News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Everyone plays the same ball
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2009, 11:13:02 AM »


Niall,

It sucks enough that half the field won't make a penny for every tournament.  Now you want to implement a rule where they could make a bad swing on the 1st hole, hit it OB, and they are done for the week?  Ouch, your brutal.   ;)
[/quote]


I like to think of it as tough love.

TEPaul

Re: Everyone plays the same ball
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2009, 01:28:00 PM »
"I would love to have more information about how the unique idea evolved in golf that everyone can play the ball of his choice."


Bob:

That remark above (and the rest of your good post #46) really does bring up and probably requires a full-blown review of how various of the Golf Rules evolved, and particularly WHEN AND WHY and very much including the first examples of so-called I&B (Implements and Ball) Rules and Regulations which came about perhaps a whole lot later than most today thought or ever realized.

But to start with----how the unique idea evolved in golf that everyone can play the ball of his choice?

It seems to me, Bob, and it certainly can be documented, that idea simply evolved out of the farthest and deepest mists of golf itself. In essence, there was just no question that it be that way and frankly, the very first administrative (R&A and USGA) Rules on Clubs (Implements) did not begin until the R&A ruled on and then banned the Schenectedy putter in 1908! As for Balls, there was no I&B Rule on golf balls, including on their weight, size, or playing characteristics until 1921.

It should also be noted that no other organizations have ever comprehensively (as an association) administered the Rules of Golf, including the I&B Rules of Golf, other than the R&A (beginning in 1897) and the USGA (beginning in 1896).

Previous to that, particularly abroad, various clubs maintained their own Golf Rules, mostly including "local" rules unique to each club and course, and that alone became so confusing that the R&A was prevailed upon (although not without some demurring among some Scottish clubs) to step into the breach and confusion and offer a Rules Committee for the purposes of general Rules unification. But back then it only ever involved “playing” rules, and not I&B rules.

It is interesting to me what the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews said about this and felt about it at that time (1897). Obviously, like a number of other clubs abroad, the R&A had their own Rules for many years but they did agree (in 1897) to offer their aegis and authority as a "go to" entity for all to ask them Rules questions but they insisted this was not intended by them to be some dictated law for all but merely something they would offer for convenience and Rules unification. Essentially this was not something they offered first, it was asked of them and other clubs actually had to prevail upon them and do a bit of persuading to get them to agree to fill this particular roll for Golf's Rules.

Into this stepped Macdonald and Laurence Curtis who had been appointed the two Rules representatives from the USGA in 1896-7. Macdonald wrote his friends abroad and on the R&A Rules Committee and asked for their help and advice that the USGA might follow the R&A's Golf Rules which the USGA board almost unanimously agreed to do at that time. But then eventually things would come up and questions on Rules would be asked, including on clubs and balls, where the separate R&A and USGA Rules Committees did not completely agree in the future.

The Rules of Golf (and I&B Rules) did not really come back to general unification again until that remarkable R&A/USGA Rules Conference in 1951-2.

When I&B issues really began to be debated (from around 1908 into the 1920s and 1930s) the sort of prevailing feeling from the so-called "Conservative" Party (the traditionalists) was that golf was no different than sports such as hunting or fishing whereby the "sportsman" simply CHOSE himself what equipment to use to basically JUST support his maximum SKILL against his opponent (in the purist golf mentality this was essentially the golf course) and no more. It was considered contrary to the "sporting spirit", for instance, to use a 10 gauge shotgun on a small bird or too heavy a test on a fishing line for the particular size and weight of a fish. The meat of the interest was not necessarily in the result of the outcome but more in the sporting quality during the duration of the contest.

But it did not take long for stroke play and tournament golf to begin to skew that voluntary election amongst golfers and the entire philosophy of "Standardization" of I&B that included the new and evolving I&B “Rules and Regulations” began to enter the game and its administrators’ and golf philosophers’ minds.

But within the developed R&A and USGA I&B Rules and Regulations framework that evolved from the early part of the 20th century and on and which is still with us today there is still a good degree of latitude with choices on clubs and balls and such that golfers can choose to use and legally.

Will the R&A and USGA Rules Committees agree to put into the Rules a requirement for some single completely “standard” ball (as you may be suggesting on this thread)? I don’t think they will, not even this so-called “competition ball” idea, but what they may do someday soon, realizing that the desire for such a thing may be increasing amongst golfers or clubs or associations, is offer some wording on what is called within the Rules of Golf, “Conditions of Competition” (in Appendix II of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf), where clubs and associations and such can adopt that wording within their "Condition of Competition" on selective tournaments and require tournament competitors to use such a thing as a complete similar and standard golf ball.

As far as I know, to date, only one association has ever done such a thing in a selective state golf association  tournament; The Ohio State Golf Association.



« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 01:43:33 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Everyone plays the same ball
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2009, 02:25:45 PM »
If this is a rollback conversation, have at it.

If the question in Bob's initial post (as I read it) was why not have all players use the exact same model ball, I have to ask..."how much difference is there in todays competition balls anyway?" Sure, people use many different brands, but only because they are paid to do so primarily, or because of minor (very minor) feel or aesthetic differences. Having all 150 PGA Tour guys, or Pennsylvania Amateur guys play the same exact ball will not effect the results at all. The performance is nearly identical.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Everyone plays the same ball
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2009, 04:13:15 AM »
Doug, wouldn't this be like every tennis player using a standard-weight (and length) tennis racquet, and requiring all racquets be strung to the exact same tension?  I'd also note that both baseball and cricket bats allow for a small range of personal preference.

Would you mandate one official grip size for golfers?

(Obviously the analogy doesn't apply equally well to golf balls, since it's not the case that your opponent can -for example- intentionally shine your golf ball on one side between holes.)  :-)


Jason, like I said it wouldn't be practical to do for clubs due to the different physical characteristics of players.  If everyone was roughly the same height, arm length and hand size then I might argue in favor of clubs being standardized.  I suppose if we wanted to take it there without going all the way, the clubhead and shaft could be standardized, with golfers free to add additional length to the shaft or weight to the head to the minimal requirements.

I'm not advocating this, but I think it would make golf more about the skill of the golfer, and less about the equipment.....not saying that you can buy truly significant improvements with better equipment, or else Donald Trump would qualify for the US Open.  But the modern driver has changed the game in some pretty basic ways, taking what used to be the most difficult club in the bag to master and made it the easiest.  Sometimes when arguing about technology changing the game people bring up the lob wedge, but I think that's simply a result of changes in maintenance practices (having collars of heavy rough around greens)

I just think its sad in a way that every sport that sees wide public participation has been changing over the years to reduce the skill requirements, I guess too many people everything should come easy (i.e. the "get rich quick" syndrome)  Look at tennis, with those giant rackets.  Softball, with the metal bats.  Bowling has apparently made 300 games much easier than they were 50 years ago due to balls that are made differently and changes in the way the lanes are waxed.  Compare with sports that people mostly watch versus participate, like American football - the rule changes made there have actually increased the skill requirements, though granted the changes were made for safety reasons and to make it more difficult for the defense (to increase scoring)

The only real exception I can think of is soccer, though since the players have no equipment aside from shoes I don't know what improvements could possibly be made - different shoes could conceivably make certain types of kicks easier, but if those shoes also make you run slower or trip more often it wouldn't be very desirable unless you were allowed to change your shoes for a penalty kick.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Everyone plays the same ball
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2009, 08:44:26 AM »
BCrosby,

I like Tom's suggestion, but with an added twist.  Borrowing from the "Iron Chef", just prior to Thursday's first tee time, the tournament sponsor would unveil the "secret ingredient", say a ball made to the early 1970s Maxfli-Red specifications, and changed each week.  Players teeing off later during the day would be prohibited from practicing with the designated ball prior to their round, but the balls would be available at the range for post round practice and the remainder of the tournament.  So the selection process is not gamed or corrupted, the ball type would be selected randomly. 

I love Iron Chef!  I was glued to it the instant I first saw it.  Totally riveting.

As a non-chef, my only beef with that show is that the ingredients are too esoteric for me.  I'd like to see them dumb down the secret ingredient every once in a while...for example, I'd love to see what Bobby Flay and that Italian guy would do with a secret ingredient like hot dogs or Campbell's Chunky Sirloin Burger Soup or Fruit Loops or Kraft Mac & Cheese.  Stuff a dad can use when the wife's gone and the kids are hungry.  I'd be taking copius notes on that.   

(My wife actually makes a hot dog omlette that's out of this world.  I'm sure there are other creative things that can be done with everyday kitchen items, and not just Japanese deep sea blowfish or venison....)
LOL... I watch the show too... one of the better entertainment shows on TV. I preferred the Japanese version.

Not a bad idea about the changing of ball characteristics from week to week... but of course... that would present serious troubles...

As for more practical food for the show... well... that's why they invented fast food. :)

.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back