Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: David Bartman on February 19, 2013, 05:54:25 PM
-
"MARANA, Ariz. — The PGA Tour could soon join the PGA of America in opposition to the proposed ban on anchoring.
A majority of the 12 members of the PGA Tour Player Advisory Council who were on a conference call with Commissioner Tim Finchem on Monday oppose the ban, according to a player with knowledge of the call."
A battle is shaping up between PGA Tour power and USGA ... discuss
-
It's a potential disaster on the lines of the IRL/CART split in auto racing a decade ago. USGA should have gotten PGA and Tour on the same page before going public. Can you imagine 40 tournaments that allow anchored putting and 2 that don't? (the Opens).
-
I'm guessing the USGA and R&A elect to not go through with the ban. Professional golf is too important to the business of golf.
-
Nigel , I hear you. I think the USGA will feel great pressure to reverse itself with the PGA of America ( golf clubs ) and PGA Tour ( Golf Heros and roll models ) both against the ban.
However, I know how stubborn and strong willed the USGA can be. I once had a discussion about course ratings and how the " Scratch"
golfer hits it 250 yards off the tee, the same as 40+ years ago. I suggested that USGA might want to update its length of drive for a scratch golfer to determine course ratings. I was told I didn't know anything about scratch golfers even though I had been one for 20 years. LOL
I agree Mr. Ober
-
OK. Now to update my boycott list.
Ping
Taylor Made
now adding
PGA Tour
PGA
-
well the pga tour and pga of america is made up it's members who want to use the equipment.. seems silly that they would support a ban of something their members want to use. ;D
-
This just may prove that the Masters of the Universe really are the Masters of the Universe.
Is there any chance in the world that Augusta cares what the PGA Tour players think of the anchoring ban?
If three of the four majors ban anchoring, is there any chance Tim Finchem allows it?
-
This just may prove that the Masters of the Universe really are the Masters of the Universe.
Is there any chance in the world that Augusta cares what the PGA Tour players think of the anchoring ban?
If three of the four majors ban anchoring, is there any chance Tim Finchem allows it?
Jim,
Just the opposite, The USGA will not matter in 10 years.....for most it isn't a factor today....they screwed up....
-
MIke,
When I asked you a couple weeks ago about tis position you didn't have much to back it up. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but blaming the USGA for whatever ails you is so not you buddy.
By the way...my "Masters of the Universe" line was referring to ANGC. I think they're the lever even though we'll never hear about it.
-
MIke,
When I asked you a couple weeks ago about tis position you didn't have much to back it up. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but blaming the USGA for whatever ails you is so not you buddy.
By the way...my "Masters of the Universe" line was referring to ANGC. I think they're the lever even though we'll never hear about it.
Jim,
Yes, I do think the USGA has really hurt golf lately but I hear from more than a few in the business that this thing is out of hand and the USGA screwed up. If AGNC were to rule I would think they would go with the no ban group....JMO
-
I hope golf does not suffer more because of the PGA Tour, the PGA, and it's members
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
Garland,
Whoever messed up the economy messed up golf rounds but the USGA does not help when they outlaw a putter that the guy who doesn't care what they think is using it to help his game just a little. The game is too hard....owners just want players and greenfees.
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
Garland,
Whoever messed up the economy messed up golf rounds but the USGA does not help when they outlaw a putter that the guy who doesn't care what they think is using it to help his game just a little. The game is too hard....owners just want players and greenfees.
Mike, the USGA is banning anchoring, not a putter. 8)
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
Garland,
Whoever messed up the economy messed up golf rounds but the USGA does not help when they outlaw a putter that the guy who doesn't care what they think is using it to help his game just a little. The game is too hard....owners just want players and greenfees.
Golf has always been hard. That didn't inhibit its popularity in the past. This claim that equipment helps the golfer so he can play better is just a big pile of horse you know what. If you love the game, it doesn't matter what you play with. Besides all these equipment gurus cannot prove that they have improved anyone's game. All they can say is that their measurements with mechanized hitters and computerized measurement is that they get a "better" result. I have discussed it with them and they admit they have no scientific result showing they improve anyone's game and get real testy about suggestions that dulling the feedback from the tool is actually hurting peoples games.
-
Hmm. It does seem that, unless the USGA has a Don Corleone-like trick up its sleeve, they have seriously miscalculated. In the immortal words of Moe Green (you're all smart fellows, you'll make the connection):
"Yeah: let's talk business, Mike. First of all, you're all done. The Corleone Family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore. The Godfather's sick, right? You're getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other Families. What do you think is going on here? You think you can come to my hotel and take over? I talked to Barzini: I can make a deal with him, and still keep my hotel!"
Peter
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
Garland,
Whoever messed up the economy messed up golf rounds but the USGA does not help when they outlaw a putter that the guy who doesn't care what they think is using it to help his game just a little. The game is too hard....owners just want players and greenfees.
Mike, the USGA is banning anchoring, not a putter. 8)
Sorry. I knew that....stand corrected...
-
Hmm. It does seem that, unless the USGA has a Don Corleone-like trick up its sleeve, they have seriously miscalculated. In the immortal words of Moe Green (you're all smart fellows, you'll make the connection):
"Yeah: let's talk business, Mike. First of all, you're all done. The Corleone Family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore. The Godfather's sick, right? You're getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other Families. What do you think is going on here? You think you can come to my hotel and take over? I talked to Barzini: I can make a deal with him, and still keep my hotel!"
Peter
Peter,
I think the USGA is like the Republican party...They miscalculated their popularity....23.75 million of the 24 million golfers just want to play and have no reason to worry with the USGA...
-
OK. Now to update my boycott list.
Ping
Taylor Made
now adding
PGA Tour
PGA
Amen Brother - be sure to modify Taylor Made to "TMaG" (to include Addias)
-
Wait, the PGA and PGAT use the Rules of Golf to govern their game of flog? Somebody help me out, I'm confused. ???
-
Mike Davis and Peter Dawson must have turned off Season 5 when McNulty started faking the serial killer, and missed the part about how eventually the guy who owns all the territory figures out how to set up his connections without the co-op's help. Once that happens, it's just a matter of time before Chris or Snoop shows up.
My guess is that Davis and Dawson back down and Tim Finchem has Chris and Snoop stand down for the moment. But this won't be the last time the co-op talks about digging into Finchem's pockets or compromising his product/constituency. It's just a matter of time before Chris and Snoop get the call. I'm betting that Chris takes Davis and Snoop takes Dawson (which will be almost as funny as the Home Depot scene), and it'll probably happen in about two years. The co-op will fall, and Finchem will be running Baltimore.
After all, white tees and foreclosed clubhouses are full of boys that wore the crown.
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
This may be the dumbest post here ever. Not only is it out of context on a good discussion about golf it says 5 senators an d 25 congressman have screwed up our economy. It's like saying 4 munis have ruined golf course architecture.....
-
I'm guessing the USGA and R&A elect to not go through with the ban. Professional golf is too important to the business of golf.
Agreed, I think the USGA and R&A will release a joint statement talking about what a tough choice it was but for the good of the game they believe anchoring is not the real problem. My prediction is that they will go after adjustable clubs next.
-
Mike,
The economy hamstrung by the tea party is what is hurting golf in America. Not the USGA. IMO the average buy who doesn't keep a handicap, but shows up at public courses to thump down some of his money to play 18 holes really doesn't care what the USGA says the rules of the game are. He is just going to go out and play as suits him best.
This may be the dumbest post here ever. Not only is it out of context on a good discussion about golf it says 5 senators an d 25 congressman have screwed up our economy. It's like saying 4 munis have ruined golf course architecture.....
Well if it was, then you topped it. ;D Need counting lessons? ??? ::)
The point is that it is not the USGA that is screwing up business at golf courses. I'm not the first one to call Mike out on that one. The guys at work that just go out to play golf for fun from where I work have no idea how the get a handicap, or that anchoring a putter makes a difference in a handicap. When they have time and money, they go out and have fun on the course. If they can get on the course quickly, and get back to work quickly, then they are happy.
-
If the R&A/USGA back down and lose this battle we can pretty much give up hope for any realistic length restrictions in the next couple of decades.
Entirely seperately, I'm fed up to the back teeth of people justifying modern equipment with the "golf's too hard" line. Golf used to be a whole lot harder and more people played. What loses players to golf isn't the fact that the game is hard (in fact that's part of the attraction), it's 5 hour rounds, the absurd price of playing (both green fees/membership and equipment) and ridiculous snobbery. Make it quicker, cheaper and more welcoming and go back to hickories and the number of players goes up, not down. Long handled putters are part of the problem (in so far as the are absurdly expensive) not the solution. I am yet to see any convincing evidence that a single player has stayed in the game when they would otherwise have quit because of a long putter, the Pro-V1 or a 460cc titanium driver.
-
I’m with Mark on this. Not only is there no scientific evidence but expectations today are different. Big drivers lead to people trying to whack the s+++ out of the ball instead of learning how to slow their swing for good contact. After 18 months trying the newbie realises he’s not hitting it the promised 300 yards and the frustration sets in. He perceives the game as too hard and the third new driver he’s bought is not solving the problem. Then he starts to notice how long he’s out there with maybe only one or two shots that provide fun.
I wish I could prove it but my feeling is 25 years ago the average British course had two sets of tees for men at about 6200 (medals only) and daily at 5700. Now its 6500/6200 and the course has been narrowed at the insistence of the low cappers. It’s a lot easier to top your way round 5700 yards and score a few pars than it is to repeatedly slice (into woods) and hope to score at 6200. A lot quicker too.
-
What Mark says.
-
I could care less about huge drivers, long putters and funky putting strokes, but it is irksome to hear guys whine about the damage these things do to courses/the game when they use them - I have no time for this sort of hypocrisy. The equipment side of the rules should be seen as the max allowed and it is the one area of the game where there is substantial latitude offered to golfers. Guys don't have to go for the max; they can choose to tone it down, but its apparent that trying to be ultra competitive in the weekly £2 Nassau is more important than supposedly strongly held beliefs about how bad new equipment is for golf. Its especially irksome to hear about how a putting stroke is damaging to the game. A little evidence on this matter would be most welcome. This is a classic storm in a tea pot and certainly not an issue for the USGA to draw a line in the sand by trying to strong arm the professional bodies. I hope the USGA gets a bloody nose over this because they need a dose of reality. This entire deal is a joke.
Ciao
-
Pros that anchor should boycott the US Open if their concern is the good of the game.
-
well the pga tour and pga of america is made up it's members who want to use the equipment.. seems silly that they would support a ban of something their members want to use. ;D
The PGA of America and PGA Tour could allow its use in their tournaments so wheres the problem ???
Jon
-
Mike Davis and Peter Dawson must have turned off Season 5 when McNulty started faking the serial killer, and missed the part about how eventually the guy who owns all the territory figures out how to set up his connections without the co-op's help. Once that happens, it's just a matter of time before Chris or Snoop shows up.
My guess is that Davis and Dawson back down and Tim Finchem has Chris and Snoop stand down for the moment. But this won't be the last time the co-op talks about digging into Finchem's pockets or compromising his product/constituency. It's just a matter of time before Chris and Snoop get the call. I'm betting that Chris takes Davis and Snoop takes Dawson (which will be almost as funny as the Home Depot scene), and it'll probably happen in about two years. The co-op will fall, and Finchem will be running Baltimore.
After all, white tees and foreclosed clubhouses are full of boys that wore the crown.
Brilliant.
-
I could care less about huge drivers, long putters and funky putting strokes, but it is irksome to hear guys whine about the damage these things do to courses/the game when they use them - I have no time for this sort of hypocrisy. The equipment side of the rules should be seen as the max allowed and it is the one area of the game where there is substantial latitude offered to golfers. Guys don't have to go for the max; they can choose to tone it down, but its apparent that trying to be ultra competitive in the weekly £2 Nassau is more important than supposedly strongly held beliefs about how bad new equipment is for golf. Its especially irksome to hear about how a putting stroke is damaging to the game. A little evidence on this matter would be most welcome. This is a classic storm in a tea pot and certainly not an issue for the USGA to draw a line in the sand by trying to strong arm the professional bodies. I hope the USGA gets a bloody nose over this because they need a dose of reality. This entire deal is a joke.
Ciao
Spot on. All of it.
With respect to my friend Mr Arble, it's rubbish, actually. His way leads to 450 yard drives, 9000 yard course for the pros and average golfers simply giving up the game. Still, for a while Titleistand Taylor Made will make giood money.
-
I could care less about huge drivers, long putters and funky putting strokes, but it is irksome to hear guys whine about the damage these things do to courses/the game when they use them - I have no time for this sort of hypocrisy. The equipment side of the rules should be seen as the max allowed and it is the one area of the game where there is substantial latitude offered to golfers. Guys don't have to go for the max; they can choose to tone it down, but its apparent that trying to be ultra competitive in the weekly £2 Nassau is more important than supposedly strongly held beliefs about how bad new equipment is for golf. Its especially irksome to hear about how a putting stroke is damaging to the game. A little evidence on this matter would be most welcome. This is a classic storm in a tea pot and certainly not an issue for the USGA to draw a line in the sand by trying to strong arm the professional bodies. I hope the USGA gets a bloody nose over this because they need a dose of reality. This entire deal is a joke.
Ciao
Spot on. All of it.
With respect to my friend Mr Arble, it's rubbish, actually. His way leads to 450 yard drives, 9000 yard course for the pros and average golfers simply giving up the game. Still, for a while Titleistand Taylor Made will make giood money.
Mark
With respect, its not my way. Its the way of consumers who purchase the offending equipment. At some point, and if the doom sayers such as yourself are correct, it better be sooner than later, consumers with opinions against offending equipment have to stop purchasing offending equipment. Its quite simple really. If the ruling bodies aren't getting the job done - take alternative action. This is where the rubber hits the road and we find out where golfers really stand. At the moment, I have to believe the vast majority of golfers are all for max equipment - even those who profess not to be.
Ciao
-
Sean,
That's kind of a silly argument. Within the rules most want to perform to the best of their abilities legally. Sure some guys play with hickories, but they keep separate handicaps and play within the guidelines of hickory competitions. Why aren't you playing with long nose clubs and featheries?
-
Sean,
As I think you know, the problem is that most golfers aren't even aware of the issue. They'll buy whatever club the advertisers tell them will lower their score and won't think to draw the link next time their round on a 7,000 yard course (from the yellows) takes 5 hours and they decide they have better things to do than waste their time playing golf. Those that do get the issue then have a choice of buying old equipment but if, like many UK club golfers (and like me in particular) they're competitive then they know that their principles reduce their competitiveness. I know you disagree but this is one where only the governing bodies can make a real difference. If the manufacturers want to make absurdly long clubs and balls then fine, Joe Public who doesn't carry a handicap and just plays for fun with his mates can use them, on the 6,700 yard courses that handicap golfers play on with their conforming clubs but it's up to the R&A and USGA to sort out the distance the pros hit the ball.
As to long putters, they should have been banned when introduced. They weren't but the proposed ban on anchoring is better late than never. Is it as important as the ball, or drivers, or utilities? No, of course not, and they were wrong to pick this fight rather than a more important one but that doesn't mean they would be right to back down.
-
Jud
I don't play with very old equipment because I don't buy the argument that equipment changes courses. Last I checked, owners and memberships are the ones in charge of courses, not the manufacturers. People always have a choice. Golfers can choose to tone it down and owners can choose not to respond in a knee jerk fashion to equipment changes that only a very small percentage of golfers can take proper advantage of. Worry about that which you control and let the rest take care of itself.
Mark
where only the governing bodies can make a real difference
This line is the crux of our differing opinions.
Ciao
-
Mark
where only the governing bodies can make a real difference
This line is the crux of our differing opinions.
Ciao
Hence the fact that I prefaced those words with the words:
I know you disagree
Realistically, I don't know how you expect a minority of golfers using Titleist Profeesionals, blades and persimmon drivers will make anyone change anything whilst the majority are happy to buy whatever over-priced over developed stuff comes out of the lab.
-
Pros that anchor should boycott the US Open if their concern is the good of the game.
Mike this is what concerns me. Watered down US Open fields are not good for the game. The Opens already have the weakest fields due to the difficulty of qualifying. Imagine if the reigning Masters champion (and I bet Augusta National comes out against the ban) skipping the US Open. I am not opposed to the ban, but as always the USGA is out of touch with reality. You can't anchor a putter, but Gary Nicklaus (who finished second in a tour event) is an amateur. Huh?
-
If the R&A/USGA back down and lose this battle we can pretty much give up hope for any realistic length restrictions in the next couple of decades.
Entirely seperately, I'm fed up to the back teeth of people justifying modern equipment with the "golf's too hard" line. Golf used to be a whole lot harder and more people played. What loses players to golf isn't the fact that the game is hard (in fact that's part of the attraction), it's 5 hour rounds, the absurd price of playing (both green fees/membership and equipment) and ridiculous snobbery. Make it quicker, cheaper and more welcoming and go back to hickories and the number of players goes up, not down. Long handled putters are part of the problem (in so far as the are absurdly expensive) not the solution. I am yet to see any convincing evidence that a single player has stayed in the game when they would otherwise have quit because of a long putter, the Pro-V1 or a 460cc titanium driver.
This is spot on, in my opinion. I think the tour players are feeding us the corporate sponsor line thinking that banning the long putter will turn people away for the game. Honestely, I hardly know anyone who uses a long putter, and if they did we would make fun of them. And the line about needing evidence that the long putter makes it easier to putt is a move the ball trick, it's not a fair stroke under the rules, plain and simple, and should be banned. The fact that they should have banned it 30 years ago is an a discussion for a different day.
I think the PGA and PGA Tour are being incrediably arrogant if they go against the rule. I hope ANGC goes with the ban even if the PGA and PGA Tour does not, and the USGA is tough enough to declare any tournament that allows it does not count to qualify for the US Open.
-
There's zero chance that any of these guys would turn down a spot in the Open. More whining from the guys who invented it.
-
Pros that anchor should boycott the US Open if their concern is the good of the game.
Mike this is what concerns me. Watered down US Open fields are not good for the game. The Opens already have the weakest fields due to the difficulty of qualifying. Imagine if the reigning Masters champion (and I bet Augusta National comes out against the ban) skipping the US Open. I am not opposed to the ban, but as always the USGA is out of touch with reality. You can't anchor a putter, but Gary Nicklaus (who finished second in a tour event) is an amateur. Huh?
With that post, we can all see who is out of touch with reality.
-
My opinion about the anchored stroke ban -- and yours, too, in all probability -- is irrelevant. It will come down to money, and the PGA represents more monied interests than the USGA. The players, the equipment manufacturers and the Tour sponsors are a more formidable force than the traditionalists in their blazers. The USGA should not have picked this fight. I see a split of historic proportions on golf's horizon.
-
Sean,
As I think you know, the problem is that most golfers aren't even aware of the issue. They'll buy whatever club the advertisers tell them will lower their score and won't think to draw the link next time their round on a 7,000 yard course (from the yellows) takes 5 hours and they decide they have better things to do than waste their time playing golf. Those that do get the issue then have a choice of buying old equipment but if, like many UK club golfers (and like me in particular) they're competitive then they know that their principles reduce their competitiveness. I know you disagree but this is one where only the governing bodies can make a real difference. If the manufacturers want to make absurdly long clubs and balls then fine, Joe Public who doesn't carry a handicap and just plays for fun with his mates can use them, on the 6,700 yard courses that handicap golfers play on with their conforming clubs but it's up to the R&A and USGA to sort out the distance the pros hit the ball.
As to long putters, they should have been banned when introduced. They weren't but the proposed ban on anchoring is better late than never. Is it as important as the ball, or drivers, or utilities? No, of course not, and they were wrong to pick this fight rather than a more important one but that doesn't mean they would be right to back down.
I completely agree.
-
My opinion about the anchored stroke ban -- and yours, too, in all probability -- is irrelevant. It will come down to money, and the PGA represents more monied interests than the USGA. The players, the equipment manufacturers and the Tour sponsors are a more formidable force than the traditionalists in their blazers. The USGA should not have picked this fight. I see a split of historic proportions on golf's horizon.
Sad but probably true.Economic self interest is a powerful force.
But I disagree on the question of whether the USGA should have picked this fight. We can argue over the timing and/or the efficacy of the ban--but somebody has to start drawing a line in the sand somewhere.
-
Mark
where only the governing bodies can make a real difference
This line is the crux of our differing opinions.
Ciao
Hence the fact that I prefaced those words with the words:
I know you disagree
Realistically, I don't know how you expect a minority of golfers using Titleist Profeesionals, blades and persimmon drivers will make anyone change anything whilst the majority are happy to buy whatever over-priced over developed stuff comes out of the lab.
Mark
What is the alternative? Sit on yer arse and blame the USGA? That has worked well for the past 100+ years - hasn't it? Actions speak louder than words my friend. If you want to see a roll back, start with yourself. At the end of the day, I reckon a very significant percentage of top line equipment is purchased by the likes of you compared with Joe Bloggs down the muni. Its people with money driving the consumerism in golf, bit the guy buying the £75 knock off club or waiting 3 years to pick up a £50 bargain.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Your argument makes as much sense as bringing a knife to a gun fight! Unfortunately competative golfers will not unilaterally disarm for the betterment of the game.
-
Sean,
Your argument makes as much sense as bringing a knife to a gun fight! Unfortunately competative golfers will not unilaterally disarm for the betterment of the game.
Pete
I am not surprised to hear that - which is why nobody should be surprised that I think the roll backers are in the main not worth my time in this discussion. They want to be led like children by the USGA rather than take action in support of their beliefs - I don't have much time for that sort of conviction.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Your argument makes as much sense as bringing a knife to a gun fight! Unfortunately competative golfers will not unilaterally disarm for the betterment of the game.
Pete
I am not surprised to hear that - which is why nobody should be surprised that I think the roll backers are in the main not worth my time in this discussion. They want to be led like children by the USGA rather than take action in support of their beliefs - I don't have much time for that sort of conviction.
Ciao
This same line of thinking gets discussed over here from time to time when talking about whether taxes should be raised, and if you believe they should that you should voluntarily pay more. It is usually dismissed because all you are doing is hurting yourself (I'm not playing my Saturday morning game with a reduced flight ball if my three oppoents are using Pro V1s), and until it is done collectively nothing will change. Doesn't mean you can't think it is the right thing to do. Same here, until a roll back is mandated no one is going to voluntarily use a reduced flight ball. And I don't think not using a reduced flight ball when you think they might actually be a good idea, should preclude someone from engaging in a discussion about it.
-
I'm not saying the USGA is the cause or answer for many of the problems and I'm not saying they should not have picked a fight. I'm saying I don't see a reason for 14000 of our courses to be a member of the USGA. That is the problem they need to fix and then things will smooth out IMHO.
-
The nature of most amateur golfers that I have been around for 35 years has been to be as good as they can be. New Equipment and advances in technology has helped players improve some. I would say that moving from the Wooden “woods” and metal was the largest step in improving people’s golf games, followed closely by vast improvements of the golf ball. The ability to play with what once was a distance ball and still maintains the ability to hold greens and spin the ball, if even by accident is huge. Lastly, the invention of the utility iron has really increased the middle digits handicapper 10-18 ability to get the ball in the air from 165-200 yards. ALL of these advancements are far more helpful to the average players score than anchoring the putter.
I think people need to ask themselves, what does the USGA do for the 28 million golfers in the United States? They provide a handicap system that is easily duplicated and they provide the rules which most everyone fails to abide by each and every time they play golf.
What does the PGA of America provide? They provide a readily available liaison to many aspects of the golf game; rules, instruction, equipment and etiquette. They are the link between everything the USGA writes down in their books and pamphlets and the actual golfers.
What does the PGA Tour provide? They provide the heroes that inspire people to play golf. They show all golfers how to play the game at its best. They are walking endorsements for club companies. They are golf role models like it or not. They also give a lot of $$$ back to the communities that they visit.
In my opinion, A rule change not adopted by the PGA Tour and PGA of America would cause a disaster to the USGA. The former two bodies are the link to average golfer, either at the course or on the Television.
I tend to think that the ANGC will go whichever way the PGA Tour goes on the issue. They know where they get their $$$ from and that is a partnership with the PGA Tour.
GJ Bailey's comment about the Tea Party - is IMO, just plain absurd and has no place on this thread. If you want to have a political debate, start a thread and let's have at it. :)
-
The nature of most amateur golfers that I have been around for 35 years has been to be as good as they can be. New Equipment and advances in technology has helped players improve some.
Prove it! It may rescue a score here an there, but it is not making players better.
I would say that moving from the Wooden “woods” and metal was the largest step in improving people’s golf games,
Their games didn't get better, their scores might have slightly, but no one can prove they did.
followed closely by vast improvements of the golf ball. The ability to play with what once was a distance ball and still maintains the ability to hold greens and spin the ball, if even by accident is huge.
Again, their games are no better, their score might be ever so slightly.
Lastly, the invention of the utility iron has really increased the middle digits handicapper 10-18 ability to get the ball in the air from 165-200 yards.
IMO a softer shaft would have done the same thing. But, ego is ego, and real men want stiff shafts.
ALL of these advancements are far more helpful to the average players score than anchoring the putter.
Far more? Give me a break!
I think people need to ask themselves, what does the USGA do for the 28 million golfers in the United States? They provide a handicap system that is easily duplicated and they provide the rules which most everyone fails to abide by each and every time they play golf.
The provide assistance in agronomy, drainage, etc. so that players can better enjoy their courses. Open your mind and think about it a little more before constructing such lackluster criticisms. Courses don't just rate themselves.
What does the PGA of America provide? They provide a readily available liaison to many aspects of the golf game; rules, instruction, equipment and etiquette. They are the link between everything the USGA writes down in their books and pamphlets and the actual golfers.
Don't need them anymore, I've got the internet. ;D
What does the PGA Tour provide? They provide the heroes that inspire people to play golf.
I'm sorry, but golf was way popular before there even was a PGA Tour.
They show all golfers how to play the game at its best. They are walking endorsements for club companies.
BARF!
They are golf role models like it or not. They also give a lot of $$$ back to the communities that they visit.
That's funny. I thought it was all the wannabees that fork over megabucks to rub elbows with these "heroes" that provide the $$$ to the communities.
In my opinion, A rule change not adopted by the PGA Tour and PGA of America would cause a disaster to the USGA. The former two bodies are the link to average golfer, either at the course or on the Television.
And we get slow golf, and inappropriate club choices by these "linked" average golfers.
I tend to think that the ANGC will go whichever way the PGA Tour goes on the issue. They know where they get their $$$ from and that is a partnership with the PGA Tour.
GJ Bailey's comment about the Tea Party - is IMO, just plain absurd and has no place on this thread. If you want to have a political debate, start a thread and let's have at it. :)
And you are no Paul Krugman. :P
-
David,
Where does the American Croquette Society stand on the issue ? ;D
-
I think people need to ask themselves, what does the USGA do for the 28 million golfers in the United States? They provide a handicap system that is easily duplicated and they provide the rules which most everyone fails to abide by each and every time they play golf.
The provide assistance in agronomy, drainage, etc. so that players can better enjoy their courses. Open your mind and think about it a little more before constructing such lackluster criticisms. Courses don't just rate themselves.
That's ridiculous. Private industry will provide all of that any course needs without being a USGAmember.
Look....I really don't care what the USGA does. I think they come across as arrogant in many instances. 14000 clubs don't need to be members and can have everything they would offer thru private industry. The USGA provides the National Championship and that is on someone else's golf course. They have decided to acquire sponsors lately such as Rolex, Amex, Lexus and with such have decided they would adjust pairings as needed for TV time etc. I think they have over $250 million in the bank...not sure. Do yo uthink for one minute that the 14000 clubs in this country that don't need them really care what they do? No...they want to run golfers thru and make a profit. I don't know the salaries of the USGA employees but I do know a guy like J L Barrow of First Tee makes 1 million a year. And it doesn't work. All of this has to stop. I think it's fine for the USGA to make the rules for golf and see that they are enforced by players in their tourneys but don't try to push it on the small club out there that is barely making it. They are not impressed with elitist sitting in a tower trying to rule them without authority.
And BTW it's not a question of the PGA pros having to adopt the USGA's method in order to play in a US Open. Trust me all it will take is a few pro's sponsor contracts telling they can't and TV advertising and money will go away at the Open. The USGA knows this. They have been walking a fine line for a few years now.
-
What happens if the USGA and Rand A become irrelevant. It would be interesting to see who is going to write the new rule book as the one we follow now has a copyright. You could fit them all on two sheets of paper when the RandA consolidated the rules back in 1897. Every rule and decision since then has been decided by them, and the USGA, and the rules/decisions book today is over 1,000 pages. Maybe we'll end up in the same place golf began, with individual clubs making their own rules.
Who will regulate equipment, I know, let's let Taylor made do it. After all, they sell the most golf clubs. And damn it, it's time to make that new ball, you know the one, it flies straight as a die and allows your grandmother to hit it 300 yards. Titleist could easily pop them out of the mold by the millions.
I guess the 28 million to the First Tee can come from someone else, along with the money spent on research, etc., and of course a new system of handicapping could be conceived. That ought to work well because once you take away the USGA and the RandA why should anyone listen to the usurpers? I mean, if we can overthrow the two regimes who've been running and trying to preserve our game for over a century, why should we listen to their successors?
I'm sorry, the Pro golfers who are against the anchoring rule are overly cossetted, too pampered by their sponsors, and spoiled by their exemptions. :o
To paraphrase the caddies mandate: Pros should Show up, Shut up, Suck it up, and Learn to Putt Freehand. ;D
-
I feel no guilt that my use of an anchored putter is destroying the game for others. It's somewhat empowering knowing that my putting stroke can have such an impact on others.
-
I hope the ban is reversed for the simple reason that I can laugh at those who implied I was cheating the morning after the ban was announced.
-
We don't have course or slope ratings anymore. Sand Hills never did. Suppose we will just allow anchoring via Local Rule for tournaments.
-Easy Cheesy- ;)
I don't worry about longer drivers, or balls. Unless you can hit em where you want, they just go farther into the Sandhills. You can't fix dispersion.
The game needs to be F.U.N. - for anyone and everyone.
-
I hope there's bifurcation on this issue. Nothing would be better entertainment than watching Keegan Bradley standing over a 3 foot downhill slider to win the Open sans broom.
-
I hope there's bifurcation on this issue. Nothing would be better entertainment than watching Keegan Bradley standing over a 3 foot downhill slider to win the Open sans broom.
Wouldn't this imply he'd already been as good as it gets for 4 days? I wouldn't worry too much about that 3 footer.
-
I was a USGA Committeeman for 14 years. I've stated on this website before that I think this stand by the USGA is potentially a huge mistake. The PGA of America and the PGA Tour can, at anytime they want, choose to make their own rules. Nothing prevents them from doing this. Once that is done (if that is done), the USGA and the R&A will take a big hit to their "authority" over the game. Banning anchoring, after years of letting it go, is a risky move in my opinion. They should have opposed anchoring a long time ago...just as they should have addressed the golf ball years ago (how hard was that one to figure out????....dial back the golf ball vs. forcing the Merion's and ANGC's of the world to spend millions keeping their courses "relevant"???...talk about the tail wagging the dog!).
I fear (and I predict) that the USGA will be virtually irrelevant ten years from now.
Too little, much too late, and the wrong line to draw in the sand (strike one, strike two, followed by a foul ball...the batter is in a deep hole).
TS
-
While it appears a tempest in a teapot, if they can't even make this one minor change, then you can kiss their authority over the rules of the game goodbye. Maybe a good first step to getting rid of the insidious USGA handicap system?
-
I was a USGA Committeeman for 14 years. I've stated on this website before that I think this stand by the USGA is potentially a huge mistake. The PGA of America and the PGA Tour can, at anytime they want, choose to make their own rules. Nothing prevents them from doing this. Once that is done (if that is done), the USGA and the R&A will take a big hit to their "authority" over the game. Banning anchoring, after years of letting it go, is a risky move in my opinion. They should have opposed anchoring a long time ago...just as they should have addressed the golf ball years ago (how hard was that one to figure out????....dial back the golf ball vs. forcing the Merion's and ANGC's of the world to spend millions keeping their courses "relevant"???...talk about the tail wagging the dog!).
I fear (and I predict) that the USGA will be virtually irrelevant ten years from now.
Too little, much too late, and the wrong line to draw in the sand (strike one, strike two, followed by a foul ball...the batter is in a deep hole).
TS
WELL STATED....
-
I'm not saying the USGA is the cause or answer for many of the problems and I'm not saying they should not have picked a fight. I'm saying I don't see a reason for 14000 of our courses to be a member of the USGA. That is the problem they need to fix and then things will smooth out IMHO.
Mike
Why are you stopping at the clubs? Is there much reason for the vast majority of golfers to be a member of the USGA? The entire concept of membership to that organization is tosh. I bet most people in the world would puke at the idea of becoming a member of the R&A in the way N American golfers are members of the USGA. As soon as I realized it was a scam many, many moons ago I dropped the USGA. Gosh, being a member of GAM just to keep a handicap was bad enough. Nowadays, loads of golfer just keep a handicap on their own as the vast majority of golfers don't need a recognized handicap. So, with all those memberships what exactly does the USGA do that the R&A can't do (on their own turf) and is any of it worth paying the salaries of the blue blazers?
The best organization I belong to is The English Golf Union. It costs about a tenner and I get a county card for that. The USGA would do well to think of what sort of personal benefits such as this it can offer for members. Otherwise, membership for all but the blue bloods and salaried folks really amounts to nothing. The USGA can do most if not all of what it does without any members.
The one thing I can see getting behind the USGA on is the overhaul of the rules to a far simpler version. What we have now is a travesty.
Speaking of GAM, I see Doak is being admitted into the Michigan Golf Hall of Fame. Is this first organization to honour Him in this way?
Ciao
-
I was a USGA Committeeman for 14 years. I've stated on this website before that I think this stand by the USGA is potentially a huge mistake. The PGA of America and the PGA Tour can, at anytime they want, choose to make their own rules. Nothing prevents them from doing this. Once that is done (if that is done), the USGA and the R&A will take a big hit to their "authority" over the game. Banning anchoring, after years of letting it go, is a risky move in my opinion. They should have opposed anchoring a long time ago...just as they should have addressed the golf ball years ago (how hard was that one to figure out????....dial back the golf ball vs. forcing the Merion's and ANGC's of the world to spend millions keeping their courses "relevant"???...talk about the tail wagging the dog!).
I fear (and I predict) that the USGA will be virtually irrelevant ten years from now.
Too little, much too late, and the wrong line to draw in the sand (strike one, strike two, followed by a foul ball...the batter is in a deep hole).
TS
+1
-
Until USGA realize that their job is to protect and promote the game of golf and NOT protecting par, they will continue to wither and become irrelevant.
-
The nature of most amateur golfers that I have been around for 35 years has been to be as good as they can be. New Equipment and advances in technology has helped players improve some.
Prove it! It may rescue a score here an there, but it is not making players better.
Lower scores make you a better golfer ... its the only means to determine if one is better than the other.
I would say that moving from the Wooden “woods” and metal was the largest step in improving people’s golf games,
Their games didn't get better, their scores might have slightly, but no one can prove they did.
scores lower, see above
followed closely by vast improvements of the golf ball. The ability to play with what once was a distance ball and still maintains the ability to hold greens and spin the ball, if even by accident is huge.
Again, their games are no better, their score might be ever so slightly.
scores lower = better
Lastly, the invention of the utility iron has really increased the middle digits handicapper 10-18 ability to get the ball in the air from 165-200 yards.
IMO a softer shaft would have done the same thing. But, ego is ego, and real men want stiff shafts.
most utility clubs dont have stiff shafts, they have regular shafts and are swung by those over 50. Most people i know over 50 have 2-4 utility clubs in their bags
ALL of these advancements are far more helpful to the average players score than anchoring the putter.
Far more? Give me a break!
yes far more and its not close
I think people need to ask themselves, what does the USGA do for the 28 million golfers in the United States? They provide a handicap system that is easily duplicated and they provide the rules which most everyone fails to abide by each and every time they play golf.
The provide assistance in agronomy, drainage, etc. so that players can better enjoy their courses. Open your mind and think about it a little more before constructing such lackluster criticisms. Courses don't just rate themselves.
this is laughable, private industry and research at schools make the advancements in agronomy not the USGA. In fact, most of the recent advancements have come from foreign countries.
What does the PGA of America provide? They provide a readily available liaison to many aspects of the golf game; rules, instruction, equipment and etiquette. They are the link between everything the USGA writes down in their books and pamphlets and the actual golfers.
Don't need them anymore, I've got the internet. ;D
LOL, good luck with that
What does the PGA Tour provide? They provide the heroes that inspire people to play golf.
I'm sorry, but golf was way popular before there even was a PGA Tour.
If you are so naive to think that golf wouldn't lose even more people in the US without the PGA Tour then you are as hopeless as I think
They show all golfers how to play the game at its best. They are walking endorsements for club companies.
BARF!
didn't say this was a positive
They are golf role models like it or not. They also give a lot of $$$ back to the communities that they visit.
That's funny. I thought it was all the wannabees that fork over megabucks to rub elbows with these "heroes" that provide the $$$ to the communities.
Wow are you naive, almost every single pro golfer has a foundation http://together.pgatour.com/
In my opinion, A rule change not adopted by the PGA Tour and PGA of America would cause a disaster to the USGA. The former two bodies are the link to average golfer, either at the course or on the Television.
And we get slow golf, and inappropriate club choices by these "linked" average golfers.
No doubt their are many negatives about PGA Tour and common golfer.
I tend to think that the ANGC will go whichever way the PGA Tour goes on the issue. They know where they get their $$$ from and that is a partnership with the PGA Tour.
GJ Bailey's comment about the Tea Party - is IMO, just plain absurd and has no place on this thread. If you want to have a political debate, start a thread and let's have at it. :)
And you are no Paul Krugman. :P
That is true, and I am pretty happy about it.
-
David,
Do you have any scientific study that has shown that the new clubs that are being pushed down golfers throats has improved any of their scores?
Do you have any scientific study that has shown that the new clubs that are being pushed down golfers throats has improved their swings?
Good one about the foundations. I forgot about them. However, that is not a feature unique to golfers, the current sum of whom will never approach what Warren Buffet gives back.
I'm sorry, but shooting better scores (if they even do) does not make one a better golfer. If you take away their "game improvement" clubs, and give them back their old clubs and they still shoot better scores, then you would have an argument. If I put a basket homing device in a basketball (e.g., perhaps magnetized) and start shooting a better field goal percentage, am I a better basketball player than I was before?
-
I was a USGA Committeeman for 14 years. I've stated on this website before that I think this stand by the USGA is potentially a huge mistake. The PGA of America and the PGA Tour can, at anytime they want, choose to make their own rules. Nothing prevents them from doing this. Once that is done (if that is done), the USGA and the R&A will take a big hit to their "authority" over the game. Banning anchoring, after years of letting it go, is a risky move in my opinion. They should have opposed anchoring a long time ago...just as they should have addressed the golf ball years ago (how hard was that one to figure out????....dial back the golf ball vs. forcing the Merion's and ANGC's of the world to spend millions keeping their courses "relevant"???...talk about the tail wagging the dog!).
TS
It's hard to ban something you dismiss as "statistically insignificant" as they did for years with yardage gains.
They definitely picked the wrong battle first
-
...
Lastly, the invention of the utility iron has really increased the middle digits handicapper 10-18 ability to get the ball in the air from 165-200 yards.
IMO a softer shaft would have done the same thing. But, ego is ego, and real men want stiff shafts.
most utility clubs dont have stiff shafts, they have regular shafts and are swung by those over 50. Most people i know over 50 have 2-4 utility clubs in their bags
...
Looks to me like you completely missed the joke. ;D
-
...
I think people need to ask themselves, what does the USGA do for the 28 million golfers in the United States? They provide a handicap system that is easily duplicated and they provide the rules which most everyone fails to abide by each and every time they play golf.
The provide assistance in agronomy, drainage, etc. so that players can better enjoy their courses. Open your mind and think about it a little more before constructing such lackluster criticisms. Courses don't just rate themselves.
this is laughable, private industry and research at schools make the advancements in agronomy not the USGA. In fact, most of the recent advancements have come from foreign countries.
...
Who said they made the advancements? They assist those that don't study the advancements on their own.
-
David,
Do you have any scientific study that has shown that the new clubs that are being pushed down golfers throats has improved any of their scores?
Do you have any scientific study that has shown that the new clubs that are being pushed down golfers throats has improved their swings?
Good one about the foundations. I forgot about them. However, that is not a feature unique to golfers, the current sum of whom will never approach what Warren Buffet gives back.
I'm sorry, but shooting better scores (if they even do) does not make one a better golfer. If you take away their "game improvement" clubs, and give them back their old clubs and they still shoot better scores, then you would have an argument. If I put a basket homing device in a basketball (e.g., perhaps magnetized) and start shooting a better field goal percentage, am I a better basketball player than I was before?
I'm the other David (fatter, and not quite as good a golfer), but I'll chime in....
I don't think we're looking at improvement in scores the right way. I do think, without question, golfers have gotten "better" due to a longer ball and better, more consistent equipment that allows them to hit higher, longer, and (generally) more accurate shots, but with a couple caveats:
1) Improvement in scores alone is difficult to figure because courses have gotten much, much longer, and much, much tougher. Even if the ball goes farther, that does not make up for the added length. A 7200 yard course (everything else being equal) plays much, much tougher than a 6,000 yard course even if the ball goes 20% farther today. If you don't know why this is, then raise your hand and I'll enlighten you. A hint: it has to do with shot dispersion and the way that distance affects one's ability to hit one's target. ;D
To put it another way: Is there anyone who doubts that if no new courses had been built since the 1970's that scores would not be lower today, on average, than they were in the 1970's?
2) There has been a marked decrease in scores at the low end of the handicap spectrum. Do I have proof of this? No, but I am virtually certain that it exists if someone was willing to do the research.
Anecdotal examples:
Course records: It is rare today to find a course record that has not been set in the last 5 years.
The course record at my old home club (6,570, par 72, 72.0/132) back in the 80's and 90's was 8-under 64. That score was shot exactly three times in about 30 years from 1967 when the club opened to the mid-90's.
Then, starting in about 1995, when the ball started to explode and large, light, easy to hit drivers hit the market, it was beaten or tied repeatedly. Several times a year someone would shoot 64 (I was one of them, and I'm not that good of a golfer) to where it now stands at 62, which has been shot at least three times that I know of. There have now been too many 63's and 64's to count. I know this is one course, so it's not exactly a "study," but I also know that this story is not even remotely unique. I'd be curious to know of all the golf courses that existed prior to the mid 90's, how many of them have course records set in the last 15 years or so since the ball exploded and larger, light, easy to hit drivers hit the market. I would venture to say that it is 100%.
Everywhere I go I inquire as to course records, and it's rare for the course record to not have been shot by some local mini-tour pro or web.com pro or college or high school player in the very recent past. Rounds of 59 on legitimate, over 6,000 yard golf courses, are no longer anything amazing to hear of. The world of golf went over 100 years with only a handful of rounds of 59 on par 70 or greater golf courses, and now they happen so frequently on minitours and in casual rounds that they rarely raise an eyebrow. Yes there are more golfers now, but these ridiculously low scores have all been bunched since since the ball exploded and drivers got longer, lighter, and more accurate.
2) Number of golfers with +indexes. When I first took up the game, it was rare for any one club to have more than one or two golfers with indexes below zero. I used to keep track of this kind of thing because I was committed to becoming a scratch golfer from the day I first picked up the game. Everywhere I went, I would look at the "index sheet" and invariably there would be a couple players at +0.4, +0.8, and maybe one or two players at +1 or even +1.5.
Today, many, many clubs I go to have multiple players in the + category, and often players with low indexes in the +2 to +4 range, which was extremely rare back in the 1980's.
Now the curious thing about that is that even if indexes on the low end are going down (which I highly suspect and believe could be proven if someone had access to the data and would take the time), that would not, necessarily, correlate with lower average scores, since courses have gotten longer and harder and course ratings have increased correspondingly (especially the course ratings of courses that low-handicap players tend to play).
So, in short:
If scores have stayed the same, but courses have gotten longer and more difficult in the last 30 years (anyone who wants to dispute this with me, please, please bring it on! ;D ) then that means that golfers have, actually, gotten better, even though their actual scores might not show it.
Much more to say on this topic, but there's probably enough "bait" in this post to bring on the old-timers.... ;D
-
Trap drawing David,
I freely admit that the ball change has changed scoring. But if you were to give a player a balata ball would he not score worse, even though he is the same golfer? Does that mean he is or is not a better golfer, because he has a new ball to play?
I disagree that no new courses since 1970 would result in lower average scores. Many new courses since 1970 do not penalize golfers as much. For example, my first experience with a wide playing area course (Rustic Canyon) resulting in a personal best. I.e., we average golfers score our better average scores on such courses. A club outing to a wide course from our narrow course had many of the members mad about how they were being beaten by higher handicappers.
You completely ignore the video camera in your analysis. This may be the biggest fault of your post.
-
Trap drawing David,
I freely admit that the ball change has changed scoring. But if you were to give a player a balata ball would he not score worse, even though he is the same golfer? Does that mean he is or is not a better golfer, because he has a new ball to play?
I disagree that no new courses since 1970 would result in lower average scores. Many new courses since 1970 do not penalize golfers as much. For example, my first experience with a wide playing area course (Rustic Canyon) resulting in a personal best. I.e., we average golfers score our better average scores on such courses. A club outing to a wide course from our narrow course had many of the members mad about how they were being beaten by higher handicappers.
You completely ignore the video camera in your analysis. This may be the biggest fault of your post.
I would be a better player today with a balata ball than I was in 1989 with a balata ball for two reasons:
1) Longer, lighter drivers with much, much larger sweet spots that would allow me to hit the ball farther and more accurately, on average.
2) Hybrid clubs which completely and totally changed my long game. Ask anyone who played with me back when I first started hitting my original Hogan Apex Hybrids back in the 90's, and they can tell you that my 180 - 210 yard shots went from being a liability to an asset. For me, personally, I credit the hybrid with taking my game from 0 - 1 index territory to +2 to +3 territory.
But here's a caveat (I'm big with the caveats): Hybrids helped me tremendously, while others see little or not improvement from them. They helped me because of my swing type: I'm a "trapper" of the ball and I'm also very steep at impact, which means that I de-loft the clubhead significantly at impact (moreso than the average plus-handicapper). The added loft and wider, thicker sole of the hybrid was ideal for me, and where I used to be able to hit a 4-iron relatively well, it would be a scalded, low burner of a shot with zero chance of stopping on a tournament-prepared, firm green.
On swithching to hybrids, the difference in that part of my game was astounding....
-
Trap drawing David,
I freely admit that the ball change has changed scoring. But if you were to give a player a balata ball would he not score worse, even though he is the same golfer? Does that mean he is or is not a better golfer, because he has a new ball to play?
I disagree that no new courses since 1970 would result in lower average scores. Many new courses since 1970 do not penalize golfers as much. For example, my first experience with a wide playing area course (Rustic Canyon) resulting in a personal best. I.e., we average golfers score our better average scores on such courses. A club outing to a wide course from our narrow course had many of the members mad about how they were being beaten by higher handicappers.
You completely ignore the video camera in your analysis. This may be the biggest fault of your post.
And you're right, the video camera is probably as big an advancement as the larger, lighter driver, with the hybrid a distant, (though still important) third.
-
I would be a better player today with a balata ball than I was in 1989 with a balata ball for two reasons:
1) Longer, lighter drivers with much, much larger sweet spots that would allow me to hit the ball farther and more accurately, on average.
...
But that driver may be 2 inches longer slightly magnifying any mistakes, and that ball will be spin much higher adding more magnification.
For the average golfer, that is a recipe for disaster. If you, are good enough, then perhaps not for you. Are you still steadfast in your belief?
-
I would be a better player today with a balata ball than I was in 1989 with a balata ball for two reasons:
1) Longer, lighter drivers with much, much larger sweet spots that would allow me to hit the ball farther and more accurately, on average.
...
But that driver may be 2 inches longer slightly magnifying any mistakes, and that ball will be spin much higher adding more magnification.
For the average golfer, that is a recipe for disaster. If you, are good enough, then perhaps not for you. Are you still steadfast in your belief?
Unquestionably so. Today's lightweight, high-quality graphite shafts are marvels of modern science. The reason the driver used to be only 43 inches or so was due to the relatively heavy weight of a persimmon head and a steel shaft. The "loss of control" due to the extra 2.0 to 2.75 inches on most of today's drivers is easily mitigated by the enormous sweet spots. I'm not saying that today's longer drivers would be MORE accurate than a 43 to 43.5 inch driver from yesteryear, but they would not, in my mind, be noticeably LESS accurate due to the much larger sweet spot.
-
But David, how would a large sweet spot compensate for a misaligned club face?
-
http://golfweek.com/news/2013/mar/03/weekly-top-5-coaches-weigh-anchoring-ban/