baseball and so could work in golf ignores the central difference between the two sports, which is participation by the masses.  I play golf 4 times a week with a bunch of old guys; we ALL played baseball a thousand years ago, but no more.  The golf "industry" is based on continued participation by amateurs; there is no such thing in amateur baseball, even if you count recreation softball. 

In short, the bifurcation of baseball was done for different reasons than those that face golf, and impacts a completely different demographic than golf. 

Two other points:  MLB is currently grappling with how to deal with fundamental changes in the way the game is being played, including the heavy emphasis on launch angles and hitting the ball in the air, rather than on the ground, or even line drives.  There are new strikeout records being set every year now.  The ethic in MLB has become, more and more, to try to hit a home run and to accept a high rate of strikeouts as the cost.  It's not the only issue that MLB is facing, but it's a big one, and it exists in spite of wood bats. 

And finally, I'd change your last point to money rather than equipment being the draw for bigger, stronger athletes to golf.  There has never been a time in the history of golf where longer hitters weren't advantaged, regardless of equipment; that is no more true today than ever.  There ARE more long hitters today, for sure, but you'd be hard pressed, I think, to prove that they came to golf because they thought the equipment would work to their favor.

+1.

The baseball analogy falls flat on many levels.

[Sean_A]

When does the scratch golfer have to start playing the tournament ball for competition?
How *does* a scratch golfer become a scratch golfer is their handicap is based off one ball and not the other?

+1 ... and furthermore would a low hcp amateur have to have two handicaps, one for each type of ball permitted in different kinds of event?
atb

Listen, the handicap system is already so convoluted that the issues you raise are non issues. It would be dead easy for clubs to have equipment rollback categories. I suspect that when guys fancy themselves they could make the switch. What I find interesting is that I wonder how many obviously no chance to become elite players go for the rollback. I would certainly want golfers of all abilities to have the choice. These guys obviously wouldn't be nearly as concerned about handicaps as they are about how they believe the game should be played.

Happy Hockey

[Ben Hollerbach]

The golf-baseball bifurcation analogy has come up many, many times over the years, and while I agree with you that it's interesting, I continue to believe that it is a poor analogy at best, and not really helpful at all to the rule-making bodies of golf.

One part of the golf-baseball bifurcation that is virtually never brought up is that baseball uses something like 6 different ball constructions across all levels of play. The balls will vary in both their rebound rate, to impact distance hit, but also the pronouncement of the seams, to impact pitching. This is something that is well understood within the game and players playing in different leagues throughout the year will have to adjust to, but is also a factor that is rarely discussed from a spectators perspective.


The same is also true within Tennis, multiple ball types exist for the variety of surfaces and desired ball speed. Yet from the outside looking in it's hard to notice the difference.

+1 ... and furthermore would a low hcp amateur have to have two handicaps, one for each type of ball permitted in different kinds of event?
atb

As long as the equipment used is legal, the handicap system does not care what you use. If I play the bulk of my golf with persimmon woods do I need two handicaps? Of course the answer is no, so why start now?


but of course if you insist, it would not be that difficult to grade levels of balls and simply include a ball grade factor into the handicap system when entering a score.

[Thomas Dai]

In relation to low and elite amateurs there is more to this matter than is maybe at first apparent. There’s a bigger picture involved.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

The golf-baseball bifurcation analogy has come up many, many times over the years, and while I agree with you that it's interesting, I continue to believe that it is a poor analogy at best, and not really helpful at all to the rule-making bodies of golf.

One part of the golf-baseball bifurcation that is virtually never brought up is that baseball uses something like 6 different ball constructions across all levels of play. The balls will vary in both their rebound rate, to impact distance hit, but also the pronouncement of the seams, to impact pitching. This is something that is well understood within the game and players playing in different leagues throughout the year will have to adjust to, but is also a factor that is rarely discussed from a spectators perspective.

But again, this is in no way instructive for the rule-making bodies in golf, simply because highest velocity baseballs are used in professional baseball; as the level of play goes down, so does the density of the windings.  And all of this is a safety issue, rather than a performance issue. 


The "soft" baseballs used in Little League play are so that players don't get hurt, or get discouraged and quit the game.  And the youth baseballs in play up to the high school level are at least somewhat the same; the windings are less tight and the density of the ball is lower because the balls are designed for metal bats.  Likewise, the "drop" of bats, which is the length-to-weight ratio, is tightly governed according to safety factors, rather than so that the game will look a particular way.

[Ben Hollerbach]

AG,


Safety is a factor at the lower ages, but I'm not sure the focus of the balls used in travel baseball through minor league and major league is safety. Especially when speaking of the height of the laces on the ball. They are directly designed to impact the ability of the pitchers to control them. Here is a video that explains the variety of balls used through high levels of amateur and pro ball.


In many ways, this would be in parallel to the governing bodies ability to manage ball control through spin characteristics. From this aspect, the evolution of the baseball is 100% instructional to the USGA/R&A.

[Kalen Braley]

Put todays players on course setups from 1980 at 6400 yards and that number would be a helluva lot bigger.  These guys would be driving half of the par 4s, have wedge into the other half, and making a complete mockery of the par 5s.

If BC is gonna talk GIRs it needs to be apples to apples...

you talking with todays equipment or 1980's equipment?

Todays equipment...give them the shitty stuff from 1980 and then it would be apples to apples.

P.S.  Yes, I attribute very little to distance gains to player fitness.  The Senior Tour being Exhibit A, where most of those guys are longer now than they were 30 years ago, when they were in thier physical prime.

Clearly Jack was taking advantage of his physical prime...

Kyle,

Jack lost a bunch of weight at 29, right at the start of his physical prime, and went on to win most of his majors (11/18) after doing that as well as 75% of his total PGA Tour wins.  He also said this 16 years later.

"Nicklaus is conceding no more to age than he did to weight. “I don’t feel I’d be here now if it weren’t for taking off that weight 16 years ago,” he said. “I didn’t ruin my game, I saved it. And I’m not packing it in now."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-11-03-sp-4075-story.html

But by all means don't let facts get in the way of a ruining a narrative based on one picture...

[Tom_Doak]

baseball has teams that have owners who in turn own the venues and should there come a time where they had to do something about the ball going too far because of the ball or the bat they would no doubt dial back the ball because they own the stadiums and rebuilding all new stadiums would not be economically feasible. 

Ha ha.  In reality, the owners would all just ask their city to build them a new stadium to combat the distance or they will move to a different city. 


So, not much different than the USGA.

[Sean_A]

baseball has teams that have owners who in turn own the venues and should there come a time where they had to do something about the ball going too far because of the ball or the bat they would no doubt dial back the ball because they own the stadiums and rebuilding all new stadiums would not be economically feasible. 

Ha ha.  In reality, the owners would all just ask their city to build them a new stadium to combat the distance or they will move to a different city. 

So, not much different than the USGA.

Exactly what I was thinking. The USGA/R&A holds clubs to ransom just as sports teams hold cities to ransom.


Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

baseball has teams that have owners who in turn own the venues and should there come a time where they had to do something about the ball going too far because of the ball or the bat they would no doubt dial back the ball because they own the stadiums and rebuilding all new stadiums would not be economically feasible. 

Ha ha.  In reality, the owners would all just ask their city to build them a new stadium to combat the distance or they will move to a different city. 


So, not much different than the USGA.

I doubt that.  The owners loved when they had juiced balls, put butts in seats for every game and ratings went thru the roof.  In Baseball, chicks (and everyone else) actually dig the long ball.

The only complaints/threats Ive seen is when the owners bitch about not having enough luxury boxes to sell for exorbiant prices..

[Peter Flory]

MLB WS viewers (ratings) and # of HRs/game for the season:
1980: 42.3MM (32.8%).  1.46
1990: 30.2MM (20.8%). 1.58
2000: 18.1MM (12.4%).  2.34
2010: 14.2MM (8.4%).  1.90
2020: 9.6MM (5.6%).  2.56

During this timeframe, the population of the US has gone from 227MM to 333MM (47% increase).

The 6 highest home run rates in MLB history happened in years 2019, 2020, 2017, 2000, 2016, and 2018. 

If chicks ever dug the long ball, they sure got over it very quickly. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I find interesting is that I wonder how many obviously no chance to become elite players go for the rollback.

Regular golfers, when polled, don't want bifurcation or a global rollback. By wide margins.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


Safety is a factor at the lower ages, but I'm not sure the focus of the balls used in travel baseball through minor league and major league is safety. Especially when speaking of the height of the laces on the ball. They are directly designed to impact the ability of the pitchers to control them. Here is a video that explains the variety of balls used through high levels of amateur and pro ball.


In many ways, this would be in parallel to the governing bodies ability to manage ball control through spin characteristics. From this aspect, the evolution of the baseball is 100% instructional to the USGA/R&A.

Ben,
I don't necessarily disagree, fwiw, with spin rates as a "cure" for the golf ball, but that is a far different thing than bifurcation.

We'll have to agree to disagree about golf balls and baseballs.  Golf and baseball are just not analogous, either in terms of bifurcation, or what each sport depends on for economic health.  In any case, the simple fact is that the hardest, fastest baseballs are used at the highest level, which is the exact reverse of what would happen in golf. 


During the World Series this year, I heard John Smoltz tell a hilarious story about almost fighting Chipper Jones on the field during a game; Smoltz had a ball with abnormally raised laces, and had thrown something like a dozen straight sliders for unhittable strikes when a batter hit a ten hopper foul to Jones at third.  Jones picked the ball up and tossed it in the stands, and Smoltz went nuts.  Not really pertinent to golf, but a great story that I had never heard.

[A.G._Crockett]

MLB WS viewers (ratings) and # of HRs/game for the season:
1980: 42.3MM (32.8%).  1.46
1990: 30.2MM (20.8%). 1.58
2000: 18.1MM (12.4%).  2.34
2010: 14.2MM (8.4%).  1.90
2020: 9.6MM (5.6%).  2.56

During this timeframe, the population of the US has gone from 227MM to 333MM (47% increase).

The 6 highest home run rates in MLB history happened in years 2019, 2020, 2017, 2000, 2016, and 2018. 

If chicks ever dug the long ball, they sure got over it very quickly.

Peter,

You could do this same comparison for several other things that are far more likely to be causes of declining viewership than an increase in home runs.

One is the length of games.  Another is the number of pitching changes, which has become mind-numbing.  But the big one, IMO, is the starting and finishing times for the games.  There had never been a World Series night game until 1971; the last World Series day game was played in 1984.  The first pitch is between 8 and 8:30 Eastern time, so the games don't end until much too late for kids to watch. 


We have a couple of generations now who have NEVER seen the completion of a World Series game, and if you know you aren't going to watch the end, you are much less likely to watch the beginning, I think.  It's no surprise that viewership of the WS is way down; there aren't any bigger baseball fans than I, and I don't watch WS games til the end.


It is a tribute to the GAME of baseball that it continues to survive the BUSINESS of baseball; the MLB owners are just the worst.  They are cutting the minor leagues to save $60 million a year TOTAL; MLB player payrolls are now nearly TWO BILLION per year!  Will the loss of minor league teams increase or decrease interest in the major leagues in the long run?  That seems an easy answer, doesn't it?

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I don't see baseball owners getting nearly as much from the government as football owners do.  You don't see the mega venues that you do with football.  When the Yankees built a new Yankee stadium they kept the "short porch" in right field.  I remember when the Yankees put a wall in front of the monuments in center field of the old stadium because it was too deep - still looking for the golf course which the PGA Tour shortens.  Even back when Pete Dye did the Ocean Course it was built where it could be stretched to around 8,000 yards - I know it was done for flexibility because of the usual windy conditions but it was still possible to use all of the back tees.

[Sean_A]

What I find interesting is that I wonder how many obviously no chance to become elite players go for the rollback.

Regular golfers, when polled, don't want bifurcation or a global rollback. By wide margins.

Lets hope those entrusted with protecting the game don't make decisions based on polls.

Happy Hockey

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Lets hope those entrusted with protecting the game don't make decisions based on polls.

I didn't say they would.

But surely they have to consider the 99% of golfers who don't play professionally. If a rollback is going to lose any substantial number of players, that is a factor to consider.

[Sean_A]

Lets hope those entrusted with protecting the game don't make decisions based on polls.

I didn't say they would.

But surely they have to consider the 99% of golfers who don't play professionally. If a rollback is going to lose any substantial number of players, that is a factor to consider.

Maybe you are right. There is a real possibility that the USGA membership could be reduced if they mandate equipment rollback. Again, let's hope that is not a serious factor in their decision making on this matter.

Happy Hockey

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Maybe you are right. There is a real possibility that the USGA membership could be reduced if they mandate equipment rollback. Again, let's hope that is not a serious factor in their decision making on this matter.

Why do people always leave out the R&A?

[Sean_A]

Maybe you are right. There is a real possibility that the USGA membership could be reduced if they mandate equipment rollback. Again, let's hope that is not a serious factor in their decision making on this matter.

Why do people always leave out the R&A?

There is no connection between club golf and the R&A in terms of money. So no, I don't think the R&A would be under that type of pressure. I also don't believe there is any real issue with golfers quitting due to rollback. But then, I don't believe golfers would quit the game in the US over this issue either. It is far more likely golfers would ignore rollback rules. Most US golfers aren't associated with the USGA anyway.

Happy Hockey

[Kyle Harris]

Put todays players on course setups from 1980 at 6400 yards and that number would be a helluva lot bigger.  These guys would be driving half of the par 4s, have wedge into the other half, and making a complete mockery of the par 5s.

If BC is gonna talk GIRs it needs to be apples to apples...

you talking with todays equipment or 1980's equipment?

Todays equipment...give them the shitty stuff from 1980 and then it would be apples to apples.

P.S.  Yes, I attribute very little to distance gains to player fitness.  The Senior Tour being Exhibit A, where most of those guys are longer now than they were 30 years ago, when they were in thier physical prime.

Clearly Jack was taking advantage of his physical prime...

Kyle,

Jack lost a bunch of weight at 29, right at the start of his physical prime, and went on to win most of his majors (11/18) after doing that as well as 75% of his total PGA Tour wins.  He also said this 16 years later.

"Nicklaus is conceding no more to age than he did to weight. “I don’t feel I’d be here now if it weren’t for taking off that weight 16 years ago,” he said. “I didn’t ruin my game, I saved it. And I’m not packing it in now."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-11-03-sp-4075-story.html

But by all means don't let facts get in the way of a ruining a narrative based on one picture...

So is your physical prime your early twenties or early thirties?

We have now framed" physical prime within a 20+ year window.

Thanks for making the point for me. Physical prime is relative to when you work to maximize your body's ability for your age. Nobody (well, precious few compared to the modern PGA Tour) on the Senior Tour was at the physical prime 30+ years ago, it's just that the limit of that physical prime - should have chosen to pursue it - was *higher*.

[Kyle Harris]

When does the scratch golfer have to start playing the tournament ball for competition?
How *does* a scratch golfer become a scratch golfer is their handicap is based off one ball and not the other?

+1 ... and furthermore would a low hcp amateur have to have two handicaps, one for each type of ball permitted in different kinds of event?
atb

Listen, the handicap system is already so convoluted that the issues you raise are non issues. It would be dead easy for clubs to have equipment rollback categories. I suspect that when guys fancy themselves they could make the switch. What I find interesting is that I wonder how many obviously no chance to become elite players go for the rollback. I would certainly want golfers of all abilities to have the choice. These guys obviously wouldn't be nearly as concerned about handicaps as they are about how they believe the game should be played.

Happy Hockey

It may be convoluted for you, a self-avowed eschewer of card and pencil golf. If you aren't concerned with your handicap there is already a market of non-conforming equipment for you to use now. How come nobody does?

It works, and does so quite well, for many others.

[Sean_A]

When does the scratch golfer have to start playing the tournament ball for competition?
How *does* a scratch golfer become a scratch golfer is their handicap is based off one ball and not the other?

+1 ... and furthermore would a low hcp amateur have to have two handicaps, one for each type of ball permitted in different kinds of event?
atb

Listen, the handicap system is already so convoluted that the issues you raise are non issues. It would be dead easy for clubs to have equipment rollback categories. I suspect that when guys fancy themselves they could make the switch. What I find interesting is that I wonder how many obviously no chance to become elite players go for the rollback. I would certainly want golfers of all abilities to have the choice. These guys obviously wouldn't be nearly as concerned about handicaps as they are about how they believe the game should be played.

Happy Hockey

It may be convoluted for you, a self-avowed eschewer of card and pencil golf. If you aren't concerned with your handicap there is already a market of non-conforming equipment for you to use now. How come nobody does?

It works, and does so quite well, for many others.

I don't understand your point part of which is incorrect.

In any case, are you saying there is no possible way to handicap for non elite golfers which use two different sets of equipment?

Happy Hockey