Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on July 13, 2020, 02:00:46 PM
-
I just read an interview on Golf Digest's web site with Martin Slumbers from the R & A, who said he was concerned about how far Bryson hits it now, in terms of the bigger impact it has on golf.
But he also said that they have delayed the second part of the Distance Insights report, because the pandemic has thrown everything off kilter, and they want to give the business a chance to get its feet back on the ground first.
That's how you can tell that they are not serious about making changes. If they wanted to make changes, what better time to make them than when everything is in upheaval? That's exactly when capitalists pounce on the opportunity to do things they want to do.
But when you DON'T want to make changes, that's when politicians say "it's too soon" to consider new policies and that "we don't want to be reactive," or "people need time to grieve." So we might as well start grieving, because it sounds like this report is going to limit the options for change.
-
Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?
-
Tom,
There are two, distinctly different ways of interpreting Slumber's comments and the delay in the the Distance Insights reports.
Your's is but one of them, with a dollop of natural bias and well-deserved cynicism. This might prove quite valid.
The other interpretation is that the R&A may well be earnest in it's intent to address the excessive distance problem, yet is acting prudently in the disruptive times of an undefined health, business and labor crisis before enacting any kind of regulatory resets.
Golf is thriving in certain locations, and struggling in others. Same for different segments of it's underlying industry. Covid-19, like it has to so many other capitalist endeavors, has unequivocally disrupted "business-as usual."
It is most certainly a good part of the inflection point you insinuate, however as much as you and I would like to see strong measures taken to roll back the ball, bifurcate, or otherwise sternly address the crazy race for driving distances, any decision to do so can produce a negative impact on hundreds, if not thousands of companies and their employees.
"Capitalists pouncing" occurs when disruptions provide new or fresh opportunities. Sure, I could see new ball manufacturers and landscape architects seeing a boon, but doing so at this moment will end up a zero-sum game...one with potentially negative consequences equal to or larger than what is gained.
Which interpretation proves accurate remains to be seen? I absolutely favor some restraints imposed in whatever fashion reigns in the extreme distances seen amongst elite players. Sadly, the PGA pros and Gumby-like young guns are the models the industry relies on vs. the average players, public and private. That's a whole other problem, but nevertheless one intricately tied to the outcome of the report.
I, for one, won't yet condemn the R&A for going slow this time around. A few more months won't matter all that much in the scheme of things.
-
Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?
Well, that IS a strategy, of sorts. Many politicians favor it!
Years ago, what they all said was that they would approach the problem incrementally: making rules about the grooves on club faces was going to be the first step. After that, restrictions on the ball, and/or the driver, in whichever order made the most sense, but they never really got around to anything more besides banning anchoring of the long putter.
So my guess would be that's the strategy once again . . . make a new spec for the ball, see how much that affects the situation, and then consider further equipment rules.
It has been so many years since these discussions started that I suspect the manufacturers have had a different spec for the ball that they could start working on optimizing for quite a while now; so making a change would probably not be as Draconian as Mr. Lapper suggests. But the companies with the biggest market share will fight it tooth and nail, regardless.
-
If the easiest and safest and least expensive and most risk-free* course of action is to discuss an issue to death but in the end do nothing at all, why would any political/organizational leader choose any other course of action?
*Risk-free in terms of their own career paths and leadership positions.
-
This not meant to be argumentative. I'm just confused.
Let me state what I see as givens on this issue--
1) The R&A/USGA can change the equipment specs under the Rules of Golf.
2) The 99%+ of golfers who do not play professionally or top-flight amateur events do not need or desire a change in distance; in fact, they are not scoring any lower as a group than they were 20 years ago. Some may hit it a bit farther than they did before, but the increase is miniscule and a reduction in the distance they hit the ball would be counter-productive to the growth of the game.
3) The only way to affect the players who need to be reined in and not the others would be to bi-furcate the rules between pros/top amateurs and all the others.
4) The pro tours have said that they are not bound to follow R&A/USGA rules in their events, and in fact they think the distance hit is an attractive part of their game. Therefore, the only ones that would be affected by an R&A/USGA decision would be the ones who do not need it. Bi-furcation won't work unless the tours go along.
This seems to me to be the dilemma faced by those who think we need to reduce the distance the ball is hit. While I agree that it would be good to rescue classic courses from the longer-hit ball, I don't see the way out of this dilemma. Sure, the R&A, the USGA, and the Masters could mandate a change for their tournaments, but what about all the others?
I have no answers. It just seems to me that many people are ignoring this dilemma. Without the pro tours on board, the solution cannot be achieved. So an emphasis on the actions of the R&A/USGA is misplaced.
-
Do you think they have a strategy in place? Or will they go through a long period of letting manufacturers drive the changes?
Well, that IS a strategy, of sorts. Many politicians favor it!
Years ago, what they all said was that they would approach the problem incrementally: making rules about the grooves on club faces was going to be the first step. After that, restrictions on the ball, and/or the driver, in whichever order made the most sense, but they never really got around to anything more besides banning anchoring of the long putter.
So my guess would be that's the strategy once again . . . make a new spec for the ball, see how much that affects the situation, and then consider further equipment rules.
It has been so many years since these discussions started that I suspect the manufacturers have had a different spec for the ball that they could start working on optimizing for quite a while now; so making a change would probably not be as Draconian as Mr. Lapper suggests. But the companies with the biggest market share will fight it tooth and nail, regardless.
Tom,
I hardly think "making a change would (sic) be as Draconian"as you suggest. I just think in a period of serious upheaval imposing major regulatory reform across a struggling industry doesn't make for smart timing sense.
Naturally, your interests would prefer otherwise, but can you really justify this kind of regulatory shift (despite most every architecturally-inclined fan...self included) when so many livelihoods remain at risk? What happens to the line worker at the ball and club manufacturer or the club pro relying on his or her shop sales to make ends meet?
In any period other than today's it makes sense to gradually or incrementally introduce change over a multi-year period.
-
Never trust a committee, even more so two committees either side of a 3,000 mile pond.
The R&A and the USGA could of course impose under conditions of competition a regulation limiting the distance the ball can travel and/or the spec of clubheads etc for The Open and the US Open and see which of the elite tour stars is prepared to buck their equipment manufacturer and play in the events. The players personal ego, vanity and legacy within history vrs their manufacturers clout.
And of course no limitation has to apply immediately. A date in the future, even a couple of years away, could be set during which time all the existing golf balls could be lost in bushes and ponds meantime the new spec ones are being manufactured ready for the big day.
I’m not holding my breath on this matter though.
Where’s a golf version of Ralph Nader when we need one? Public safety and the environment vrs equipment manufacturers.
Atb
-
I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers
-
I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers
I’m genuinely interested in why you think it’s ‘good for the game overall’, William. I’m struggling to see the benefits. What am I missing?
-
Steve,
Is golf really struggling right now? Here in So. Cal. Courses are packed; people are queuing up at my local muni at 4:00 am to get tee times at the starters booth at 6:00! Tournaments are over subscribed and people who have been on the Men’s Club wait list list for 4 years will probably not get in next year because of this. Golfers need a fresh supply of balls and now would seem to be the ideal time to reengineer them, no?
-
I'm excited to see how Bryson does this week and thereafter.
Good for the game overall, and does not affect me in anyway.
cheers
I’m genuinely interested in why you think it’s ‘good for the game overall’, William. I’m struggling to see the benefits. What am I missing?
distance is exciting to see for pros, fun to watch a unicorn at this point
more interest in the game for sure
grow the game, more eyeballs
fun stuff
cheers
-
The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
Thank you!
-
The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
Thank you!
Wholly agree.
-
The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
I'm not opposed to this approach, because I watched it happen in the U.K. when I was living there in 1982-83. The 1.62-in ball was still legal outside the U.S. at that point, but the bigger ball was mandated for The Open and The Amateur Championships . . . that was all. And it slowly but surely rolled back to everyone else, via peer pressure from better players at different levels of competition.
The difference between now and then was that the ball specs were ALREADY bifurcated, and had been for 50 years; and while the R & A did not give up on their spec for the public at large, they didn't have to invent something new and try to get everyone to comply.
But I don't remember William_G's dad gaslighting us about how they were ruining The Open by not letting Nicklaus et al. drive it 40 yards further like they could with the small ball. But I guess back then the public at large didn't fall for the corporate line that "eyeballs" were the most important metric of how things were going. ::)
-
Guess what! Pro Golf was just as interesting when a 380 yard hole was drive and a 7 iron rather than 3 metal and a flip lob wedge.
I can play from 6400 yards (current ball and age 66) or the rolled back ball at 5800 yards.
-
Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone. So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along? That is what the Tours say they will do. So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule. The Tours can't be made to go along. So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?
-
Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone. So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along? That is what the Tours say they will do. So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule. The Tours can't be made to go along. So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?
Well most casual golf fans only care about the results of the tournaments held by the R&A, USGA, and Augusta national.
-
Prior to 1921, it was "Gibson's choice" and any ball could be used. From 1921-1931, the official ball was 1.62 inches in diameter and 1.62 oz. In 1931, the USGA mandated the floater ball- 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.55oz (bigger and lighter). After a year of everyone moaning about loss of distance, they amended it and increased the weight back to 1.62oz (so bigger, but the same weight).
The USGA's reasoning behind the balloon ball was to "curb long-driving and to prevent old courses from becoming obsolete as a result of the 1.62-1.62 ball's constantly increasing ballistic properties." HA!
Per the NY Times (11/21/1931):
"Curiously enough, the ball that was supposed to curb length, reward skill and bring back the use of clubs that were coming to be neglected, such as the spoon and the mashie, did nothing of the sort. The skillful hitters began getting even more length down wind with it than they had with its predecessor and even with the wind adverse the loss of distance was negligible.
But the duffer and the dub suffered, or at least imagined he did. It was all well and good for others to inform him that whatever distance he lost of fancied he lost from the tee would be recompensed by the way the ball sat up, begging to be hit, through the fairway. The 1.62-1.62 ball had got him off the tee and nothing else mattered.
In a great many cases, perhaps most, those few 150, 175, even 200 yard drives that he had been getting with the 1.62-1.62 ball brought the only thrill of the game, and to take that away left nothing, or next to nothing. He complained justily and the USGA officials heeded."
Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!
-
One other factor was that prior to 1930, not many clubs watered the fairways and distance was getting out of control. In the early 30s, watering became more common. If the floater ball would have been introduced 5 years earlier, it may have had more of a chance. But... it may have taken a year of torture to make people happy with the eventual compromise.
-
Prior to 1921, it was "Gibson's choice" and any ball could be used. From 1921-1931, the official ball was 1.62 inches in diameter and 1.62 oz. In 1931, the USGA mandated the floater ball- 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.55oz (bigger and lighter). After a year of everyone moaning about loss of distance, they amended it and increased the weight back to 1.62oz (so bigger, but the same weight).
The USGA's reasoning behind the balloon ball was to "curb long-driving and to prevent old courses from becoming obsolete as a result of the 1.62-1.62 ball's constantly increasing ballistic properties." HA!
Per the NY Times (11/21/1931):
"Curiously enough, the ball that was supposed to curb length, reward skill and bring back the use of clubs that were coming to be neglected, such as the spoon and the mashie, did nothing of the sort. The skillful hitters began getting even more length down wind with it than they had with its predecessor and even with the wind adverse the loss of distance was negligible.
But the duffer and the dub suffered, or at least imagined he did. It was all well and good for others to inform him that whatever distance he lost of fancied he lost from the tee would be recompensed by the way the ball sat up, begging to be hit, through the fairway. The 1.62-1.62 ball had got him off the tee and nothing else mattered.
In a great many cases, perhaps most, those few 150, 175, even 200 yard drives that he had been getting with the 1.62-1.62 ball brought the only thrill of the game, and to take that away left nothing, or next to nothing. He complained justily and the USGA officials heeded."
Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!
Peter also the "British ball" which was slightly smaller in diameter until the late 80's I think. It was used in the British Open under R&A rules, but not sanctioned by the USGA. I hear it went further due to lower wind resistance.
-
Peter also the "British ball" which was slightly smaller in diameter until the late 80's I think. It was used in the British Open under R&A rules, but not sanctioned by the USGA. I hear it went further due to lower wind resistance.
The 1:62" wasn't just a British ball. It was the standard international spec ball used wherever R&A rather than USGA regulations were followed.
The 1:62" ball could be used in The Open until 1974 when the 1:68" became compulsory. But the 1:62" was still being manufactured and was a legit spec ball to play in club golf until 1990. And the 1:62" did go further.
Did golfers and ball makers moan and complain and hint at legal action when we couldn't use the 1:62" anymore? No we just got on with playing.
atb
-
This not meant to be argumentative. I'm just confused.
Let me state what I see as givens on this issue--
1) The R&A/USGA can change the equipment specs under the Rules of Golf.
2) The 99%+ of golfers who do not play professionally or top-flight amateur events do not need or desire a change in distance; in fact, they are not scoring any lower as a group than they were 20 years ago. Some may hit it a bit farther than they did before, but the increase is miniscule and a reduction in the distance they hit the ball would be counter-productive to the growth of the game.
3) The only way to affect the players who need to be reined in and not the others would be to bi-furcate the rules between pros/top amateurs and all the others.
4) The pro tours have said that they are not bound to follow R&A/USGA rules in their events, and in fact they think the distance hit is an attractive part of their game. Therefore, the only ones that would be affected by an R&A/USGA decision would be the ones who do not need it. Bi-furcation won't work unless the tours go along.
This seems to me to be the dilemma faced by those who think we need to reduce the distance the ball is hit. While I agree that it would be good to rescue classic courses from the longer-hit ball, I don't see the way out of this dilemma. Sure, the R&A, the USGA, and the Masters could mandate a change for their tournaments, but what about all the others?
I have no answers. It just seems to me that many people are ignoring this dilemma. Without the pro tours on board, the solution cannot be achieved. So an emphasis on the actions of the R&A/USGA is misplaced.
Jim
To be honest, the USGA, R&A and Masters cover a large percentage of the courses folks are trying to protect with new rules.
I don't have strong feelings about changing the rules because I truly believe it will not properly protect classic courses from being altered. The problem is wholly to do with people, not the rules of golf. If we have to have change, then I much prefer bifurcation. The tours can do as they will. I don't see any inherent problem with different rules for different events. Ya gotta break eggs to make an omelette even if in this case a great many people aren't hungry.
So far as the long ball being good for the game, right now is a great time to test the theory. It's my understanding that despite virtually no TV competition, the US tour TV viewing numbers are rather disappointing.
Ciao
-
The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
Unfortunately there are lots of big, strong 15-40 yr old amateurs who hit it as far or nearly as far as the elite players but are not tournament players, indeed not even close to being at that level. Elite and tournament players however, generally know the direction the ball is going to go. Your big, strong 15-40 old amateurs tend not to know where the ball's going to go, likely quite the opposite, and they thrash away frequently hitting it miles off-target, which is dangerous. And there are lots of these big, strong amateurs, and they are getting bigger and stronger every year.
The future ........?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
atb
-
Someone will have to help me out here. I am failing to understand how DeChambeau putting on 40 lbs and adding 20+ yards has created anything new vis a vis the golf ball. Is there anything else happening in the world of distance besides him that I don't know about?
I'll admit to being solidly in the minority here who opposes bifurcation, and the additional minority who doesn't understand the idea of a "roll back" to something that never existed in the first place. But those aside, how does DeChambeau's approach to the game for approximately two months or so create some crisis that needs to be solved? And if you want to attack the specific problem that he has created relative to other Tour pros, shouldn't we ban working out, or roll back protein shakes?
-
equipment and technology have helped the game for all of us
not a fan of Bryson per se, but let's see him play in the wind or rain
let the pro tours figure it out themselves, no need to be self-righteous here about a few players
the main thing I see at my club is older folks teeing it forward not backward
cheers
PS would love to here more on TD's capitalism ideas, LOL
-
I just read an interview on Golf Digest's web site with Martin Slumbers from the R & A, who said he was concerned about how far Bryson hits it now, in terms of the bigger impact it has on golf.
But he also said that they have delayed the second part of the Distance Insights report, because the pandemic has thrown everything off kilter, and they want to give the business a chance to get its feet back on the ground first.
That's how you can tell that they are not serious about making changes. If they wanted to make changes, what better time to make them than when everything is in upheaval? That's exactly when capitalists pounce on the opportunity to do things they want to do.
But when you DON'T want to make changes, that's when politicians say "it's too soon" to consider new policies and that "we don't want to be reactive," or "people need time to grieve." So we might as well start grieving, because it sounds like this report is going to limit the options for change.
Bifurcate. (Or not) I am ambivalent. Way too much emphasis on the Pro tour, as if it has much to do with our own enjoyment of the game as individuals.
-
Bifurcate. (Or not) I am ambivalent. Way too much emphasis on the Pro tour, as if it has much to do with our own enjoyment of the game as individuals.
+1
-
Bifurcate. (Or not) I am ambivalent. Way too much emphasis on the Pro tour, as if it has much to do with our own enjoyment of the game as individuals.
+2. Have been saying this for years. For that matter, I think we could trifurcate or quadfurcate. Nominate (or build new) 5 dozen PGA Tour/USGA/PGA courses as tournament courses. Keep the championship label for any course par 72, 7000+ yards. Introduce the recreational course, no longer than 6700 or so, add a few other classifications that obviously target senior men, women, etc. Then rank them all, so a course in a lower category can at least claim to be a 5 star, recreational course, etc. Just as obvious, the names would need to not be derogatory, but some brighter minds than I can do that.
On any given day, 1% play the back tees at the typical 7K+ course. 17% play from 6800 yards. The rest play at 6300 yards or less (give or take). Not every golf course needs to play to championship length. Just as general menu restaurants and hotels have given way to more targeted markets (i.e., no more HOJO, more Mexican, Greek, whatever) it's time for golf to eliminate the one size fits all mentality, no? Little league baseball has never been played on full size fields, etc.
I do know it will be a sea change. Too many golfers are conditioned to believe 7K yards is a measure of the course, as is difficulty, even if they have no intention of ever playing that long and can't play a course that hard. To paraphrase Churchill, never has so much golf course been built for so few. We have to start asking why at some point.
-
Bifurcate. (Or not) I am ambivalent. Way too much emphasis on the Pro tour, as if it has much to do with our own enjoyment of the game as individuals.
+1
+2
-
Bifurcation isn’t going to happen, might be nice if it did, but I don’t think so. Baseball didn’t have to do it and I don’t see them having to build new stadiums/fields with 600ft fences to accommodate the evolution of the game. Golf has a real problem. WG and others don’t think the distance problem has impacted/hurt them but it has. It is making the game more expensive for all of us. You might only play the 6000 yard tees but there might be 1500 more yards of golf course behind you that someone had to build and maintain (and pay for). If you play there, it is YOU who is paying for it. College or even high school kids who hit it 330 don’t want to come play chip and putt on your 6500 yard golf course. They will go somewhere else to play and practice. Maybe you don’t care but you should. This impacts all of us.
On another thread I suggested 10 par threes. What is so special about par fours that you need ten of them instead? This might be the easiest solution out there ;)
-
Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone. So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along? That is what the Tours say they will do. So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule. The Tours can't be made to go along. So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?
It may not be worth the money for manufacturers to produce balls that are only used by the pros. That's a pretty small market all things considered.
-
Bifurcation isn’t going to happen, might be nice if it did, but I don’t think so. Baseball didn’t have to do it and I don’t see them having to build new stadiums/fields with 600ft fences to accommodate the evolution of the game. Golf has a real problem. WG and others don’t think the distance problem has impacted/hurt them but it has. It is making the game more expensive for all of us. You might only play the 6000 yard tees but there might be 1500 more yards of golf course behind you that someone had to build and maintain (and pay for). If you play there, it is YOU who is paying for it. College or even high school kids who hit it 330 don’t want to come play chip and putt on your 6500 yard golf course. They will go somewhere else to play and practice. Maybe you don’t care but you should. This impacts all of us.
On another thread I suggested 10 par threes. What is so special about par fours that you need ten of them instead? This might be the easiest solution out there ;)
Isn't the equivalent little league fields, softball fields, etc?
Interesting point. Maybe if courses charged by the yard played, golfers would more readily move up a tee! Make the true back tee players pay more. Someone ran the math once. Because all would pay for greens and Fw, etc. and you might have native grasses for much of the distance from tee to fw, they thought the back tees only added 5%, maybe up to 10% more in maintenance costs. While that doesn't sound like a lot, if you say the maintenance budget went from $1M to $1.05 or $1.1 Million for the 400-1000 extra yards above 6800 from the next tees, I think many courses are looking for ways to save $100K per year in maintenance to balance the books.
Yes, some top players (still less than 1% of golfers, maybe less than 0.1%) will go somewhere else. If it is 1% of 30,000 golfers, that is 30 golfers a year. If they pay $100 per golfer, or $3000 in revenue, that is less than the minimal 5% cost extra for their yardage. $50,000-$3,000 is a $47,000 net gain for the course, assuming all savings are implemented.
As to your par 3 concepts, I have long thought the par 4 was the most efficient golf hole. A set up shot to determine what conditions you have on the approach that might affect your score, followed by an approach shot (the key shot) that determines how many putts you might take.
The second shot on a par 5 is inherently less interesting, because there is rarely a need to set up the set up shot.
And, on par 3 holes, you get to play the key shot, but more or less dictated as the same exact condition for you and your partners (assuming you play the same tee.) It is one less chance to differentiate yourself, which of course is the name of the game on any hole, particularly in match play. I gathered the 3, 5 hole types were found necessary for connections on other holes, or lack/extra land somewhere. Maybe someone said, "Par 4 holes are great, but in the name of variety, lets make a few par 3 and par 5." A few somehow morphed into a standard 4 each in most cases.
The easier case to make is get rid of at least 2 par 5 holes (USGA has been doing it for 50 years or so in tourneys).
I did have a client who wanted to build a "second shot" course, all par 3 holes, but each time you went around (it was 9 holes) you played from a different area. Not a tee, per se, more like a fw, and you lined up left right, sidehill Left to Sidehill Right, etc.. The goal was to teach you the ramifications and advantages of placing your tee shots to different locations in an effort to educate on strategy.
-
MF
"Bifurcation isn’t going to happen, might be nice if it did, but I don’t think so."
[/size]
[/size]Who cares?
[/size]
[/size] "Baseball didn’t have to do it", huh?
[/size]Aluminum bats?
[/size]
[/size] "and I don’t see them having to build new stadiums/fields with 600ft fences to accommodate the evolution of the game. Golf has a real problem. WG and others don’t think the distance problem has impacted/hurt them but it has. It is making the game more expensive for all of us. [/size]You might only play the 6000 yard tees but there might be 1500 more yards of golf course behind you that someone had to build and maintain (and pay for). "
[/size]
[/size]Where is this? and please be specific.
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]If you play there, it is YOU who is paying for it. College or even high school kids who hit it 330 don’t want to come play chip and putt on your 6500 yard golf course. They will go somewhere else to play and practice. Maybe you don’t care but you should. This impacts all of us.
[/size]
[/size]yes it would mean a little less play on the courses most people play, sweet!
[/size]
[/size]cheers
[/size]
-
like Tiger said today, it's the straightness that Bryson has figured out for himself
it's like "Iron Bryson"
cheers
-
Indeed, the elimination of the angle between the arms and club allow him to rip it without a loss of accuracy.
-
Asking the question from the other side, what would have to be true for Bryson not to try his new strategy?
- If the driver head were limited in size? At 400cc I think he still would, 300cc I'm not so sure.
- If he only played links courses in the UK? I think his strategy could be even more successful, but it might be win or bust on bad weather weeks
- If the ball changed to go shorter or spin more? It depends, a shorter ball that effects players linearly would still make him successful. A spinny ball might stop him.
- If he only played US Open set ups with thick rough? He would probably win there too.
I'm not sure what this teaches us, but I'm not sure any change to courses/set ups materially changes how he is trying to play the game.
-
Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone. So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along? That is what the Tours say they will do. So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule. The Tours can't be made to go along. So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?
It may not be worth the money for manufacturers to produce balls that are only used by the pros. That's a pretty small market all things considered.
They used to - and advertised it.
From a Titleist advertisement mid 1970s.
"Spin makes the DT Titleist a longer ball off the tee. In fact it's the only ball that's every yard as long as our balata cover Titleist - the balls the pros play."
My guess is they could afford it then and they could more easily afford it now. The profit margins on todays stones must be astronomical when competed with a wound balata ball
-
there was no wind last week, and he just striped most everything
love to see some wind etc... and it's effect on his game as Iron Bryson
-
Michael and Jay--You advocate a tournament ball, leaving the rest of us alone. So what do you do when the R&A and the USGA do that and the Tours refuse to go along? That is what the Tours say they will do. So what do the rulemakers do when they can't enforce their rule. The Tours can't be made to go along. So isn't that where the push for change needs to be made--not toward the USGA/R&A?
It may not be worth the money for manufacturers to produce balls that are only used by the pros. That's a pretty small market all things considered.
They used to - and advertised it.
From a Titleist advertisement mid 1970s.
"Spin makes the DT Titleist a longer ball off the tee. In fact it's the only ball that's every yard as long as our balata cover Titleist - the balls the pros play."
My guess is they could afford it then and they could more easily afford it now. The profit margins on todays stones must be astronomical when competed with a wound balata ball
Per the attached from the USGA - a 62 page list of conforming golf balls and an updated listing each month. Presumably such a listing wouldn’t need to be updated each month if there weren’t new additions each month. ‘Prototypes’. And each of the major manufacturers has dozens of entries. Okay some might be minor cosmetic etc changes but I doubt all will be.
See - https://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/gball_list.pdf (https://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/gball_list.pdf)
It’s been reported off and on for a years that different elite players play slightly different versions or year of the same ball, the one that suits them personally the best.
Which would kind of suggest that there must be dozens of different versions of similar but unique or semi-unique balls in storage rooms and cupboards and shelves on tour trucks.
The manufacturers are savvy. Even though they might deny it and might not want it, they know what might be coming. I can’t imagine they haven’t done a whole bunch of R&D and economic evaluations ahead of time. And from a business point of view dark clouds for the streetwise and a savvy can have silver linings.
Atb
-
WG,
Aluminum bats definitely help but they don’t seem to make the game that different as the best college players that end up in the pros are playing on the same size fields with no issues. No one talks about 600ft homeruns that I am aware of. If you play a course at 6000 yards, any course that has tees longer than that is costing you money. As Jeff points out less than 1% play the back tees but unfortunately that 1% is very influential or those tees wouldn’t be there nor would all that extra acreage of golf course that goes with it. Yes you probably don’t care if that kid that hits it 330 goes somewhere else to play, unless that kid is your own. I try to talk clubs out of adding new back tees all the time for all the obvious reasons. These days I am building more forward tees (thank goodness), but I still have to deal with that 1% that doesn’t want their course reduced to clip and putt for that small number of times their course will see play from the big hitters.
-
Mark, Major league baseball determined that the game was mature so it continued to require wooden bats. Its a badly kept secret that the ball gets tweaked from time to time and the mound gets raised and lowered but for the most part, the major league equB players to use metal or composite bats you would likely need 600 foot fences and pitchers and infielders would be in even more danger than now. The impact is clear, one of the key scouting areas are "wooden bat" tourneys for prospects or wooden bat leagues like the Cape Cod League. Interestingly, pitching changes significantly with wooden bats as pitchers are more likely to throw inside inorder to saw off the wooden handles.
-
I wouldn't call him Iron Bryson per se.
Yes, he's number 1 on tour in Driving Distance, but 110th in Accuracy.
He knows Accuracy doesn't mean squat on tour, just another data point to confirm that length isn't everything...its the only thing, and that's the actual point.
-
I don’t see the need to change anything. What is the problem?
What the pros score is of no interest. Lowest score always wins, whatever it happens to be. Par is just a number.
Good players will always hit it farther.
If private clubs see the need, for vanity reasons, to lengthen their course "to protect par", so be it. It’s their money. Economics will sort it out.
Great old courses will remain great courses.
-
You mean great old "private" course like Bethpage Black that has been disfigured worse than Joan Rivers?
-
So I come at this differently due to my weird background
I don’t want to see different rules.
But I don't want to see Great courses bastardized either.
Obviously this is (largely) a top level of players issue. Not just tour pros, but high level players that seem to be driving the real concerns
I also believe that truly testing tour pros would almost require a different “stadium”
More par threes to require more clubs used on approaches. Lower par because of this.
Also shallower targets for hole locations for these events. Not greens more shallow per se but shallow targets within complexes
In my very unscientific opinion. Distance control with all the low spinning demands is not as good as it was
Watch Tiger in Japan and his control on approaches. He also plays a “spinny” ball. FWIW
Tighten the demands on distance control
-
The “ball problem” only exists with high level amateur and professional tournament golf. Just create new specs for a “tournament” ball and leave the rest of us alone. Watching the pros has been like watching a different game for me for a long time. Stop trying to pretend that we are playing the same game. Let us hacks have all the help we can get and put the limits on the tournament guys.
Unfortunately there are lots of big, strong 15-40 yr old amateurs who hit it as far or nearly as far as the elite players but are not tournament players, indeed not even close to being at that level. Elite and tournament players however, generally know the direction the ball is going to go. Your big, strong 15-40 old amateurs tend not to know where the ball's going to go, likely quite the opposite, and they thrash away frequently hitting it miles off-target, which is dangerous. And there are lots of these big, strong amateurs, and they are getting bigger and stronger every year.
The future ........?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
atb
five thoughts as I read the thread
1.The R&A mentioning Bryson in ANY discussion about how far the ball goes completely undermines their credibility, and weakens the argument.
Bryson earned the extra yards he's achieved in the last half year via technique and body change.
The rest of the 110+mph clubhead speed crowd was gifted 40 yards by multilayer balls, long/light shafts and thin faced rebounding drivers 15-20 years ago.
2.I am truly amazed at how many are sooo worried about losing their hot balls and hot clubs.
Chances are pretty good most posting here wouldn't lose a whole lot because they lack the clubhead speed to gain the full benefits of the rebound and two piece balls were always available.
3.I grow very weary of hearing "scores haven't dropped in 20 years"
Of course they have-there are more single digit handicappers, than ever, more plus handicaps than ever or waaaayyy more good players, and the scores they shoot every week on TOUR are stupid low-on every tour and mini tour
There will always be horrific golfers and there will always be beginners and bad golfers-that does not mean golfers have not improved-they have.
4. Golf is healthier than it's been in along time during the pandemic-I have not heard one pro in any part of the country tell me otherwise.(I'm all ears to hear if I'm wrong on this) Other than knucklehead University endowed/owned courses that can't figure out they should be open and printing money like every other course.
5. why make all the crazy changes suggested on this thread when the solution is to simply reverse the tech that created it(if you believe ther's a problem-if you don't I'm cool with that too)
Just played Shennecossett in a two day event.
Fiery fairways and greens-super firm.
Interesting, well designed greens with some sloped away form play, false fronts, false backs, volcano hole.
Great hole locations made the event a blast-angles, driving in the fairway, using the ground, distance control-amazing how fun it is and doubt anyone in the field would've shot any higher with a wooden driver-just would've used it more. ;)
-
The oft repeated suggestion that distance is only an issue for the pros is, as Thomas Dai says above, incorrect. The adoption of it as mantra is not helpful to the debate. In the 70s/80s a handful of tour events were played at The Northumberland. The first there is a 340 yard par 4, doglegging right, playing (for me) down into a dip and then back up. Most players will play down into the dip with anything from a long iron to a driver, depending on their length, and then hit anything from a wedge to a mid-iron up to the green, again depending on the player.
When the pros were there 40 odd years ago, a handful would try to drive the green (it's shorter than that 340 yards because of the dogleg and often has a following wind, though there is a slope up to the green). Famously (at least at the club, and quite possibly mythically!) in one round Greg Norman hit OOB, then hit the green with his second drive and holed the put for par. What is certain is that only the very longest contemplated hitting driver.
Now, all the good young players have a go. I have seen both my 21 year old twins, off handicaps of 15 and 25, drive it past the green. 12 years ago, my eldest son played a round with Garrick Porteous (then British Amateur champion) who hit a 3 wood off the first tee onto the racecourse behind the green and chipped back. I can't see how any of this is good for golf.
Nor can I see how de-skilling the game at the very top (no-one thinks DeChambeau can hit a long iron as well as Tiger or Rory but it doesn't matter, long irons are obsolete) adds to the excitement. If I want to see someone hit 300+ yard bombs, there are several lads at my own club I can watch. What I want to see is exceptional skill and, particularly, exceptional ball striking.
-
Well said Mark.
atb
-
The oft repeated suggestion that distance is only an issue for the pros is, as Thomas Dai says above, incorrect. The adoption of it as mantra is not helpful to the debate. In the 70s/80s a handful of tour events were played at The Northumberland. The first there is a 340 yard par 4, doglegging right, playing (for me) down into a dip and then back up. Most players will play down into the dip with anything from a long iron to a driver, depending on their length, and then hit anything from a wedge to a mid-iron up to the green, again depending on the player.
When the pros were there 40 odd years ago, a handful would try to drive the green (it's shorter than that 340 yards because of the dogleg and often has a following wind, though there is a slope up to the green). Famously (at least at the club, and quite possibly mythically!) in one round Greg Norman hit OOB, then hit the green with his second drive and holed the put for par. What is certain is that only the very longest contemplated hitting driver.
Now, all the good young players have a go. I have seen both my 21 year old twins, off handicaps of 15 and 25, drive it past the green. 12 years ago, my eldest son played a round with Garrick Porteous (then British Amateur champion) who hit a 3 wood off the first tee onto the racecourse behind the green and chipped back. I can't see how any of this is good for golf.
Nor can I see how de-skilling the game at the very top (no-one thinks DeChambeau can hit a long iron as well as Tiger or Rory but it doesn't matter, long irons are obsolete) adds to the excitement. If I want to see someone hit 300+ yard bombs, there are several lads at my own club I can watch. What I want to see is exceptional skill and, particularly, exceptional ball striking.
Well said.
i certainly wonder how anyone can endorse a restoration at a course when shot values have skewed so much due to tech.
It would seem a sympathetic interpretative "renovation" would be the only way to restore original strategies and shot values if one wants to go with the supposed mantra of "architectural intent".
But the same could be said of the changes in fairway and green slopes due to ever increasing faster, tighter turf speeds(what some would call "advances")
-
WG,
Aluminum bats definitely help but they don’t seem to make the game that different as the best college players that end up in the pros are playing on the same size fields with no issues. No one talks about 600ft homeruns that I am aware of. If you play a course at 6000 yards, any course that has tees longer than that is costing you money. As Jeff points out less than 1% play the back tees but unfortunately that 1% is very influential or those tees wouldn’t be there nor would all that extra acreage of golf course that goes with it. Yes you probably don’t care if that kid that hits it 330 goes somewhere else to play, unless that kid is your own. I try to talk clubs out of adding new back tees all the time for all the obvious reasons. These days I am building more forward tees (thank goodness), but I still have to deal with that 1% that doesn’t want their course reduced to clip and putt for that small number of times their course will see play from the big hitters.
fake news, geez
have a great day if you want too
cheers
-
I believe that baseball is bifurcated because professional baseball is made up and controlled by the owners of the teams who in turn own the stadiums. They are not willing to spend the money to build new stadiums to accommodate new equipment so the wooden bat stays. Look at what happened to baseball when Sosa and McGwire and later Bonds put on a home run show - sure, it was a great show but afterwards the fans viewed it for what it was and were happy going back to where they were. Today baseball has jacked up the ball some so there are more home runs but they are not approaching what was done back then where stadiums might have been considered outdated.
99.9% of golfers cannot tell the difference between the new Pro V1 and the prior generation but they still go out and buy them as opposed to buying the older generation at a lower price. For that matter I would guess that the same percentage of golfers could not tell the difference between two premium balls in a blind test around a course but they insist on playing a particular ball. I believe that if there was a "tour" ball which did not go as far it would not stop all the other golfers from buying the newest ball and the one that they believe is best. Do you remember Tiger using a Nike ball - how many people do you know who played the Nike premium ball - I didn't know one person who did.
-
Just played Harbour Town yesterday and got paired up with a 25 year old from Jacksonville that could carry the ball well over 300 yards. He had 70 yards into the one 430 yard par four and 60 yards into one of the others that was playing 425 yards. But it was great to watch how the design reigned him in on many of the holes as he hit a power fade and struggled to hit a draw or even a straight ball when he needed to. He was a very good player but probably ended up shooting four or five over par. I was pleased to beat him by two or three shots but on a wide open course I think he would have pummeled me. Smart design can help neutralize the bombers. Note: I have to say the new tree work at Harbour Town has really opened up many of the hole corridors but you still need to work the ball both ways and control trajectory.
One of the other problems with distance is safety at the driving ranges. Most people like WG don’t care or think about this. Not only the tour pros but college kids routinely come to play courses like Harbour Town and while the course reigns them in the range does not. Kids can fly nets 280+ yards out into neighboring homes etc. It is crazy. Many courses have limited practice area space and this becomes a real safety issue as there is no place to practice. Mayday was talking about this as his club where even with limited flight balls they may have to puts nets up over the maintenance facility to protect people or even move the whole facility. All of this leads to a much more expensive game.
-
...
Some may hit it a bit farther than they did before, but the increase is miniscule and a reduction in the distance they hit the ball would be counter-productive to the growth of the game.
...
Purely a speculative statement for which you have no proof. Also, which most arguments against reining in distance depend on, thereby making said opinions shaky at best.
-
...
But I don't remember William_G's dad gaslighting us about how they were ruining The Open by not letting Nicklaus et al. drive it 40 yards further like they could with the small ball. But I guess back then the public at large didn't fall for the corporate line that "eyeballs" were the most important metric of how things were going. ::)
++
Gray, ya burnt!
-
...
Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!
If that was the only reason some people played golf, then the game would be better off without them!
This is one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I have ever seen.
The Scottish King had to legislate against golf because all those golfers were so enamored with pounding their featheries so far that they just had to get back to the course!
::)
-
...
If we have to have change, then I much prefer bifurcation. The tours can do as they will. I don't see any inherent problem with different rules for different events. Ya gotta break eggs to make an omelette even if in this case a great many people aren't hungry.
...
The NBA plays a game which most people are unable to play. Bifurcate the rules so they have to use a 12 foot basket so their game will resemble what the common man plays.
;)
-
equipment and technology have helped the game for all of us
...
If you and I were to time travel to 1950, and play with period equipment on period courses, you would still be 18 strokes better than me. To 1900, same thing. 1850, same.
So exactly how has it benefited either of us?
Oh, I know. Gortex keeps us dry without making us itch like wool did.
-
+1 for Gore-Tex
equipment and technology have helped the game for all of us
...
If you and I were to time travel to 1950, and play with period equipment on period courses, you would still be 18 strokes better than me. To 1900, same thing. 1850, same.
So exactly how has it benefited either of us?
Oh, I know. Gortex keeps us dry without making us itch like wool did.
-
WG,
Aluminum bats definitely help but they don’t seem to make the game that different as the best college players that end up in the pros are playing on the same size fields with no issues. No one talks about 600ft homeruns that I am aware of.
Mark,
Aluminum bats have a big difference in both total distance and speed when batted. I don't think I have to find any specific research for it is generally accepted that aluminum bats produce a faster batted ball than wood bats, by IIRC 3-7 mph depending on the batter and how fast the pitch is thrown. I don't think you could ever use aluminum bats in MLB because the safety of the pitcher would be in serious jeopardy. For you hockey fans it would be like being in goal without equipment and only a glove on, while coming to a balanced position after a pitch.
I do know that one fall when I played at the university of Iowa in 1994, we used Baum bats, which were composite wood bats. The theory at the time is that we would spend all fall/winter hitting with these wood bats to find the sweet spot then a week before the season switch to aluminum and we would be crushing the ball. It didn't work simply, but it was like hitting with deadwood and when you did connect it was a good feeling, from a production standpoint didn't have anywhere near the performance of aluminum. In fact I preferred regular wood bats to Baum bats as they had more feedback, thinner handles although they broke much more often (Baum bats are very resilient and break seldom).
I would estimate that aluminum bats add 20-30 feet minimum to distance and up to 50-60 with proper swing speed/pitch speed. Not to mention the increased speed on all hit balls reduces defensive reaction time to produce more hits. That would turn MLB into a launching pad and as I said pitchers (even 3B/1B included) wouldn't be safe. I have huge respect for MLB hitters as using wood against that pitching is a true skill.
-
One of the other problems with distance is safety at the driving ranges. Most people like WG don’t care or think about this. Not only the tour pros but college kids routinely come to play courses like Harbour Town and while the course reigns them in the range does not. Kids can fly nets 280+ yards out into neighboring homes etc. It is crazy. Many courses have limited practice area space and this becomes a real safety issue as there is no place to practice. Mayday was talking about this as his club where even with limited flight balls they may have to puts nets up over the maintenance facility to protect people or even move the whole facility. All of this leads to a much more expensive game.
Driving ranges(I mean irons only ranges) are huge problem...
egos are funny things though
-
Jeff and Mark,
Excellent posts.
Jeff as to point #3, I'm pretty sure if you put today's Pros on the same tees at courses 20 years ago, the scores would definitely be lower as most Tour venues were under 7000. All the long hitters would be taking whacks at all those <400 yard holes which were far more common back then. Now sub 7000 is the exception, 450-480 yard par 4s are common, and in general courses need to be 7500+ to be considered long...and they still drop 65s and 66s left and right.
-
The baseball analogy isn't pertinent to the bifurcation question in golf; never was.
Aluminum bats began to be used in softball first, the gradually into baseball from the bottom up. It was for cost reasons primarily, including the fact that professional baseball was sucking up all of the best wood; the bats being used in amateur baseball were even more prone to breakage than the wood bats in the majors.
As aluminum and later alloy bat technology got better, I guess you could make a tortured comparison to the golf distance question, but that's largely been addressed in the last decade or so by changes in the metal bats. If you look at the change in the number of home runs being hit in the college World Series, for example, it's WAY down by as much as 75% some years, but the reason was safety much, much more than the way the game is played. And the other advantage of a metal bat, which much more "forgiveness" when you don't barrel it up, has declined as well, so offense in general is down in college baseball. Ironically, some are even calling for a livelier ball in college baseball to address the lack of offense.
But where the golf-baseball analogy fails completely is that nobody is trying to make professional baseball look like what they think it looked like decades ago by changing the equipment; if anything, the changes in baseball have been from the other direction, with restrictions on metal bats making the amateur game look more like the professional game, which is pretty much the opposite of the momentum in golf.
-
One other factor was that prior to 1930, not many clubs watered the fairways and distance was getting out of control. In the early 30s, watering became more common. If the floater ball would have been introduced 5 years earlier, it may have had more of a chance. But... it may have taken a year of torture to make people happy with the eventual compromise.
Peter, I am not disputing what you say but I am surprised that clubs were able to afford to put in place irrigation systems in the midst of the depression. Was that really the case that clubs installed irrigation in the 1930s?
-
But where the golf-baseball analogy fails completely is that nobody is trying to make professional baseball look like what they think it looked like decades ago by changing the equipment; if anything, the changes in baseball have been from the other direction, with restrictions on metal bats making the amateur game look more like the professional game, which is pretty much the opposite of the momentum in golf.
Where the golf-baseball analogy fails completely is that there are no pitchers in golf throwing the ball at you at 98 MPH.
It's you and technology vs. the golf course, and that's why people keep changing the golf courses as the technology is allowed to change.
-
I don’t disagree that the baseball analogy is not the best one to compare. What I do know, however, is that it is time to address the distance issue. It is not going to get better, it is only going to get worse. Maybe Bryson will be the one to save the day and the game 😊 I have no issues with long driving competitions when they are confined to a specially set up area for the guys and girls to bomb it. But when golf courses themselves are forced to accommodate that kind of play, something needs to be done. It really does impact all of us. I have a couple projects coming up this fall and I know there will be talk about where can we find three or four hundred more yards. My position will be, we should maybe consider spending your member’s hard earned money elsewhere.
-
Question - does the permit process for new courses or significant changes include a health and safety element and if so how does golf ball distance envelopes effect permit award?
Atb
-
Question - does the permit process for new courses or significant changes include a health and safety element and if so how does golf ball distance envelopes effect permit award?
It's a good question.
There has long been an industry standard for how far away from the property line the centerline of a golf hole should be -- but it's not published anywhere, because nobody wants to get sued for suggesting a standard and then someone getting hurt in a place where that standard was applied. [Welcome to America!] Plus, of course, the "centerline" of a golf hole is not absolute.
There is usually not a health & safety approval of this kind for golf courses in America. A municipal project might be questioned about it, but there is no department to deal with it for every application, as there is for wetlands or archaeology or erosion control. I have only run into questions about it when consulting for existing clubs . . . but it's not like I'm often putting golf holes up against the property line on my own designs!
-
Thanks for this insight Tom.
Makes me wonder if sometime or other the golf ball distance debate will result in scenarios such as “Sorry Mr Developer but you can’t build 100 houses around your proposed new course you can only build 50” or “Sorry Mr Country-Club but your course is now too close to this road/school/etc you’ve got to change it.”
Cats get skinned in many different ways. I’ve used his name before but it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if there were a golfing Ralph Nader currently hiding behind a hedge or desk just waiting to jump out. Public health & safety and the environment lobby vrs the equipment manufacturers.
Atb
-
Peter, I am not disputing what you say but I am surprised that clubs were able to afford to put in place irrigation systems in the midst of the depression. Was that really the case that clubs installed irrigation in the 1930s?
It looks like there was a lot of technology innovation in the late 20s and early 30s. In 1926, they invented the pop up sprinkler with a timer. Then in the early 30s, someone made a system with fewer moving parts, more reliability, and for a cheaper price. By 1934, it was very commercialized under the Rain King (?) name or something like that. I'm sure that the depression did have a counter effect as well, but the irrigation tech temporarily paused distance gains for a short period of time.
-
Prior to 1921, it was "Gibson's choice" and any ball could be used. From 1921-1931, the official ball was 1.62 inches in diameter and 1.62 oz. In 1931, the USGA mandated the floater ball- 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.55oz (bigger and lighter). After a year of everyone moaning about loss of distance, they amended it and increased the weight back to 1.62oz (so bigger, but the same weight).
The USGA's reasoning behind the balloon ball was to "curb long-driving and to prevent old courses from becoming obsolete as a result of the 1.62-1.62 ball's constantly increasing ballistic properties." HA!
Per the NY Times (11/21/1931):
"Curiously enough, the ball that was supposed to curb length, reward skill and bring back the use of clubs that were coming to be neglected, such as the spoon and the mashie, did nothing of the sort. The skillful hitters began getting even more length down wind with it than they had with its predecessor and even with the wind adverse the loss of distance was negligible.
But the duffer and the dub suffered, or at least imagined he did. It was all well and good for others to inform him that whatever distance he lost of fancied he lost from the tee would be recompensed by the way the ball sat up, begging to be hit, through the fairway. The 1.62-1.62 ball had got him off the tee and nothing else mattered.
In a great many cases, perhaps most, those few 150, 175, even 200 yard drives that he had been getting with the 1.62-1.62 ball brought the only thrill of the game, and to take that away left nothing, or next to nothing. He complained justily and the USGA officials heeded."
Just imagine if the only thing that kept you heading out to the course was your 175 yard drives!
The New York Times probably isn't the best source for this topic.
I would refer you to John VDB's article in the In My Opinion section of this site entitled "The Balloon Ball".
The balloon ball was a failure, because the highly skilled had no problem with it, but the average golfer had big problems with it, primarily its propensity to go sideways more. This is a feature the average player hitting it sideways on his own does not need.
Before the modern multipiece ball was introduced, the average player played a ball that didn't go sideways as much as the ball the highly skilled played. IMO this is what you want with a rollback. Therefore, my suggestion has long been to restrict the ball to two pieces, and allow the manufacturers offer covers with different degrees of hardness (softness).
-
I just read an interview on Golf Digest's web site with Martin Slumbers from the R & A, who said he was concerned about how far Bryson hits it now, in terms of the bigger impact it has on golf.
But he also said that they have delayed the second part of the Distance Insights report, because the pandemic has thrown everything off kilter, and they want to give the business a chance to get its feet back on the ground first.
That's how you can tell that they are not serious about making changes. If they wanted to make changes, what better time to make them than when everything is in upheaval? That's exactly when capitalists pounce on the opportunity to do things they want to do.
But when you DON'T want to make changes, that's when politicians say "it's too soon" to consider new policies and that "we don't want to be reactive," or "people need time to grieve." So we might as well start grieving, because it sounds like this report is going to limit the options for change.
The article I read had the R&A emphasizing reining in the driver.
You don't specify what limits the R&A were thinking of. Did they specify?
-
But where the golf-baseball analogy fails completely is that nobody is trying to make professional baseball look like what they think it looked like decades ago by changing the equipment; if anything, the changes in baseball have been from the other direction, with restrictions on metal bats making the amateur game look more like the professional game, which is pretty much the opposite of the momentum in golf.
Where the golf-baseball analogy fails completely is that there are no pitchers in golf throwing the ball at you at 98 MPH.
It's you and technology vs. the golf course, and that's why people keep changing the golf courses as the technology is allowed to change.
Tom,
Agreed; I have said many times that for a sport where the ball is just sitting there and nobody is guarding you, golf is incredibly difficult. And the approach of a ball at 98 mph is probably the best example of the differences.
But the point remains that the bifurcation of bats in baseball has the exact opposite history of what the advocates of bifurcation in golf are concerned about. The only sense in which the analogy has an validity is that baseball has survived bifurcation of bats between amateurs and professionals, but using something that was done for cost purposes and that doesn't fundamentally alter the way the game is played at either level isn't good logic.
-
Ah........the distance and ball debate. Lets see if we can break this down into a few different parts:
1. The average player (Adrian, Steve Lapper & Eric Bergstol's typical customers) will purchase and use a Pro V because the professionals use them.
Should they really be using that Pro V ball? Nope. Can they actually tell the difference between the older Pro V and newer- no way.
Why not use a ball tailored to their game? There are other balls on the market that are designed to maximize the average players enjoyment of the game given their ability, swing & swing speed. the golf professional in the shop is there to assisnt his customer. That ball may indeed go farther off the tee and with approach clubs than a Pro V, which would assist the player more. The downside is those balls are typically a bit harder so the feel around the greens is lost. PS: Most of these average daily fee players and struggling to make bogey and grind over the 1 meter putt for a double. A harder ball that flies further for them that a low/+ handicap player wouldn't use on the range is a godsend and they may not feel the difference when chipping/putting.
2. BK does not pretend to be the player many on this board are. In a good year, I may break 80 1-2x though I do enjoy playing and keep the ball in play. I know that my swing is in tune when I can play more than 1 round with the same ball since I'm then hitting it where I'm aiming and getting clean contact. When the swing is suspect, my misses are typically left, as I pull/hook the ball, not fade/slice. When I have an errant shot and need to look through the rough or taller grass; it amazes me to see how many Pro V lost balls I come across. In fact; on the occasion I do hit a double-cross slice, even more Pro V ammunition is easily seen.....at $60/ dozen the folks slicing Pro V's into the woods should be playing the lesser cost balls for all they lose during a round, especially on public access tracts.
3. I'm a lowly landscape architect like Tom D & Jeff B (I believe) not an engineer. I have to believe the smart designers at Titliest, Bridgestone, Calloway, etc. can design one golf ball that we all can play, so bifurcation isn't necessary - above a certain swing speed the ball will go no farther. Will some single person go beyond this design limit - yep. Sam Snead was longer than his peers as was jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, John Day & Tiger, but they were exceptions not the rule.
Just my $0.02
-
Ah........the distance and ball debate. Lets see if we can break this down into a few different parts:
1. The average player (Adrian, Steve Lapper & Eric Bergstol's typical customers) will purchase and use a Pro V because the professionals use them.
Should they really be using that Pro V ball? Nope. Can they actually tell the difference between the older Pro V and newer- no way.
Why not use a ball tailored to their game? There are other balls on the market that are designed to maximize the average players enjoyment of the game given their ability, swing & swing speed. the golf professional in the shop is there to assisnt his customer. That ball may indeed go farther off the tee and with approach clubs than a Pro V, which would assist the player more. The downside is those balls are typically a bit harder so the feel around the greens is lost. PS: Most of these average daily fee players and struggling to make bogey and grind over the 1 meter putt for a double. A harder ball that flies further for them that a low/+ handicap player wouldn't use on the range is a godsend and they may not feel the difference when chipping/putting.
2. BK does not pretend to be the player many on this board are. In a good year, I may break 80 1-2x though I do enjoy playing and keep the ball in play. I know that my swing is in tune when I can play more than 1 round with the same ball since I'm then hitting it where I'm aiming and getting clean contact. When the swing is suspect, my misses are typically left, as I pull/hook the ball, not fade/slice. When I have an errant shot and need to look through the rough or taller grass; it amazes me to see how many Pro V lost balls I come across. In fact; on the occasion I do hit a double-cross slice, even more Pro V ammunition is easily seen.....at $60/ dozen the folks slicing Pro V's into the woods should be playing the lesser cost balls for all they lose during a round, especially on public access tracts.
3. I'm a lowly landscape architect like Tom D & Jeff B (I believe) not an engineer. I have to believe the smart designers at Titliest, Bridgestone, Calloway, etc. can design one golf ball that we all can play, so bifurcation isn't necessary - above a certain swing speed the ball will go no farther. Will some single person go beyond this design limit - yep. Sam Snead was longer than his peers as was jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, John Day & Tiger, but they were exceptions not the rule.
Just my $0.02
Bruce,
I won't claim to know why anybody other than I plays any golf ball, but the idea that a higher index would in ANY way other than cost be better off with a cheap ball isn't true anymore. There are mountains of independent testing data on this, so don't take my word for it, but there's nothing on the market longer than premium balls. The longest ball on the market today is probably either the TP5-x or the Snell MTB-x; both are premium, high spin golf balls.
While I might agree with you that, on purely a cost basis, a guy who is losing several balls a round might do better to find a cheaper option than a ProV1, a higher index player needs MORE help from his equipment, not less. So a ball that spins more, has tighter dispersion, and is as long or longer, is a good choice for ANY golfer IF they can afford it. And now, of course, there are options from premium balls that don't cost like a ProV1.
But this is really at the heart of the problem. Nobody cared how far a Pinnacle went, because good players didn't use Pinnacles. But when premium balls became Pinnacles off the tee, but had high spin off wedges, everything changed. And that's the problem with a "roll back"; the Pinnacle was always legal. "Roll back" is a popular catch phrase here and elsewhere, but it's a simplistic term that really doesn't have a path forward.
So it's either bifurcation, or leave it alone.
-
While I might agree with you that, on purely a cost basis, a guy who is losing several balls a round might do better to find a cheaper option than a ProV1, a higher index player needs MORE help from his equipment, not less. So a ball that spins more, has tighter dispersion, and is as long or longer, is a good choice for ANY golfer IF they can afford it. And now, of course, there are options from premium balls that don't cost like a ProV1.
But this is really at the heart of the problem. Nobody cared how far a Pinnacle went, because good players didn't use Pinnacles. But when premium balls became Pinnacles off the tee, but had high spin off wedges, everything changed. And that's the problem with a "roll back"; the Pinnacle was always legal. "Roll back" is a popular catch phrase here and elsewhere, but it's a simplistic term that really doesn't have a path forward.
So it's either bifurcation, or leave it alone.
An historical aside - Once-upon-a-time, a couple of decades ago, players including elite players in elite events could change to a different type of ball mid-round. It wasn’t unusual for elite players in elite events to use a ‘rock’ on some holes and a softer, more controllable ball, ie a balata, on another. Then the regulations changed and it was play all the holes in a round with the exact same type and spec of ball.
Atb
-
The only sense in which the analogy has an validity is that baseball has survived bifurcation of bats between amateurs and professionals, but using something that was done for cost purposes and that doesn't fundamentally alter the way the game is played at either level isn't good logic.
But we would be altering golf balls for cost purposes, too -- to save the money spent changing golf courses because they are obsolete for elite players with modern equipment. It's a small number, though -- maybe 200 courses per year @ $1 million to $2 million each, plus the occasional $15m at Merion, Oakland Hills, etc. :o Of course Titleist pays none of that, while they rake in their profits on the Pro V1.
Note that I am not saying courses NEED to do that; but I am saying that's WHY they are doing it.
-
Wow did you guys see Bryson's 423 yard drive today at MV? I think the carry was almost 350. I would have loved to have had a camera on Jack when he saw this drive. I guess we will see some changes on hole 1 for this redo after that shortcut.
-
Actually they showed the video clip to Jack when he was in the booth and he was amazed. Faldo asked if he was going to put a stream or bunker there and Jack said no, he appreciated Bryson effort and more power to him for accomplishing that. He then begged the USGA to do something to the ball, estimating that it has been 43 years he’s been on that soap box now.
-
Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.
-
Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.
He's been saying that the whole time.
I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing. In 1984.
-
Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.
He's been saying that the whole time.
I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing. In 1984.
Yeah JN was one of the first players to come out and say it, or at least one of the first stars to say it.
What does this tell you that for almost 40 years the USGA/PGA Tour/Masters/R&A haven't put their foot down. Those in power in those organizations that could make a difference haven't. Where would we be if they didn't limit 460 cc drivers and COI in the mid 2000's? Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.
It is like disenfranchised stakeholders holding megaphones protesting, but those who can change it have on noise cancelling headphones. Shows the powerful people and the $$$ who are against the change.
-
Having no spectators at the most recent pro events has had one advantage ....... no spectators around to be hit by errant and even not so errant tee shots.
atb
-
Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.
He's been saying that the whole time.
I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing. In 1984.
Yeah JN was one of the first players to come out and say it, or at least one of the first stars to say it.
What does this tell you that for almost 40 years the USGA/PGA Tour/Masters/R&A haven't put their foot down. Those in power in those organizations that could make a difference haven't. Where would we be if they didn't limit 460 cc drivers and COI in the mid 2000's? Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.
It is like disenfranchised stakeholders holding megaphones protesting, but those who can change it have on noise cancelling headphones. Shows the powerful people and the $$$ who are against the change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USGA distance standards for golf balls predate the Titleist Professional. That ball was a tiny, brief interlude in the golf ball market while manufacturers learned to make a sold ball that spun off a wedge but not off a driver. I'd be interested in testing to see the differences between a ProV1x and a Titleist Professional, but my suspicion is that the results would be less different than we suspect, and that those differences don't really account for what's happened to Tour distances over the last 25 years.
I'm no fan of the USGA; I dropped my membership a number of years ago. I think they get a lot more wrong than they get right in a lot of areas. But I have a hard time looking at Tour distances, with DeChambeau as the current poster child, and blaming the USGA because of the golf ball. I don't blame the USGA for not knowing what couldn't be known, and I'll put titanium, tungsten, super high quality graphite, Trackman, and highly specialized and effective golf-specific workouts in that category, along with multilayer urethane golf balls that fly off the driver like a Pinnacle did but spin off a wedge like a Tour Balata did.
George Bernard Shaw, while in the Irish Parliament, said something to this effect. "It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." (Forgive my paraphrase.) And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball. Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USGA distance standards for golf balls predate the Titleist Professional. That ball was a tiny, brief interlude in the golf ball market while manufacturers learned to make a sold ball that spun off a wedge but not off a driver. I'd be interested in testing to see the differences between a ProV1x and a Titleist Professional, but my suspicion is that the results would be less different than we suspect, and that those differences don't really account for what's happened to Tour distances over the last 25 years.
I'm no fan of the USGA; I dropped my membership a number of years ago. I think they get a lot more wrong than they get right in a lot of areas. But I have a hard time looking at Tour distances, with DeChambeau as the current poster child, and blaming the USGA because of the golf ball. I don't blame the USGA for not knowing what couldn't be known, and I'll put titanium, tungsten, super high quality graphite, Trackman, and highly specialized and effective golf-specific workouts in that category, along with multilayer urethane golf balls that fly off the driver like a Pinnacle did but spin off a wedge like a Tour Balata did.
George Bernard Shaw, while in the Irish Parliament, said something to this effect. "It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." (Forgive my paraphrase.) And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball. Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period.
Worth recalling that for many decades there were 2 mainstream golfballs - the 1'68" USGA ball and the 1:62" ball.
The 1'62" ball wasn't just a British ball ...... it was the standard international spec ball used wherever R&A rather than USGA regulations were followed.
The 1'62" ball was longer, it went further.
The 1:62" ball could be used in The Open until 1974 when the 1:68" became compulsory.
But the 1:62" was still being manufactured and was a legit spec ball to play in club golf until 1990.
Did golfers, both pros and amateurs and ball manufacturers moan and complain and hint at legal action when they couldn't use the 1:62" anymore?
No!
They just got on with it.
Many/most club amateurs probably didn't even realise something had changed.
I guess the propensity of golfers to bitch and moan and generally gripe and manufactures to hint at legal action has increased a lot in the period from 1974/1990 to 2020. Maybe it's a nationality thing?
An example of less cajones within golf?
atb
-
Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.
JN doesn't have to make expensive changes. He is a smart guy who learned through the school of hard knocks that real estate development is best done with other people's money. I suspect that there is no shortage of well-off golfers in Columbus who are happy to rub shoulders with the great man and fund his attempts at perfection. If this ups the ante to the Joneses, that is the latter's problem.
Ironic that a man of government is now paraphrasing Shaw ("It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." ......"And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball. Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period."
It has taken me awhile to get here, but I agree 100%. JN in his heyday had a huge competitive advantage with his extraordinary power. No doubt that ball and equipment enhancements have contributed to democratizing this advantage, but I would not underestimate the effects of more money bringing better athletes into the game who further developed their skills through specialized instruction and a team approach to maximize fitness, diet, equipment, course knowledge and planning, travel, etc.
Nevertheless, I would enjoy a tournament or two where the sponsor would dictate a specific ball. Any 30 year-old ball design would suit me, but I would recommend the Acushnet "Club Special" of the late 1960s era. It was a cheap ball that felt good off the face and traveled decent distances. My guess is that the pros would lose some distance, but with some practice, would still go low.
BTW, I won a club championship on a very tight course with the first generation of the Pinnacle. It was circa 1981 and I got through the tournament with one sleeve of balls and never made more than bogey on a hole. They went far and felt good even around the greens. I think that the ball "problem" is greatly overstated and, perhaps, more of a Rorschach than anything else.
-
Worth recalling that for many decades there were 2 mainstream golfballs - the 1'68" USGA ball and the 1:62" ball.
I have been pointing out that history for years now, but there are several differences in the politics between now and 1974:
1. The USGA and R & A rules were already bifurcated, and the two balls already existed, so moving toward the big ball required no new products and the equipment companies couldn't whinge about that.
2. The R & A was wise to make the big ball mandatory only for The Open and The Amateur, and let the players themselves insist on further change at the regional and local levels.
3. The R & A was motivated in part because the American players wanted to see this change for The Open [so they wouldn't have to adjust to the small ball or give up yardage to the field], and the R & A wanted more Americans to come across for The Open.
4. I'm sure Titleist was on board, because it would be easier to get a bigger share of the overseas market, so they didn't lean on the players to resist.
5. The USGA didn't have to do anything. ;)
6. It was all done before the days when the leaders of the R & A and the USGA saw themselves as CEO's and spent a good part of their time in meetings with the Tours and with their Golf Industry partners. Now they are united in the notion that it's all about the $$$$$.
-
All valid points Tom.
Something indicates to me that these days No 6 might be the biggest contributing factor!
Atb
-
...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...
No one gets penalized. Given your reported ability, you can probably beat me by 15 strokes. Roll back the ball, and drivers, you will still be beating me by about 15 strokes.
Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.
Win, Win all around. :)
-
...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...
Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.
exactly
-
...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...
Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.
exactly
This is as well as playing the appropriate tee box.
-
What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb
I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.
He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.
This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!
-
What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb
I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.
He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.
This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!
Excellent example Duncan.
The pro's and elite amateurs are merely the poster boys/girls for the issue but at least they essentially know which direction their shots are going.
It's the big, strong, long hitting, but wildly inaccurate amateurs, like the one you highlight, that are the real issue, the real danger. And there are more and more of them coming along by the day.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jack-nicklaus-usga-golf-equipment-do-something?itm_source=parsely-api (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jack-nicklaus-usga-golf-equipment-do-something?itm_source=parsely-api)
Jack Nicklaus rips golf's governing bodies over distance gains: 'Stop studying it and do something!'
“The USGA and the R&A have got to wake up sooner or later,” Nicklaus said after being asked about the topic by Nick Faldo. “They can’t just keep burying their heads on this. They see it, they watch television, they see where these guys hit the golf ball. It isn’t about how far they hit it. You just can’t keep making golf courses longer. You just don’t have enough land, you don’t have enough money to do it.”[/font][/font][/size]
-
What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb
I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.
He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.
This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!
Excellent example Duncan.
The pro's and elite amateurs are merely the poster boys/girls for the issue but at least they essentially know which direction their shots are going.
It's the big, strong, long hitting, but wildly inaccurate amateurs, like the one you highlight, that are the real issue, the real danger. And there are more and more of them coming along by the day.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Nothing to see here.
We MUST, at all costs to our game-- protect the fragile egos of the men who are worried their 200-250 yard drives will be so affected by some sort've draconian rollback to the dark ages of 2000 that they will quit in droves.
I doubt they would notice as optimization requires a proper fit,hitting the center of the face with an ideal angle of attack, path and clubface matchup and multiple other factors, but that is of course beside the point.
and while you're at it build me another set of tees so I can hit the greens in regulation-despite my 21 handicap.
-
The easiest bifurcation would be a difference in hole size. (Edit; Pros should have to play to a smaller hole) All this green flattening for speed, needs a counter weight to balance and equate the challenges.
Have more contours, on great greens been lost, due to The Speed Race than principles ingrained in the rules? It's probably close.
Jack sounds like he's doing an advertisement for his brothers in the ASGCA. Ensuring further renovation work for decades to come.
He should lobby the president to give golf courses special tax free considerations. Like a religion.
-
What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcHEtyZXgAIfKb4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Any tee on a course occupying 500 acres with vast separation between holes.
-
Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.
I'm curious what you and others think would happen if this was somehow done. Even if you literally gave them that ball, with no advances in aerodynamics applied to the construction (but maybe some better manufacturing techniques for more consistent balls).
-
i remember knocking a Titleist Professional out of round, way out of round, at least 3x each time I played. Might've been good for the shag bag, but not for the golf budget. I can't imagine what an off-center hit by DJ or Bryson would like like on a Titleist Professional.
-
i remember knocking a Titleist Professional out of round, way out of round, at least 3x each time I played. Might've been good for the shag bag, but not for the golf budget. I can't imagine what an off-center hit by DJ or Bryson would like like on a Titleist Professional.
Hmmmm......Any chance they would swing less hard if they knew the accuracy of their next shot depended on it?
-
i remember knocking a Titleist Professional out of round, way out of round, at least 3x each time I played. Might've been good for the shag bag, but not for the golf budget. I can't imagine what an off-center hit by DJ or Bryson would like like on a Titleist Professional.
I can't imagine a Titleist Professional at their clubhead speeds would suffer worse than a 70s/80s balata ball at even 100 mph clubhead speed.
-
Rory was just asked about the distance issue during a question and answer after an exhibition with Tiger, Rose and JT. He definitely was uncomfortable with the question and danced around it.To paraphrase, he said it’s 20 years too late.
-
I refrained from weighing in back in July, but am intrigued enough now to chime in. While Tom D. gives his opinion — and I cannot 100% say it is not 100% valid — I have been involved with some aspects of the Report process from the perspective of the golf architects and their input to the USGA. I do not subscribe to the "conspiracy theory" that Tom D. feels is a delay tactic — and, as he puts it, would be optimum to move forward during the COVID situation. But, his opinion counts...so I'll let him continue that feeling, of course.
My take is that between the R&A and the USGA they did have bonafide interruptions, and they simply could not see getting to a proper finish with COVID affecting many of their key people, not to mention the voices they needed to hear from outside their organizations.
Sure, this has been going on a long time — but let us keep in mind that very little has been done pre-2000s at all. Nearly zilch, except for the various equipment standards which were pushed to the limit my manufacturers since Karsten Solheim began actually engineering golf clubs in the 1970s.
I remain hopeful and have a "glass full" perspective that good will come from the work. It is not as simple as many here claim. It is easy to sit back, log on, spout off and enter a keystroke or two. It is quite another to make informed decisions, back it up with data and a look at history — and also to include all of the various players at stake. It is quite complicated if you take the time to dig deep.
-
Forrest,
Clearly it's complicated - if it was easy it'd have been done by now.
Here's the inevitable 'But'
Is it any more complicated than the rest of the world ( golf outside of the American continent) being forced to change to the 1,68' ball in the early 1980s?
The rest of the world fell in line almost without complaint despite the impact on 'overseas' ball companies left with a whole bunch of useless machines and the lost distance. It was the right decision to take up to 25 yards off golfers - see the almost immediate impact of the generation of Seve, Norman,Price,Faldo... who played through the switch and became world class players because they were playing the same ball as the best players in the USA - and not having to switch back and forward.
It was also more problematic playing the 1.68 ball in the wind - and Australia,NZ and Britain tend to be pretty windy.
Imagine it had gone the other way - with the USA playing the small ball, the RoW the big one - and American golfers were forced to give up yardage in order to play the ball the majority of the world played. How would that have gone?
The problem with this debate is it's dominated by the USGA's fear of upsetting the average US amateur fearful of having done to him what the US did to the RoW in the early 80s.
It's a bit like the gun debate here in Australia compared with the same debate in the USA.
In Tasmania we had a mass shooting - 35 killed, 25 wounded - in 1996. Within a month the conservative government had agreed to a complete prohibition of automatic and semi-automatic firearms, a new registration system, and amnesty where prohibited or unregistered guns could be surrended and a buy-back fund to compensate gun owners.
There was a predictable argument but the vast majority accepted it and gun related deaths went down and we haven't had a mass shooting since.
It was just as we accepted the big ball almost without complaint.
I'm not equating the importance of the death of 35 people with the golf ball debate - just saying our cultures tend to decide things quite differently.
Our best courses all hold big professional events - unlike the USA where the vast majority of great courses never have to worry that Bryson is going to be hitting a wedge onto their 550y par 5 or an 8 iron into a hole Ben Hogan once said was a 3 iron into some guys bedroom! - and they do care their courses are reduced to nothing close to the intent of the original designers.
-
Mike good points from the ROW and the R&A needs to push this, which I'm sure they are. I don't see what the big concern is for potentially upsetting pro golfers. They will play with whatever rules you present to them as they want to win and will adjust. Bigger ball done, eliminate square grooves done, restrict clubhead size done, etc.
I have a good friend who was a competitive swimmer and loves the sport. We golf occasionally and he contends (and I agree) that when the swimming governing bodies banned the fast suit from international events it was relatively quick, however the USGA/R&A allowing club head sizes to 460 cc and the Pro v1 ball without any rollback has created what we have today which is a distance problem.
Many thought that the records from the fast suit era of swimming wouldn't be broken for decades, however I found this article that was written last year where most of the records have indeed fallen just 10 years after the ban (I was surprised). The author points to continued human evolution of perfecting a skill over time and the ban on the suits only slowed down this progress. Can golf take away the ball and slow down the progress? Yes.
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/one-decade-later-do-we-miss-the-full-body-competition-suit/
-
Is it any more complicated than the rest of the world ( golf outside of the American continent) being forced to change to the 1,68' ball in the early 1980s?
The rest of the world fell in line almost without complaint despite the impact on 'overseas' ball companies left with a whole bunch of useless machines and the lost distance. It was the right decision to take up to 25 yards off golfers - see the almost immediate impact of the generation of Seve, Norman,Price,Faldo... who played through the switch and became world class players because they were playing the same ball as the best players in the USA - and not having to switch back and forward.
It was also more problematic playing the 1.68 ball in the wind - and Australia,NZ and Britain tend to be pretty windy.
Imagine it had gone the other way - with the USA playing the small ball, the RoW the big one - and American golfers were forced to give up yardage in order to play the ball the majority of the world played. How would that have gone?
The problem with this debate is it's dominated by the USGA's fear of upsetting the average US amateur fearful of having done to him what the US did to the RoW in the early 80s.
+1
atb