One more vote for the Competition Ball

[Dan Kelly]

I'm half-listening to/watching the Live @ 17 coverage provided by pgatour.com.

The guest commentator right now is Jerry Pate.

They're giving away some Pro V1s as a prize for something. Pate asked if they were the new Pro V1s (Pro V1-X?) or the old ones. The other commentator asked Jerry if he'd played the new one. He said it was the ball he played -- and that it was a heckuva ball.

Then he said, more or less: They're gonna have to do something about the ball, sooner or later. Not for the average guy, but for these pros. It's going too far.

Amen.

[JakaB]

Dan,

Thanks for another original solution to a problem you can't identify.

[Dan Kelly]

JakaB --

You're most welcome! I ALWAYS welcome your gracious replies!

The problem, identified:

-- Professional golf is getting dull, because they're hitting the ball too far.

-- Classic courses are being wastefully and needlessly redesigned to accommodate longer balls.

[JakaB]

Dan,

Would it be less dull to see Tiger win by at least as great a margin if he now hits driver instead of three wood off of the tee.  Do you think a 10% reduction in distance is really going to make golf less dull....and what is dull about golf now that wasn't 10 years ago.

Do you think any green committee or USGA official lengthened a course because the ball was too long...could it be because scores were potentially too low...do you really think any of this is going to change with a 10% reduction in distance from today's trends...do you really think equipment won't be modified to boost the new ball back to where we are today.  NASCAR put in restricter plates to save a few rednecks from early deaths...a stupid solution to a non-existant problem...the cars are as fast as they ever were and last I check Dale is still dead.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Dan, I agree with you. 100%.

Did you see Ian Woosnam's comments the other day that golf had become boring for him, that it used to be, from his perspective, much more about shotmaking, turning the ball, creating shots.He feels that the game has become much more about power and less about finesse or creativity.

[JakaB]

Jeff,

That is stupid and out of context...Ian is bored because he is old and can't win against superior athletes and people who can count to 15.   How is he going to work a shorter ball that continues to put him at the same disadvantage he faces today...its not about boredom...its about winning.  He won't win or work with a competition ball anymore than he does today....you people are hurting the game with your short sighted attitudes while you lay on your back and take the party line.  Stand on your toes and think about what really is the problem before the average golfer becomes a product of a welfare like state of special long ball handouts...I don't want no length stamps...I'll earn my own pitiful wage on my own and be proud of it.   Some people are just going to always be better than the masses...but we need to use the same tools to save what little pride we may have left.   Or maybe you see the success of the welfare state...if so..sorry.

[ForkaB]

JakaB

Great take on Woosie!  He started going downhill when the PGA Tour (tm) kept pairing him with Daly and he began to realise what "short" really meant.  Looks like he's going to be the next Ryder Cup Captain.  Fortunately, in that role he will only have to learn how to count to 12............

[Dan Kelly]

I don't want no length stamps.

Then don't take no length stamps, JakaB. No one is going to force you to.

[JakaB]

Dan,

You don't get it..I'm weak..I'm human..I would never have the strength to let my children go hungry knowing welfare is an evil cycle they could rarely escape...anymore than I won't do whatever fits my daily scale of ethics to win at any given event...even as I face my weakness I sometimes embrace it.

I just want one competing high level pro come out and say he wants to go to a competition ball based on a 10% reduction in length....Its not gonna happen because these guys all know a 10% reduction for the field is a 6% reduction for Tiger...if you don't think he has 4% in reserve the rest of the field doesn't have...you are ill informed on the making of greatness.   Many smart men have been led down stupid paths..please save yourself before it becomes embarrassing.

[Andy]

Dan, you are on target here.  I have said in many forums that this will have to occur.  There are just no alternatives, short of building courses that stretch from 6,000 to 8,000 yards.  I am all for players hitting it further by being in better shape, stronger, etc, just like the 4 minute mile has now been lowered multiple times.  However, the last 5 years have created 70% of the distance change since 1956, and, getting more land to be entitled to build BIGGER golf courses just is not going to happen.  And, as you mentioned, the classic courses, where many of the greats have played, are no longer able to host events.  Finally, I have several friends that play the tour and they all tell me the players out there privately support a "rolled back ball" by a margin of probably 90% to 10%.  They might not be able to be that strong publicly for fear of "Wally"....

[Dan Kelly]

Many smart men have been led down stupid paths..please save yourself before it becomes embarrassing.

Noted.

You're absolutely right: I don't get it. You've given it your best shot, and I'm clueless as to your thinking.

--30--

[Jeff_Lewis]

I can hear it coming now..."Andy, don't you understand that 90% of the tour know they need the rollback to be competitive. Its all self interest."

The fact is that technology has changed the game. Just because the ball goes farther doesn't mean the game has moved forward. When more players with different approaches to the game had the opportunity to be competitive, it was different than it is today, and in my opinion, better than it is today. When more clubs were available for competitive events, it was better. When the amount of land that was needed for a new course was less, it was better.

[Andy]

Right, Jeff.  Also, think about this.  Which of the following scenarios show a golf course and set up that create the most interest:

Two woods, 2-PW, 56/60 degree wedges, and putter,

or,

Two woods, 4-9i, 50, 52, 55, 58, 62 degree wedges, and putter

Quite literally, the second scenario is now in place among some long hitters.  Does anyone really think that is a good thing?

[JakaB]

Jeff and Andy,

Do you two understand the difference between rolling the ball back for everybody and the competition ball....there is a possibility that the number of wedges carried have nothing to do with the new longer ball and everything to do with the antiseptic swing planes of the young pros...Is it a wonder that the greatest player or even players in the game have a variety of swings for different conditions....the competition ball is just one more problem waiting to be created to go with golf academies and over jealous sponsership contracts....whose game is your competition ball going to fit..the highballer..the lowballer...the fader or the drawer...or is this getting too complicated...its not like you're stuck in some frozen regions with your testicles pressed against your brains and can't think...you don't get a free pass...now lets hear a solution or at least what the real problem is..

[A.G._Crockett]

Andy Zedman,
Just for the record, the use of the 60 degree wedge is an outgrowth of perfect turf conditions, rather than added length off the tee.  When players used two wedges, the lofts were more in the range of 48 and 56 degrees.

Additionally, though I've heard of 62 degree wedges, I have yet to see one on a golf course, and couldn't name anybody who carries one on tour (though I'll stipulate there may be a few).  More typically, those guys are delofting 60's down to 58's and getting rid of some of the bounce as well.  In any case, its a specialty club, even for the tour guys.

Finally, the growth of the number of wedges in the bags of ALL players (tour or recreational) is largely because of the strengthening of lofts on irons, which has led to gaps at the high end of the sets.  The wedges can be added because fewer one and two irons (or even threes) are being carried.

There may be many good reasons for a competition ball, and much evidence in favor of it.  Set makeup isn't one of them.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Players now hit 4 irons further than they used to hit 2 irons and they very rarely encounter shots that would require 2 or 3 irons. That does not in any way influence the decision to carry extra wedges?  

[ChasLawler]

Thanks A.G. for a thoughtful and reasonable response on this issue. You bring up an interesting point in regard to course conditions. I alluded to this in a post earlier today, but it seems to have been either overlooked or ignored...regardless, part of the reason these guys are shooting so low has to do with the conditions of the courses they play on.

For one, the greens they putt on are immaculate, and these guys are that good that if you give them a true surface to putt on, they are going to make a lot of putts.

Secondly, it seems a lot of tournament directors are trying to set up their courses to play very soft, in an attempt to make the courses play longer? This does nothing but play into the long hitters hands - they can fly the ball 300 yards off the tee, and then fire whatever they want into the greens because they know the greens will hold them.

Why not firm up the fairways and the greens, maybe even bring the rough in a bit - hide the flagstick.  Firmer fairways will result in more long balls rolling into the rough (if they roll an additional 50 yards down the fairway - then great - the guy it a great drive). Firmer greens and tighter flags will result in players having to utilize a softer (shorter) ball to hold the greens. Setting the course up firm and relatively narrow, will in fact force a lot of these guys to play a different ball and think before pulling out the big dog on every hole.

Creating a competition ball, which doesn’t go as far, is a step backwards, and I don't think that's where golf needs to go right now. The USGA DOES need to find a way to slow things down as far as golf ball technology goes (and that IMO is realistic), but they don't need to tone the ball back. Right now the fact of the matter is that golf is becoming a power game, the guy who hits the ball farther will always have an advantage (and always has). The fact that there are more guys on tour now than 10 years ago that can hit it over 300 yards does not have everything to do with the ball or the club. It has to do with the fact that there have been more people introduced to the game of golf every year - it's no longer just a country club sport for the wealthy. The process of natural selection is starting to take place with regard to the long hitters taking the game over. Evolution can't be stopped.

Does this men we need 8000 yard courses? I don't think so. It means designers, tournament officials, owners and architects need to start coming up with new innovative ideas to take the driver out of the golfers hands...be that with doglegs, heavy rough, firm greens, severely undulating greens, firm fairways, narrow fairways, penal hazards, etc...a thinking man's course. While everyone might not love it, I think the course those guys are playing on today shows that you don't need a tremendously lengthy course to challenge the best in the world.

Some of the classical courses may become outdated for the PGA Tour, or require alterations, but that's a sad fact of life - everything gets outdated eventually. But I don't think people will stop playing, appreciating or enjoying those gems which stay true to their original design.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff,
Irons have been delofted over the past 20 years as
   a. a marketing tool ("the longest irons")
   b. cavity backs allowed less loft to be used
Players that were playing 20 years ago hit 2 irons the distance of today's 4 irons due to a number of factors, but among them is the fact that today's 4 iron is AT LEAST a 3 iron of 20 yrs. ago by loft.  The 4 iron shot today WAS a 2 or 3 iron 20 yrs. ago.

So, the answer to your question is "yes".  This does influence the decision to carry extra wedges.  As I said earlier, there are bigger gaps at the high end of sets now, and some of the long irons are not necessary anymore.  That's why there are now more wedges in the bags of both tour players and the rest of us.

By the way, make the condition of a course crappy and see who hits a 60 degree wedge.  Nobody alive can hit one of those off hardpan, including Tiger and the boys.  That's not a distance effect, and a competition ball won't change the course conditions that we now "enjoy".

[Rick Shefchik]

Regarding course setup:

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to tournament courses designed with water (or similar bottomless pits) beginning at 250 yards off the tee and extending 100 yards. That would be a sure way to take the driver out of the pro's hands -- for now.

But if that's all we do, and the equipment continues to develop unchecked, it wouldn't be long -- hell, I'd give it five years, tops -- before a significant number of pros were carrying their drivers 370 over the chasms, setting up wedges to the par 4s and 7-irons to the par 5s -- just like now.

Then what?

[ChasLawler]

But if that's all we do, and the equipment continues to devekop unchecked, it wouldn't be long -- hell, I'd give it five years, tops -- before a significant number of pros were carrying their drivers 370 over the chasms, setting up wedges to the par 4s and 7-irons to the par 5s -- just like now.

Then what?

Many out there seem to think that golf technology is nearing it's Apex with regard to distance, but regardless the USGA/ PGA need to get on the ball and get a solid grasp of the situation. I'm not against trying to set up some new regulations to curb technology where it is right now, I'm just against taking any steps backwards.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
There is a solution to the ball situation. The USGA is updating their tests (launch angles,etc.) and increasing the clubhead speed used to , I think I read, 110 mph. That's a 10 mph change and that translates into about 25 more yards. Consider that for a minute, a ball that is pushing the envelope at 100 mph will be well over the standard at 110mph. This should have a  significant effect on what passes and what doesn't. It effectively is a 10% reduction to the ODS.
Even if the USGA needs to temporarily grandfather some present day balls to protect themselves from litigation the cycle for introducing "fresh" product is so short that manufacturers would most likely bite the bullet and follow along. I believe this because the only place that clubs and balls are sold is to the public, not the Tour Pro, and they aren't hitting it too far by anyone's standards. The manufacturers will realize that new measuring standards will have the limiting effect on the longest of the long that some feel is necessary whle still giving technology and the marketing forces the needed room to expand.

[Jim Sweeney]

Jim Kennedy:

Allow me to correct a few points you made in your post about the USGA's updated ball tests.

Last Monday I was present at a presentation made by Dick Rugge, the USGA's Senior Technical Director. I posted a synopsis of the presentation an another thread (Roger Maltby wants to see a competition ball...) so I won't regurgitate the whole thing, but:

The current USGA test for the Overall Distance Standard uses a clubhead speed of 109 mph, and a wooden clubhead with ten degrees of loft.

Currently the test is being updated to use a titanium clubhead and a ten degree launch angle.

Under study is increasing the clubhead speed to about 120mph. The clubhead speed reflects that generated by tour pros in about the 90th percentile (89% swing slower, 10% faster).

The effect of these changes will be to increase the ODS, and it is likely that no ball currently on the conforming ball list will fail under the revised test protocol.

In summary, the USGA will draw a line in the sand using the new standards, just as it did with COR last year.

My disclaimer: I am reporting my recollections of Rugge's presentation, and believe they are accurate, but I may not have every detail exactly.

In my opinion, these changes mean that there will not be a competition ball (under USGA rules), but the distance race is vitually over, except for whatever extra distance a player might produce based on his individual talent.

[Steve_L.]

Major League Baseball does not allow aluminum bats...  Home Runs are up because players are stronger and pitching is worse...  

Aluminum Bats are prevelant at all levels of college and amateur baseball...  

Let's rein in technology for professional competition - scores will continue to improve through fitness, preparation, skill, and some technology and maintenance changes...  What's so wrong with that...?