new equipment:bane or blessing?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I just came back from eight days of skiing in Colorado. I have new Volkl Shaped skiis.  I skiied better than I have in all my life.  It is not as though I have not skiied double blacks before, but I skiied them better than I ever have before.  I knew it was the new improved skiis that allowed me to go from a five to scratch, so to golf speak.  I didn't care. i enjoyed skiing even more than I have for the fifty years or so that I have skiied.  

I began to think(a real problem) "Has the equipment change in golf helped or hurt the game?"  

I ski the double blacks better and I play 450 yard par fours better.  Great!! Ddo I care that some pro may beat up Merion or Olympic or Cypress Point?  No!

Do I care that some courses may not be able tyo hold a pro event because they are too short? Yes.  But why?  Humnans get better and equipment gets better.  

I say let equipment get better.  Most people have not had their handicap lowered except by the lower standards of the USAGA.  

By the way some skiis that recreational skiiers ski are illiegel in world cup events.  Do I care?  Hell no.!!! I have torn two ACL's I don't need to tear any more.

New equipment: bane or blessing?  both and neither.  but if I had to choose---------blessing.

[frank_D]

"Has the equipment change in golf helped or hurt the game?"  
 

brother tommy w -

financially speaking according to NGF the equipment represent the only revenue growth part of the game which appears to be in price not quantity - which i guess is good - if one wants variety and can afford it

an analogy might be to cars - if you want an expensive vehicle to drive - go ahead and buy it - or else if a chevy will suffice to get from point A to B that's okay too

from a performance point of view i can say this - i have BORROWED some high-tech expensive clubs from fellow players on occasion and have seen an improvement - HOWEVER - on every instance when i actually went out and BOUGHT the same club and OWNED it the MAGIC disapeared
altogether

then i read a wife of a famous golfer who had sacrificed spending money on the household budget so her famous golfer husband could buy a variety of drivers - in succession each new driver had a diminished capacity to continue the magic - causing the wife to eventually state to the husband golfer "maybe its not the equipment"

i don't think the product hype meets expectations most of the time but i cannot stop myself from BROWSING at every opportunity

i think i agree with harvey penick who indicated the confidence factor has more to do with the results

[Tim_Weiman]

tommy w:

Equipment "improvements" are a big step backwards for both tournament level play and probably also for casual golf.

For insight into how equipment "improvements" have hurt tournament level play, turn to Pat Mucci's thread about "options". Pat fairly asks if "options" really exist or are just a figment of imagination. Is there any doubt that these so called "improvements" have simply distorted the necessary balance between player skill and the configuration of the playing field? Is there any doubt that the golf technology arms race is anything more than a never ending series of adjustments and counter adjustments that contribute nothing to the essence of the game, but do add to the cost of playing?

Casual golf has also been indirectly hurt by equipment "improvements". A good case in point is a club I'm familiar with that is considering spending $2-3 million just to accomodate a very small minority that need more than 6,700 yards to be challenged.

Tommy, you should have seen the look on some board member's faces when I suggested buying a circa 1980s persimmon driver for each member who needs more challenge.

Suddenly they were presented with a a couple thousand dollar option rather than a couple million dollar option. Amazingly, these are very smart business people who sat wondering why nobody ever suggested such a thing before!

That's how distorted our views have become as a result of the silly golf technology arms race.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

tommy,

I've played golf for 35 years.  It is no more enjoyable today than it was in say 1973 because of equipment.  I have very fond memries of playing with my golden Tony Penna persimmon driver, ladies bullseye, and Hogan blades, and would gladly return to that equipment today.  The only reason I have shelved my Penna is because it can not be replaced and is starting to deterioate somewhat.  I still play the blades.  

I think if you seek enjoyment in golf through better equipment you are still lacking in mental equipment, you have missed the point about the game, and fall into a spiral of always buying the latest equipment to satisfy your enjoyment rather than seeking full enjoyment through the mental and strategic, and historical aspects of the game.  

As a very average skiier I recently bought the latest equipment and I am too unsophsticated to tell the difference between the latest technology and what I started with 25 years ago.  I certainly do not enjoy skiing any more today because of the new technology.  

[JSlonis]

Outside of the professional game, has the advancement of technology really made that much of a difference?

I really don't think so.  At the top amateur level there may be a smaller improvement, but for the recreational or club golfer I honestly don't think there is much of a problem.  Should the average golfer really care what the top 1% of professional players are doing?

Here are some interesting numbers: I went back through the Archives at the Golf Association of Philadelphia to do some research.  The following are the stroke averages for the "WINNERS" of our Patterson Cup Championship, 36 holes, stroke play.  This tournament is one of our prestigious events in the Philadelphia area.

1950-1959- Stroke ave. 144.6
1960-1969-    "        "    144.9
1970-1979-    "        "    145.0
1980-1989-    "        "    143.0(Jay Sigal won 3 times 1980's)
1990-1999-    "        "    144.80

2000- 144
2001- 144
2002- 145
2003- 137(very low score on two courses that were not as difficult as most years.)

There is no doubt that equipment has continued to improve over the last 50 years, but scoring for the Patterson Cup is still very much the same.  What should we conclude from this?  Except for the very best players on the professional tours, maybe the difficulty of golf courses has kept pace with technology...Or that except for the very best players, regardless of equipment advances our actual golf games have not improved much.

To let the top 1% of all golfers have such a huge effect on the total state of our game is ridiculous to me.  Modern equipment may(?) have made the game more enjoyable for the average golfer but they aren't really getting any better.

Most members at the courses I have played seem to be having as much fun as they always have no matter what Tiger or Ernie or Vijay shoots every week.  I don't question the fact the ball is traveling farther and straighter than ever, I know it is, but unless the average golfer starts taking more lessons and actually improves- does all this technology make that much of a difference?

Again...at least to me- the very small minority of top level golfers are having a much greater effect on the large majority of golfers than they actually should.  The problem shouldn't be this big!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I agree. Let the equipment/balls get better. What other major sport has impeded technology in equipment? Ok... Major League Baseball does not allow non-wooden bats but even they monkey around with the ball specs. Here's a great article from Bob Verdi:
www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20040206verdi.html

[Tim_Weiman]

JSlonis:

You have touched on one of the key issues pertaining to the golf technology arms race: the big problem really comes when you combine so called technology "improvements" with competitive level golfers. That is when you get silly things like that mountain tee on #4 at Oakmont.

If the USGA simply required competitors to play with 1980s era persimmon drivers and balls, all the silly modifications to golf courses and the associated costs wouldn't be necessary.

Like Steve Shaffer suggests, let the masses play with whatever they want, but for heaven's sake lets clean up competitive golf by placing more emphasis on player skill rather than engineering research and development.

[Dan_Callahan]

At the competitive level, new ski technology has impacted race courses in the same way that new golf technology has changed course design. Slalom courses were once set along a very straight path. The incredible turning ability of the short, shaped skis has forced course setters to increase the turns from one gate to the next. Otherwise, there would be no challenge for the World Cup racers. Shaped skis have had a similar—albeit less dramatic—impact on giant slalom.

Of course, it is a far easier (and less expensive) task to change a slalom course than it is to lengthen a golf course. And from the public's perspective, anything that makes it easier to link together a series of perfect turns—or a drive off the sweet spot—makes the sport all the more enjoyable.

[Steve Lang]

 

First off.. BLESSING.

While I feel for the traditionalistas,  y'all are simply tilting against windmills on this issue of tech, I&B or whatever you call it, you can't turn back the clock, especially to some magic "space" where all was well and good with the game.  It has never existed!  Get out of denial and move on.

Like Markonikov's rule in chemistry, simplyfied, "them that has gets".  The power game has always been there when body and equipment has been tuned to work together... but the game is about the how many, not the how, be it match play or medal play.

I think it would be the biggest blessing to leave the great old courses as they are, do not attempt to turn them into something for the "modern" game.  Hey folks.. leave them as is, as testament to their age and the way golf was once played and could be played.  Their golden age is past and they should cut the cord so to speak and let their championships be their history.  Let golf move onto new pastures!  

[Steve Lang]

 

Mike,

I have no problem making an exception for the Masters, they have made their own history.  I would however move them back to no rough, sometimes to their old tees, and to more trimmed trees..

And what will become if the Masters defined a Master's tourney ball, would Tim F have to approve for those earnings to count towards PGA money stats?  Would they be hailed for preserving teh game or their self interests?

I  don't have problems with rules.. but don't your examples also speak to not going back?  The Yankees would never move into a smaller field becuse George S couldn't stand the loss of cash flow!

New pastures primarily for play.  How many times does a venue have to have a championship?

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve Lang:

The real "denial" is the foolish notion that the golf technology arms race makes sense.

It is nothing more than a never ending series of adjustments and counter adjustments that contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to raise the cost of the game.

Why in the world should the required balance between player skill, the equipment utilized and the configuration of the playing field be achieved at ever higher costs?

Why does this make sense? Why would any golf consumer support it?

There is no need to change any of our classic courses. All we need to do is conduct competitions with more appropriate technology.

Remember. If new equipment encourages or requires costly modifications to existing golf courses, it is obviously inferior technology. Clearly, superior equipment technology would do things like lowering land acquisition costs and course construction/maintenance costs.

It is just going to take some time to get more people to think clearly on this issue. But, we'll get there.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike,

And what will become if the Masters defined a Master's tourney ball, would Tim F have to approve for those earnings to count towards PGA money stats?  Would they be hailed for preserving teh game or their self interests?

I  don't have problems with rules.. but don't your examples also speak to not going back?  The Yankees would never move into a smaller field becuse George S couldn't stand the loss of cash flow!

New pastures primarily for play.  How many times does a venue have to have a championship?

1. I think it is pretty clear from recent history that Hootie does not care about public pressure. It is Tim's problem to deal with.

2. I grew up in Philly, so I don't want to defend George too much, but my point was it is fun to watch baseball in the old stadiums, and now everybody is building new "old" stadiums.

3. Bethpage was a new venue, Torrey Pines is a new venue. The problem with a new new venue is that they can't be built near population centers (for the most part) due to land restrictions, which is what the USGA wants and needs.

[Steve Lang]

 

Tim,

I do like mmost of your logic, to a point.

"All we need to do is conduct competitions with more appropriate technology." BREAK..  My suggestion is if its not interesting on a venue with present technology, don't force it, move on.  The market place can dictate that to the people trying to make money at it, if those are the people really in charge.. whether we like it or not.

"Remember. If new equipment encourages or requires costly modifications to existing golf courses, it is obviously inferior technology. "  BREAK.. isn't this like the who kills people arguement, guns - inanimate objects or people?  I do like your suggestion elsewhere to give those "A" players some persimmon drivers and old balls versus $MM for needless renovations at your club..  but how many times will they bite that fruit?  Several times a year?  EVery month's Mens Golf Assoc. event?

Clearly, superior equipment technology would do things like lowering land acquisition costs and course construction/maintenance costs. BREAK.. No disrespect here, but I guess that's why Frisbee Golf has become so popular.  I don't see anything in the evolution of golf that says change hasn't ultimately been for the better,.. do you really want the stymie to come back?

 

[JSlonis]

Why do we need to conduct tournaments with more appropriate technology?

Should we really care what the best players in the world shoot for 4 days out of the year at some course?

The tour players are unbelievably talented. They don't have and they shouldn't have any bearing on the day to day play of the average golfer.  What they should be, is an example of how well this game can be played and that with hard work people can improve their games no matter their level.

Is the gap in ablilities between the average player and a tour player any larger or smaller today than it was during the Nelson, Snead era?  I really don't think so.  

To me it seems to be too much emphasis on too few people(tour players).

[Mike_Sweeney]

Why do we need to conduct tournaments with more appropriate technology?

Maybe a better word is more consistent technology. Every other sport, except for golf, is played with a BALL that is supplied by the entity or organization running the event. Why is golf the only sport where the competitor brings his own ball ?

Just because it has been the history of the sport, doesn't make it correct. Maybe the "arms race" is just identifying a long standing problem with competitive golf.

Just a thought.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Hey, great responses. they all make sense.  As I have been thinking more about equipment, one thing is very different.  I can't shape the ball flight as much as I use to.  One of my favorite shots was to try and hit a low hooking ball around a tree and on to the green.  First it is harder to keep the ball down and second i can't hook it as much as I used to.  With the new equipment there a certain shots that just can't be hit.  

[JohnV]

Why is golf the only sport where the competitor brings his own ball ?

Probably because you and your opponent don't have to hit each others balls.

In tennis we have to hit the same ball, in baseball, one team pitches and the other hits.  For reasons like that, a standard ball is required (although the standards do differ based on court/level of play etc.)

In baseball everyone has their own bat (subject to rules limitations).

I think that they have special balls for kickers in the NFL.  While the kickers don't bring them, they are inflated differently or some such.

Jamie,
Do you feel that the game would be better if everyone had to use a Titleist Pro V1?  That would be consistent.

Actually, if you look at the PGA Tour, you are about 75% of the way there already.  Titleist is still provides the majority of the balls.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Probably because you and your opponent don't have to hit each others balls.


In baseball everyone has their own bat (subject to rules limitations).

John,

Your statement relates to the fact that golf is a individual sport played against the terrain. The individual scores are measured against the terrain (stroke play).  This is opposed to baseball with individual (pitcher) and team against individual (batter) and team.

But the goal of the pitcher is to keep the other team from hitting his ball. So why can't the pitcher bring a special ball (similar to a golfer) with slighly bigger laces for a curve ball pitcher or no laces for the other teams fast ball pitcher ? Because it gives one an unlevel playing field.

A bat is different and thus similar to golf. Depending on the strategy of the game at a specific moment, a player may want his home run (probably heavier, call it a driver) bat, and at other times, the strategy of the game calls for his "get a single" bat (call it a 7 iron).

Certainly you would want the same ball used by all during a hore run contest at the All Star break ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve Lang:

I think you seriously underestimate how much the golf technology arms race has polluted and distorted our thinking.

How else can one explain why some very smart business people serving on the board of a private club where almost the entire membership doesn’t play the back tees would even consider spending $2-3 million “renovating” their golf course to accommodate a very small group of members who say they need more “challenge” than the 6,700 yard back tees?

How else can you explain why these otherwise intelligent gentlemen sat stunned when I suggested an alternative solution that would probably cost couple thousand dollars at most?

Why would they say “how come nobody thought of that before….why spend millions when the exact same thing is accomplished for a few thousand”?

Steve, these are very smart business people who typically look for the lowest cost solution to business problems. Why do so many such people go brain dead and buy into the faulty logic of the golf technology arms race? Shouldn’t we be doing more to help people avoid falling into that trap?

Has anyone made a convincing case that the golf technology arms race is anything more than a pointless, never ending series of adjustments and counter adjustments that simply makes the game more expensive?

No! It can’t be found anywhere.

Frisbee golf? I see no danger of that happening. It is a long way from things like Golf Digest architecture editor Ron Whitten suggested not long ago. Remember Whitten floated the idea of moving the entire green complex of Augusta’s #13.

Why not point out a simple, low cost alternative exists: the competition ball? Does such a plan mean we’ve gone to Frisbee golf?

Is all change in golf for the better? Read Simpson’s “Attack and Defense”. It doesn’t take much more reading to realize how silly the golf technology arms race is.

 

[TEPaul]

I would suggest that the improvement in technology in skiing is not a particularly useful analogy to the improvement in technology in golf equipment. Skiing does not inherit the same problems due to technological improvements that golf and golf courses do. Do ski slope operators have to redesign their slopes due to improved ski equipment technology? Do they feel the need to lengthen them due to improved ski equipment technology? Not that I'm aware of!

The point should be is golf more interesting and enjoyable compared to yesteryear due to improved equipment technology? And if it is more interesting and enjoyable is it enough to justify the additional costs and the other things that appear to be necessary to golf and golf courses to compensate?

A personal observation would be I can't see that I have more enjoyment playing golf than my father had over a half century ago when he played with far different equipment than I do today! I think the improvement in golf equipment when all things are considered is probably a bane not a blessing.

[JSlonis]

JohnV,

I don't feel the game would be better if everyone had to use a ProV1.  To me the golf ball is no different than the driver, a set of irons or wedges, they are all part of the golfers equipment.  Throughout the history of the game, golfers have been using different equipment to accomplish the same goal.

Titleist has had the lion's share of golf ball use on tour for many years but there are alot of great players that use models from other manufacturers.

I don't see the need for everyone to play the same ball.  If the powers that be instituted the use of a competition ball, what would preclude each manufacturer from creating their own model of a conforming ball?

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

Very well stated. Your comments about your Dad remind me of an experience I reported on a while back.

After not seeing the course I grew up on (Pelham Country Club) for about thirty years, I went one day to walk it and relive old memories.

When I came upon the 4th hole, I noticed an additional tee built way up on the hill - not quite Oakmont-ish, but the same idea.

Along came the superintendent intending to throw a trespasser off the course. After some friendly chat and explanation what I was doing there, I decided to play dumb and asked:

"Why was that tee built?"

The superintendent replied by saying it was needed to create enough challenge to clear the hazard in the landing area.

Wow, I thought. All the money spent on new "improved" technology and to modify the golf course simply took things right back to what they were 30-40 years ago!

How could anyone believe this is progress?

Unless people step back and think long term they will never "get" how silly the golf technology arms race really is.

This point is staring us in the face. It is the elephant in the living room!

[TEPaul]

JohnV and Jamie Slonis touch on a good point sometimes over-looked or not menitoned on here in discussions of limitations on impliments and golf balls. There has always been a wide variety of golf equipment and balls allowable under the I&B rules and regs of golf and there should be no reason why that should not continue.

A very good reason, I think, one mentioned by JohnV and JamieS and one so fundamental that most never even think of it is that in golf the ball is not vied for! That alone does make golf pretty unique amongst the world's sports. All the regulatory bodies really need to regulate and limit in a "standardizing" sort of way is that the golf ball does not go too far. Within that limitation there's no reason at all not to have performance variety---just so long as the ball stays within the distance standard and limitations.

[JohnV]

Jamie, I apologize, it was Mike who brought up the question, not you.  I hit the quote button on his poast and since he was quoting you, I got confused.

If the USGA/R&A wanted to roll back the ball for everyone I wouldn't have a problem.  If they come up with a competition ball specification, I wouldn't have a problem, but if they were to make a specific ball (or specify one) for their competitions I wouldn't be happy (and it will never happen.)

Home run hitting contests have as much to do with baseball as long drive contests do with golf.  Do the Long Drive championships use a standard ball for their events?

[Steve Lang]

 

they use one ball at the Pinnacle long driving shows held at pga tour stops.  

They're a hoot.  Especially when they hit it far without taking it out of the sleeve..