[Lou_Duran]

Mr. Crockett,

What are the real issues?

Sleepless in NY,

Please tell me this is a brain fart:

"The USGA should circle the wagons and drop a bomb on ball manufacturers, period.  Let those that play the game to "hit it long" quit, and draw back the people that quit when shotmaking became obsolete."

If not, does your boss know how you feel?  What do you want, an average of 12 players per course each day?

My boy, you are on the road to perdition.  For the sake of your young family, please seek help!  And to think that you are able to vote.  Now I am beginning to understand why there is a Senator Clinton and a possible President Kerry!  Scary.

How many people really believe that the # of rounds played are flat over the last three years because the ball is going too far and the equipment is too expensive?  How many of us have had our golf courses lengthened because of the distance issue?

I paid $300+ for my first set of professional quality clubs (Walter Hagen) in 1970.  Adjusted for current dollars and the average family's increased purchasing power, I suspect that today's equipment may be actually more affordable.  And with the advent of the internet and very short product cycles, the used equipment market is widely accessible.  Add the big box stores such as Sams, Walmart, and Target to the mix, and quality balls on a real basis are much cheaper and last ages longer.

If there are non-cyclical, secular problems with golf today, I would like to suggest that the cause is actually multi-factorial, and the I & E issue may be a relatively small part of it.  In my opinion, costs in terms of money and time, and the corporatization (through REITS and other investment vehicles) of the game with overly-optimistic forecasts and business plans are the bigger culprits behind the current problems.

With land, regulatory, and legal/risk management costs so high, there is probably little that can be done to provide inexpensive, quality golf near metropolitan areas.  It would be nice to build a $1.5mm Wild Horse in Dallas, but it just can't be done.  Water is also becoming a much bigger issue in many parts of the country.

The economic problems with overcapacity is nothing new in real estate and it will work itself out, albeit not without some pain.  With this in mind, among the last thing that an operator wants to hear is that the USGA or R & A is considering rules that will lower participation in the game.  

Let's be carefull what we ask for, lest we just get it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I don't see what's so hard to believe about my statement.
  The USGA says : "Increasing the swing speed under Phase II(of ODS) by 11 miles per hour adds about 22 yards to golf ball distance. The shift to a titanium club head with a .820 COR spring-like effect boosts distance by approximately another 8 yards."  
  Dick Rugge stated  ..."if you modernized the test procedures but left the limit where it now stands, nearly every ball that now conforms would fail under the new procedure."

I think the USGA has done a very good job of monitoring and balancing equipment issues. This position has not been an easy one in the face of all the pressures from a market that did 4.7 billion dollars in equipment sales in 2003.
I think there is a simple remedy for the future. Keep the ODS's measuring technique flexible so as not to be surprised by unseen factors and add the rule to the books that will enable Tim Finchem to control distance on Tour while still remaining within the USGA code.  

[Jeff Fortson]

Where the stars may be out at night but they aren't so bright,


I revised the statement in question as such...

"The USGA should circle the wagons and drop a bomb on ball manufacturers, period.  Let the few that play the game to "hit it long" quit, and draw back the thousands that have quit and continue to quit because golf has become too expensive and one-dimensional."


Lou, my stance on this topic is this...

I feel there is a direct link between the advancement of technology in golf equipment (especially the ball) and the rise in cost and increase in time it takes to play a round of golf.  Just as important to me is the overall drop in quality of golf courses that have been designed in the last 15 years.  One could even argue the last 50 years.  

It may not matter to you, or to others who enjoy the benefits of these new technological advances.  I just can't sit and watch a sport that I am directly involved in with my livelihood and heart whither away like Tennis.  Helping you or others hit better shots through your purchasing power is not making this sport better, it's slowly killing it.  Golf means more to me than big drives and spinning iron shots.  

For a TRUE golfer the lure of the game is the acquisition of skill, not technology.  Anyone looking for the easy road to better scores is worth maginalizing to me.  If you or someone else quit because the USGA made a rule where the balata became as advanced as a ball could get, then I could live with that.

I truly feel that those that would leave the sport because of a technological roll-back don't have their heart in the right place anyway, IMHO.  The selfish, egocentric desire to drive the ball long and straight through technological advancement is the search for golf's equivalent of the Fountain of Youth, it is a false reality.  

So everyone, don't live in denial, all those drives that you hit with a 450cc head driver with a Pro V1 are the doing of your equipment, not your skill. If you can live with that, then you play this game for the wrong reasons.


Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I believe the misunderstanding is probably in the semantic of the USGA statement (Rugge's). The "pass/fail" line (limit) was at 296.8 yd at a test swingspeed mph factor of 109mph.

They moved the swingspeed mph test factor up to 120mph producing a distance (which included also switching from a test club of persimmon to titanium) of 326.8 yds.

Then they actually dropped the distance limitation down 7 yds.

Rugge may be saying that if they are now testing at 120 and they used the old "pass/fail" limit of 296.8 yds (at 109mph)that existing balls would fail. I think it's only semantics here, no more. In other words they are allowing nothing on the market today that was over the line on the old test---and that would include all the ball made in the last 25 years as you said.

However, even if that take is not true, there's another way of looking at what the new test is accomplishing in relation to the realities of what happened with player ball use and distance charactieristic in the past before the so-called new age ball.

The mayor and I are going to the USGA tech center on Thursday to see one of the tech directors and I can certainly get an accurate answer to this kind of thing then.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

By the way the one facet of the new test procedures and "Joint statement of Principles" that truly interests me is it appears that now they may be attempting somehow to limit distance to an actual 320yds no matter what. The new swingspeed test factor MPH is 120 which is probably representative of the swingspeeds of even the bombers on tour today. (Frank Thomas appears to imply that the highest realistic physical swingspeed may be around 125mph!). But the point is what if somebody came along--or a series of players who could realistically physically swing at 130 or higher?

You will notice that within the wording of the "Joint Statement of Principles" they have now mentioned EVEN limiting 'physical ability'. That is the first time to my knowledge they have ever done that--included that (even in theory) within the guidelines of ODS limitations? My understanding is in the past "physical ability" was in the realm of "skill" and was not contemplated within ODS guidelines.

But if it is now included they may be implying they mean to limit ODS to around 320 yds no matter what? That of course will be very interesting to see! That would seem to be a tall order but if that's what they're saying they mean to try to do then that's what they're saying! That very well may mean there will be no more "getting outfoxed factor" in the new ODS test procedures as there was in the old test procedures.

Frank Thomas seems to basically imply that the "getting outfoxed factor" may have been up to 25 yards and all within the legality of the 27 year old ODS limitations!!

[ed_getka]

Jeff,
  Well stated. Golf is supposed to be a game of skill, not purchasing power and crutches (i.e. long putter).
   I don't hit a lot of good golf shots, but when I do with my Wilson Staffs, I know it. And when I don't, I REALLY know it. My only concession to technology is my driver, and that wasn't for distance, it was to be able to put the ball in play. I do use a persimmon 4W, so I hope that redeems me somewhat.

[Jeff Fortson]

Ed,

I lost control of myself on my last post.  The last paragraph was a bit harsh and not too well thought out.  Obviously, it still takes skill to hit a driver, whether it's a 450cc head or with a Pro V1 ball.  

I was just stating that many people using these drivers and balls are being misguided by the flaws their technologically advanced drivers and balls are covering up.  This includes me!  I use a 360cc Taylor Made driver with a Pro V1 (although I do use steel shafts...thats one thing i couldn't give up).  Mainly, because if I don't, then I am giving up way too big of an advantage to my peers.  I can't afford to do it, monetarily.

Thank you for your words Ed, and don't feel bad for using the driver you do.  Why wouldn't you?  It is "legal", right?  


Jeff F.

[john_stiles]

Whether due to players abilities or equipment and technology, it would be best for GCA to roll the ball back.  I think Jeff F's reply has many good points.  

The cheap golf ball should be used to effectively control the ground required for the game.

I asked Rugge about swing speed, etc.  Rugge replies that 'they' are monitoring swing speeds at certain tournaments to keep abreast of this aspect of the test.   Driver announces that they (USGA) will not roll the ball back.

If swing speed is misjudged again, they will just have to again increase the ODS. Yet, they announce they will monitor swing speeds and then announce that they will not roll back the ball.  And, they have no provisions for rolling back the ball (or increasing swing speeds or revising any other factor).

They are stuck again. They cannot do anything but increase the ODS.  Swing speeds will go up. It will be due to players abilities if nothing else.  US Open courses will have to be longer. Those courses seeking the USGA model will have to be longer. They are effectively changing and lengthening and changing the architecture of many, many courses.  How many millions to lengthen Torrey Pines and Bethpage ?  This lengthening work all trickles down to new courses and even the classics.

That 'no current golf ball fails'  is one heck of a test criteria for any new test to address what they apparently thought was an issue requiring attention.  The line is drawn at today's technology and abilities and this line will be crossed again.  

Except in this situation,  I think you need to somehow control the ground required (not to mention preserve some of decent GCA).

Why don't they announce they will not roll back scores !!   I only wish they were just as adamant about not rolling back the scores.

They will do most anything to roll back the scores.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP,
A swing speed of 125 is probably "realistic" for playing competitive rounds but at present there are guys swinging 150 at long drive events. I think the fastest speed ever recorded was 162, by Jack Hamm. Brian Pavlet has had ball speeds over 200 mph, compare this with Tiger at 186.

The "sneak attack" that had the greatest effect on distance was the Pro V1. That ball's performance, and others like it, jumped significantly up the distance scale when hit at speeds greater than 109mph. These balls displayed a non-linear increase in yardage gains and for an ODS to be effective it has to prevent this type of gain, be it from ball, clubhead, shaft, or swing speeds. I'll be happy to see the USGA and the R & A employ such a broad based policy.



 

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

I read recently how player conditioning was the major contributing factor to increased length. See John Daly and Craig Stadler. NOT!

[TEPaul]

"The "sneak attack" that had the greatest effect on distance was the Pro V1."

JimK:

I believe I know what you mean by 'sneak attack'. I call it the USGA/R&A getting "oufoxed" by the manufacturers and all WITHIN THE LEGAL LIMITATIONS of their ODS limits!!

Basically, I just asked this question of Frank Thomas regarding BALL distance increase ONLY. First, we should understand that the USGA I&B rules and regs had not changed in 26 years until the recent Phase I and Phase II testing procedure changes!

Thomas essentially said that at 109mph (the old swing speed test factor) that increase attributable to the ball itself has been about 5 yards!

Thomas also said that within the 26 year old ODS test limitations COR, due to an increase in spring-like effect, has been responsible for 15 yards in distance increase at 109mph!

The additional 5 yards of distance increase within the old ODS limitations, I suppose (only because we didn't specifically speak about that), was due to so-called "optimization". According to Thomas, this adds up to the 25 yards of distance increase that he claims has been acheived in the 26 years of the USGA's ODS rules and regs which, again, have not changed in 26 years (until the recent phase I & II test procedure changes).

We can call it "sneak attack" or "getting outfoxed" but that's how Thomas basically breaks out how the distance increase at 109mph happened in 26 years.

Again, all that happened within the legal limitations of the 26 year old ODS limitations.

Obvously, according to Thomas, the major distance increase factor was the 15 yards of increase that took place because the USGA did not accept his recommendation to limit COR at the COR factor of the persimmon driver which was believed to be .078-.079!

You may say the greatest effect on distance was the ProV-1 but Thomas attributes 20% of the disance increase to that, 60% to COR increase, and apparently the remaining 20% to "optimization". Not to exactly question your interpretation but although some may blame Frank Thomas for the distance increase (which I do not) he was the one there and should certainly know better than most of us---or at least it would seem to me he should!

[Lou_Duran]

Today must have been one bad day on both coasts.  These threads on technology and the ones on Torrey Pines got me scratching my head.  Did something get into the water out there?

Mr. Fortson,

Get some sleep, take some Prozac, and re-read your posts.  Maybe you need another chance to make modifications.

You say:  " Let the few that play the game to "hit it long" quit, and draw back the thousands that have quit and continue to quit because golf has become too expensive and one-dimensional."

I can buy the expense issue, but this is the first time I've ever heard that people quit because golf is too one-dimensional.  Quite the opposite, surveys show that many people don't stay with the game because it is too difficult.  When is the last time one of your students said to you "to hell with golf, it is just too simple and it just doesn't offer enough variety and interest".

You say:  "I feel there is a direct link between the advancement of technology in golf equipment (especially the ball) and the rise in cost and increase in time it takes to play a round of golf."

I think that this is a demonstrably incorrect "feeling".  I know that from the time I started playing golf, in the late 60s, after adjusting for inflation, clubs are not more expensive.  That product cycles are shorter and people switch clubs more often is an issue of choice not expense, and it has the salutory effect of a strong used-club market with some unbelievable values (e.g. a Titleist 975D driver with a premium shaft for under $50).  And even at $40/dozen, the ProVs are a better deal than the mush balatas I played with in the 70s which cost $18+ and if you looked at them strangely you put a smile on them.  Today you can buy an 18 ball pack of high performance Spalding balls for $12, or a double-dozen Nike pack at Sams for under $20.

You assert:  " .... the overall drop in quality of golf courses that have been designed in the last 15 years.  One could even argue the last 50 years."

I couldn't disagree with you more.  I see between 25 - 50 new courses (built in the last 15 years) annually and I am happy to report that there are many, many wonderful golf courses that've been built during this time.  In fact, I would argue that we are in the midst of a golf architecture renaissance.  I only wish I could be around in 50 years when people will look back fondly to the period beginning in the mid to late 80s and acknowledge a second, longer lasting classical age.

You say:  "Helping you or others hit better shots through your purchasing power is not making this sport better, it's slowly killing it.  Golf means more to me than big drives and spinning iron shots."

Again, another unfounded, unsupported assertion, possibly sprinklered with a little class envy.  And for someone who hits a driver-9 iron to Pasatiempo's #10, your last sentence is quite self-serving.  By the way, weren't you playing a ProV1?  Amazing how your ProV1 is so much longer than mine (I hit driver, 3 metal-wood short, if you recall).

The sad thing about the new techonology is that it helps the strong, highly skilled player like you disproportionally.  The less athletic, weaker player gets a little help getting the ball up in the air faster, and maybe out of the rough, but not much more.  If the average consumer has not figured this out and continues to "invest" in clubs instead of lessons, well that's his problem (it may also say something about the quality of golf instruction).

You say: "For a TRUE golfer the lure of the game is the acquisition of skill, not technology.  Anyone looking for the easy road to better scores is worth maginalizing to me.  If you or someone else quit because the USGA made a rule where the balata became as advanced as a ball could get, then I could live with that."

Do you realize just how arrogant this statement is?  You are now into what is and what isn't golf, and giving yourself license to lambast those who may disagree with you (probably about 99% of all golfers; but these are not "TRUE" golfers in your world).  And BTW, the USGA does not have the authority to make me play with a balata or the power to make me quit the game.  With your attitude, perhaps you should be forced to play with a featherie and in plus-fours.  

Finally, you conclude with: "I truly feel that those that would leave the sport because of a technological roll-back don't have their heart in the right place anyway, IMHO.  The selfish, egocentric desire to drive the ball long and straight through technological advancement is the search for golf's equivalent of the Fountain of Youth, it is a false reality.  

So everyone, don't live in denial, all those drives that you hit with a 450cc head driver with a Pro V1 are the doing of your equipment, not your skill. If you can live with that, then you play this game for the wrong reasons."

Jeff, golf is an individual sport played by many different people with a variety of objectives.  Why are you so harsh in your rhetoric?  Do you think that perhaps your positions can be described as embedded in selfishness and egocentrism?

If you really want to understand the reasons why golf is expensive look at the ever-increasing costs for land, regulatory compliance, permitting, construction, taxes, and risk management.  Also, you may wish to examine the demand side as well.  There are many consumers who are willing and able to pay $$$$ to play.  There are some 18,000 courses out there, and today more than ever, people have more choice and greater access.  Perhaps not to a Pebble Beach or NGLA, but there are many, many good affordable courses out there.  And for most of us, these are courses which challenge, interest, and bring us back time and time again.

Jeff, you got to get out of the NYC area and get another perspective.  As Dr. Childs warned me, there are just way too many Democrats up there.  Good luck!  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP,
Frank Thomas probably forgot more about I&B technology than I will ever know  and I believe there are several factors contributing to the yardage gains, but I ask you this: The PGA Tour driving-distance average jumped by 8 yds in 2003. It was 279.8 in 2002 and went to 287.8 in 2003. There was no change in COR between the two years but there was one change, the introduction of the Pro V1x. Do you think this is coincidence or is there some other factor that I am missing?

[Jeff Fortson]

Ok, Lou, let me retort.....

You said

"I can buy the expense issue, but this is the first time I've ever heard that people quit because golf is too one-dimensional.  Quite the opposite, surveys show that many people don't stay with the game because it is too difficult.  When is the last time one of your students said to you "to hell with golf, it is just too simple and it just doesn't offer enough variety and interest."

You misunderstood what I meant about being "one-dimensional".  I was refering to modern architecture.  Especially, the "Reestorations" of many classic gems.


You said

"I think that this is a demonstrably incorrect "feeling".  I know that from the time I started playing golf, in the late 60s, after adjusting for inflation, clubs are not more expensive."

The examples you give may be true in relation to low-cost equipment for the beginner but $500+ for top of the line drivers is more expensive in relative terms to the past.  Remember, certain shafts cost hundreds of dollars on their own!  As for the ball, once again you may be correct if you play Pinnacles but if you want to play with the elite ball you have to fork over $50+ a dozen.  By people using inexpensive used clubs further proves my point.  People are being driven to use hand-me-downs and thrift store equipment to afford to keep up with the technology boom.  Tell me how this is good for the game.


You said

"I couldn't disagree with you more.  I see between 25 - 50 new courses (built in the last 15 years) annually and I am happy to report that there are many, many wonderful golf courses that've been built during this time.  In fact, I would argue that we are in the midst of a golf architecture renaissance.  I only wish I could be around in 50 years when people will look back fondly to the period beginning in the mid to late 80s and acknowledge a second, longer lasting classical age."

We are in a "architectural renaissance"?  Yes, there are a handful of architects doing some phenomenal work that is comparable to classic era courses.  But, in relative terms there is much more boring, one-dimensional designs being built.  For the 25-50 courses you could name that you found to be "wonderful" this year I bet I could name twice that many that flat out suck.


You said

"Again, another unfounded, unsupported assertion, possibly sprinklered with a little class envy.  And for someone who hits a driver-9 iron to Pasatiempo's #10, your last sentence is quite self-serving.  By the way, weren't you playing a ProV1?  Amazing how your ProV1 is so much longer than mine (I hit driver, 3 metal-wood short, if you recall)."

Yes, I play Pro V1.  If I didn't I probably would have a few thousand dollars less in my bank account than I would if I didn't use it.  I have to Lou, I cannot afford to give my peers that big of an advantage.  Imagine if this were baseball and all my adversaries played with aluminum bats and I chose to stick with wooden ones.  Do you think I would last long?  I don't.  

As for class envy, I have none.  I get my equipment free and thus I don't have to worry about my purchasing power.  I am probably more likely to get even higher quality equipment then the general public.  That's one of the perks of being a pro.

Also, by technology giving me an unfair advantage in exponential terms... well ... YOU'RE RIGHT!  This is a prime reason why something needs to be done.  Tour players have taken it even further than I can, thus forcing more courses to go under the knife at the golfing public's cost.


You said

"Do you realize just how arrogant this statement is?  You are now into what is and what isn't golf, and giving yourself license to lambast those who may disagree with you (probably about 99% of all golfers; but these are not "TRUE" golfers in your world).  And BTW, the USGA does not have the authority to make me play with a balata or the power to make me quit the game.  With your attitude, perhaps you should be forced to play with a featherie and in plus-fours."

First of all, if 99% of the people agree with you then my mother is a man.  Talk about making lambastic statements, this one takes the cake.  I bet over half of the people that play golf would agree with me if they did one hour of research or simply looked past their own little world.

Lou, if you don't have an opinion of what golf is or isn't to you, then maybe you should stay out of ideological arguments.  I lambasted no one.  I simply put out an opinion that you thought was egotistical.  Sorry.  I didn't mean it that way.  However, I truly am willing for golf to lose people that are so hung up on improving through technology that they are willing to let great golf courses become graveyards and also willing to allow golf to become a completely different sport.  Call me egotistical or self serving, it doesn't bother me on this topic.

You are also right when it comes to the USGA's rules, you don't have to play by them.  Unfortunately, for you, if you ever want to play in any organized event in your life you'll have to play by them 99% of the time.  Have fun playing the sport of Anti-Golf if you choose.


You said

"Jeff, golf is an individual sport played by many different people with a variety of objectives.  Why are you so harsh in your rhetoric?  Do you think that perhaps your positions can be described as embedded in selfishness and egocentrism?"

If you look at my last post I admitted I took my closing statement too far.  It did come off in a way I didn't intend.  However, I was simply trying to vent my frustration at the people blind to the facts that stare them in the face everytime they tee it up.  Technology is creating a false image of many people's skills.  

I find it selfish and egocentric to look past the damage that technology is doing to the sport so that you can get an extra five yards from your new driver or ball.


Golf is in a slow tail-spin, Lou.  Many are pulling their ejection seat levers.  Out of the 18,000 courses you mention I bet there are a couple hundred that are good for the sport.  Most are over-hyped, one-dimensional, over-priced, wastes of property.  Call me egocentric or selfish all you want, I call myself passionate and concerned.


Jeff F.

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff F,

Perhaps the reason you've seen "rounds plummet and fewer beginners taking up the game" is due to two bubbles bursting, the stock market bubble and the Tiger bubble.  The first was caused by/related to the economy souring, which causes people to cut discretionary spending.  Golf isn't a necessity for 99% of golfers.  The second was inevitable, Tiger brought in a new crowd of people for a few years, but now the bubble is past and the normal patterns for new players return.

You are in the golf business and it hits you personally, but with all due respect I don't see these things as bad -- I don't believe golf must always grow and I think the belief that growth is always good is a huge problem.  Every business goes through cycles, I don't see why you believe golf should be immune or ascribe its difficulties to anything other than the economy.

I'm not saying it'd be good for golf if it declined every year for 20 years, of course not.  But if it stagnated so we only replaced those players who quit or died, and the number of rounds was roughly consistent, I would not see that as a problem at all, but I'm sure a lot of Chicken Littles would be prepared to name their pet cause as the reason for or the solution of the "problem".

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree about the balata ball.  I played it for a while myself, and can appreciate the additional skill it required.  But your argument that it is a "feature" of this ball that it could be damaged by a bad shot is something only someone who derives income from the sale of golf balls could possibly utter!

And I totally disbelieve that a balata ball costs less to produce than modern stuff.  The Pro V1 costs more because people are willing to pay for it.  Heck, I figure they'd be fully justified in charging $100/dozen for it versus the Tour Balata just because the V1 lasts forever, the only way to be rid of the things is to lose them or splash them!  I'm sure they would charge that if all the other ball makers were making only balatas, even if it played exactly the same as those balatas, just based on that.

[TEPaul]

"Do you think this is coincidence or is there some other factor that I am missing?"

JimK:

Yes I do think there's something you're missing--it's called "optimization". Broadly speaking, and according to Thomas this was the manufacturers working with the symbiosis of the club and the ball for the first time to produce an optimal distance effect. One would wonder why they'd never done that before but apparently they never had. This was using computer science and technology to determine optimal launch angle and spin rate to produce maximum distance and again, all within the parameters of legal USGA I&B rules and regs (again of which the ball ODS had not changed in 26 years).

It gets even odder than that, although the following did not come from any conversation I've had with Thomas (yet). Thomas created the "optimization test" for the USGA. It was apparently a higly perfected indoor test procedure apparently to test the optimum effects of the symbiosis of various characteristics of club and ball.

The new proposed "optimization test" was highly touted by the USGA--it was all over their website---and then suddenly it was gone--not to be found again on the USGA's website (at least not by me). Apparently the test procedure was unacceptable to the manufacturers but then apparently the test procedure had been sold to the manufacturers! And around that time Frank Thomas was replaced as Tech director by Dick Rugge.

Maybe, I'm reading more into this than is there. I hope to find out about this seemingly rather odd evolution on Thursday when I visit the USGA test center.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

I am not suggesting that you check under your mom's skirt, but you may wish to consult with Sr. Fortson.    There are what, some 28MM golfers in the U.S.?  I don't know that you could find 28,000. or 0.1% who after studying the issues for a MONTH would believe that the manufacturers are the culprits for the high cost of playing golf and making the game slower (that the speed of play has declined post technology proliferation is an assertion which you and others have made for which I have not seen any evidence to support it).

It is obvious that we see the world much differently, and  that's okay.   Where I see variety, choice, and opportunity, you apparently envision decline and mediocrity.  I prefer that people elect what they do with their money and time, and enjoy the game for whatever reason (s) they play it.  You appear to want to direct them to your vision of the world, and if they don't follow your lead, it is because they are selfish and egocentric.  My view does not force you to play titanium heads, graphite shafts, and ProVs.  Yours would have an organization place wide bans on what I can use to enjoy the game.

And for what?  To support some easily to refute unfounded socialist notion that the terrible money-grubbing, capitalist pigs masquerading as equipment manufacturers are hoodwinking the poor consumer?  Sorry, I just don't want to get on that train.

Bifurcate the game and let you long, talented players limit yourselves with a toned-own tournament ball and more exact equipment criteria.  Give the 99% who don't play the game competitively a reason to get out to the driving range and the course with some hope of improvement with whatever little time and spare resources they may have.  How can you think that making them play blades, persimmon, and balata balls can bring the game of golf to a healthier state?  

   

[Jeff Fortson]

Doug,

Good to hear another fellow pro chime in on this.  

You are definitely right in pointing out the "two bubbles" that are bursting now.  No doubt that the buzz of Tiger is dwindling and the economy have much to do with lower numbers of rounds and beginners.  

Unfortunately, I think these "bubbles" are masking an even deeper threat to our sport and our profession.  M.G. Orender, our President, is even quoted as saying something to the effect of, "I have a feeling that in the near futurre the economy is going to turn around and we'll be scratching our heads and wondering why rounds are still down."  

I think maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough.  For me, this is not about the lack of  rounds or whether or not people want to take up golf.  This is about golf fundamentally changing in a direction that I think will ruin the essence of the sport.  

More people at my club are concerned about what new ball is coming out, or new driver then they are about what really makes golf fun, the course itself.  They seem to be ignorant of what the tree encroachment on every hole is doing to the playability and strategy of their golf course.  Some even think that the trees are what "make" the course.  They like how the trees "frame" shots for them.  That is sad.  They are playing a game in which I am unfamiliar with.

Golf, to me, isn't about length and ego, it's about humility and perseverence through strategy and execution.

When I made my comments about bringing the ball back to the level of the balata, I should have been more clear here as well.  I simply feel the ball should be rolled back to that type of ball.  Yes, I mentioned the cutting of the golf ball.  Well, you're right, maybe a balata type ball that was more resistant would be better.  Whatever the end result is, I think the limit of a golf ball's performance capability should be near the balata level.

I think it is our duty as professionals to stop bending over for most of these manufacturing companies.  They are selling their equipment through us and killing the sport which will ultimately kill our profession, IMHO.



Lou,

You can try to politicize this topic all you want, but I won't partake in it.  This has nothing to do with political beliefs.  

You said

"There are what, some 28MM golfers in the U.S.?  I don't know that you could find 28,000. or 0.1% who after studying the issues for a MONTH would believe that the manufacturers are the culprits for the high cost of playing golf and making the game slower (that the speed of play has declined post technology proliferation is an assertion which you and others have made for which I have not seen any evidence to support it)."

This is pure speculation on your part.  Matter of fact look at the results of what people thought in this forum on the topic of rolling back the ball.  Sure, most here are more extreme than the public in their views, but they are also more educated on the subject. A VAST majority want the ball rolled back more than three years here on GCA.  I think this proves that with a little enlightenment on the topic of the ball that the golfing public would, in general, be willing to roll it back.


You said

"Where I see variety, choice, and opportunity, you apparently envision decline and mediocrity.  I prefer that people elect what they do with their money and time, and enjoy the game for whatever reason (s) they play it.  You appear to want to direct them to your vision of the world, and if they don't follow your lead, it is because they are selfish and egocentric.  My view does not force you to play titanium heads, graphite shafts, and ProVs.  Yours would have an organization place wide bans on what I can use to enjoy the game."

Yes, I do see a decline of the sport due to the technological boom.  I have stated why in previous posts and don't want to repeat myself.  

As for wanting to direct people to my vision of the wrold...  Well, you may want to rephrase that and say that I am trying to get people to wake up to what technology is doing to golf.  I would hardly agree I am trying to "direct people to my vision of the world".

As for getting an organization to make wide bans to limit what you can use to enjoy the game... well, that's silly.  You even said you don't have to follow the USGA's rules.  It wouldn't force you to do anything, unless you wanted to play in the US Am or Open maybe.

In your world Barry Bonds should be able to use an aluminum softball bat.  That is a dangerous prospect to undertake.


You said

"And for what?  To support some easily to refute unfounded socialist notion that the terrible money-grubbing, capitalist pigs masquerading as equipment manufacturers are hoodwinking the poor consumer?  Sorry, I just don't want to get on that train."

Are you still feeling guilty about ignoring the millions of people that don't have health care in this country because of the values you hold so dear to your heart?  If not, then this is just a personal dig at my political beliefs because you don't like what I have to say about the state of golf.  Try to keep politcs with political discussions and golf with golf discussions.


You said

"Bifurcate the game and let you long, talented players limit yourselves with a toned-own tournament ball and more exact equipment criteria.  Give the 99% who don't play the game competitively a reason to get out to the driving range and the course with some hope of improvement with whatever little time and spare resources they may have.  How can you think that making them play blades, persimmon, and balata balls can bring the game of golf to a healthier state?"

Are you schizo?  Where did Lou go?  This is the most affirmative action, left-leaning, help the bad golfer to play better statement you have ever made.  What happened to people having to persevere and make their own way?  What happened to hard work and determination seeing a golfer through to better shots and lower scores?  Instead you would choose to bifurcate the sport so that you don't lose 5 yards.  Talk about selfish and egocentric!



What else you got for me Sweet Lou!  


Jeff F.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff, my boy, most things have elements of politics in them.  In this particular topic, you seem to believe that you have  the answers to arrest the a decline in the game, and if things don't go your way, golf is going to hell.  Those of us who don't see your light are selfish, egocentric, "schizo", and deserving of your marginalization.  This is not at all different from the daily deluge one hears from the left and "big" media regarding their opposition.  Some way to build concensus.

Believe it or not, it isn't about me.  I am going to have an edge over a vast majority of golfers, and the extra five yards do me little good from where I usually find my ball.  Give me equipment that can help me keep it on the short grass and I'll gladly give up 10 yards.

I don't particularly like the idea of bifurcating the game for the reasons put forth very eloquently by Sandy Tatum in his book.  The primary concern that I have with the arms race is the pressure that it puts on classic courses to find additional length, grow rough, and otherwise modernize and trick-up the courses to protect par against a small fraction of 1% of the population.  There is no optimal solution to the distance issue, and having a tournament ball and tighter club specifications for high-level competitions seem to be the less harmful option.   If I was selfish or egocentric as you suggest, I should care less since I don't belong to a course that can be considered a classic, nor do I plan to make a living playing the game.

Personally, if the pros shoot -20 at Royal Melbourne, I could care less and it would not diminish my evaluation of the course.  Unfortunately, my view on this matter seems to be in the minority, and some courses have gone under the knife.

I would not be so presumptous as to tell major league baseball how to amend its rules.  As far as I can tell, they have their own set of problems with labor, drug use, and a rather stale product.  I personally don't care if Bonds swings a Louiville or an Easton.

There might be some baseball analogies to golf, but the latter by its very nature has a much more varied, non-standard playing field.  I guess that in your world, your boy should have to swing a heavy wooden bat when he starts tee ball.  In mine, those who play the game recreationally have much more flexibility in what they use and how they play without some tiny elite group looking down at them.

Lastly, I have absolutely no guilt about health insurance coverage in a country that by nearly every measure has attained the highest living standards anywhere, anytime.  I am fortunate to have grown-up in a manner and at a time where the word "entitlement" was not in the vocabulary.  What President Kennedy asked the nation in the early sixties(" ....., ask what you can do for your country") has now been replaced by "what have you done for me lately?" followed by a demand for much more.

Jeff, we are becoming repetitive and this is going nowhere so basta! enough!  So, I am signing off.  See you in March.

Not-so "sweet" Lou

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

Good to hear another fellow pro chime in on this.  

You may have misread my post a bit, I'm not a golf pro in any sense of the word, nor do I play one on TV...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()