'The Home of Golf tv' for those interested in Golf & St Andrews

[Melvyn Morrow]

The Home of Golf tv

I have in passing mentioned 'The Home of Golf tv' (http://www.homeofgolf.tv/ ) which is a recent addition to the web pages giving informal help and information to those keen on St Andrews and golf.

I have been tuning into it over the last few months and would highly recommend it to anyone thinking of travelling over to St Andrews. As many do at GCA.com, I hope you too will keep abreast of the places to eat, sleep and play. I feel certain it will be  helpful to those venturing to the Home of Golf.

Enjoy and keep an eye on 'The Home of Golf.tv'

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

The interview with Faldo was rather interesting, well in seeing his involvement in the development of the golf club.

I am still surprised that in all tournaments and championships the Governing Bodies do not insists that one make of clubs are not mandatory for all to use. Faldo admitted that his tweaking over the last few days has resulted in improvements to the distance the ball travels. It has never struck me as really fair and honest, the comparison icould be that of a Ferrari vs. a Grand Tourer allowing one player a slight but certain advantage over another. One thing I feel Golf could learn from F1 is the single tyre manufacturer for all their cars giving the opportunity of a level playing field.   

Having said that perhaps golf has in certain parts of the world lost its ability to offer that real challenge, the fun and enjoyment factor and been replaced by  raw macho determination to win at any cost. If that is indeed the case then I feel the blame rests entirely with those who have been exploiting our game. For me that is our Governing Bodies. Had serious action been taken some of these problems could have been anticipated or resolved. However, money has the ability to make one single minded and oblivious to warning voices.

Pity, but I do feel that one Manufacturer should provide the clubs to all entering each competition, which offers a major cash prise. For one thing, it might just improve the enjoyment of the spectators, by seeing who is good on the day and course with X set of clubs. The next tournament, another manufacturer clubs are used by a rota/draw being taken at the beginning of each year. Perhaps we could also throw in a Hickory set as well – as long as all as using the same make I see not problem and it might just be good for golf and TV. 

Melvyn

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks for posting this link Melvyn. I was especially interested in the St. Andrews golf company episode because I collect old tools and the old-fashioned workbench and tools originally used to make the wooden parts are exactly the kind of thing I like to see! 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Did I hear correctly yesterday that there is no longer a Nick Faldo but now a Sir Nick?

Good to see golf being recognised and not just in money terms.

Melvyn

[Bob Jenkins]

Melvyn,

That was very special! Thank you!

I have been to St. Andrews twice and cannot wait to go back. The welcome shown by the owners of the B&B was so typical of my experiences in Scotland. I will try to pick up on the other episodes.

Thanks again.

Bob J

[Anthony Gray]

  Thanks Melvyn.............I'm homesick.

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

I have just had an e-mail from Andy re The Home of Golf TV and he has advised me of what will be on the following episodes.

Episode 9 (Next Show)

There will be a 30 min epic on the 17th hole with local caddy John Boyne. He goes on to say ‘whilst all the shows have their merits this one will really capture the heart of what I am trying to present through the site’.

Episode 10

Will be at Musselburgh Old Links.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I do

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

For a self-proclaimed traditionalist such as yourself, I find your proposal that championship golf be played with a standard set of golf clubs rather amusing. Is not the entire history and tradition of golf replete with changes and variations in equipment design and materials? Has there EVER been a time when competitive golf was played with a standard set of implements? 

I believe it was well into the 1930's before competitive golfers were limited to carrying just 14 clubs in their bag.  It is likely the equipment golfers carry in their bags today is far more similar/uniform than it was 80-120 years ago.     
 
Golfers been experimenting and tinkering with their equipment to improve their performance for as long as the game has been played. Gene Sarazen and Ben Hogan were well know for doing so.

DT
 

     

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

This is the problem with putting labels on people, they do not always stick.

Golf for me is about the challenge and fun. However, competitions are about finding a winner, the best on that day and on that course. Can we really believe that the best golfer won? Did he gain that little bit extra from his equipment and not from his own ability.

You should know by now that I believe in ones own ability, that which separates the best from the also ran. Therefore, to really offer a true and level playing field I do not see any problem in suggesting uniformity in both clubs and balls.

As for the history, yes I totally agree with you about the introduction of new equipment, which has allowed unfair advantages to some. However, in day-to-day golf, I see no problem with golfers using their own clubs, but if it’s a competition for money/handicaps ratings then I would like to see uniformity.

You will also note that I have been unhappy with the governing bodies for years in their inability to protect the game. There is in fact very little real control, the game has been allowed to free fall for years, everyone is trying to find that edge, that ace up the sleeve. If the golfer is unable to generate it we will let our make of clubs compensate for the golfer shortfall in ability. Must we accept this in large cash competitions?

As golf developed and consistency was sought with the quality of the equipment, no one has bothered to say, there is something wrong that every player can have his own clubs.  Its common sense to me but certainly not with our Governing Bodies. I like the idea of an honest and worthy winner who can claim that he/she won using equal equipment to all the others.

It’s not a question of tinkering, for me it is a question of equality and holding a balanced and honest competition, which I feel the public at large may also enjoy.

Golf was once a walking only game, that was and is the basis of playing the game, but that changed quite dramatically when No Walking course were allowed.  If the fundamental principal of golf is set aside so easily, then my suggestion should not raise an eyebrow.

David it is only an opinion with very little chance of ever being put into practice.

What are your thoughts, like, hate or indifferent to the idea of club equality in our competitions?

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

I disagree with you on a number of points:

1) Golf competitions do not identify who is the best golfer. They identify who played the best golf during the competition.

2) Where would you draw the line on "standard equipment?" What if one player wanted to use regular-flex shafts and another wanted to use stiff-flex shafts? What if one wanted to use graphite shafts and another wanted to use steel shafts? What if one player wanted to use a 5-wood and another wanted to carry a 2-iron? What if one player wanted his clubs to have a 2 degree flat lie angle and another wanted his clubs 2 degree upright? What if one player wanted a lot of bounce on his sandwedge and another did not? As I said in my prior post, the ENTIRE history of golf is about each competitor choosing his or her own equipment 

3) I fail to see how new equipment has provided an "unfair advantage" to anyone at the championship level. That is utter nonsense. If you really believe that, please present us with 2 or 3 examples of where a golf championship has been won by someone who had an "unfair advantage."  Golfers are free (and have ALWAYS been free) to choose from a wide variety of equipment that conforms to the rules of the game and to select the equipment that best suits their needs and skills. If some golfers are willing to devote the time to understand how equipment changes can help them play better golf and others are too lazy to do so, why should the former be penalized?

Ben Hogan used to spend hours examining his golf balls under a looking glass to find and discard those balls that had too much paint in their dimples. Legend has it that Hogan's customized his clubs to the point that very few other pros could even hit decent golf shots with them. Did that give him an advantage? Possibly. Was it in anyway "unfair?" Absolutely not.   

4) As is your habit, you again harp on the notion of golf carts, which is of no relevance to this discussion regarding golf equipment and competitive golf at the championship level.

You are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

DT

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

David
I feel the need to reply

1)Golf competitions do not identify who is the best golfer. They identify who played the best golf during the competition.
However, competitions are about finding a winner, the best on that day and on that course. Can we really believe that the best golfer won?
I believe we are agreeing on this point
   
2) Where would you draw the line on "standard equipment?" What if one player wanted to use regular-flex shafts and another wanted to use stiff-flex shafts? What if one wanted to use graphite shafts and another wanted to use steel shafts? What if one player wanted to use a 5-wood and another wanted to carry a 2-iron? What if one player wanted his clubs to have a 2 degree flat lie angle and another wanted his clubs 2 degree upright? What if one player wanted a lot of bounce on his sandwedge and another did not? As I said in my prior post, the ENTIRE history of golf is about each competitor choosing his or her own equipment 
Exactly, its about time The R&A got off their backsides and did something constructive for golf. Their inability to act for decades if not centuries proves their total lack on control. Just read your own words to see how ridicules the equipment choice as become – are your seriously saying that certain equipment does not give a golfer an advantage over another.

3) I fail to see how new equipment has provided an "unfair advantage" to anyone at the championship level. That is utter nonsense. If you really believe that, please present us with 2 or 3 examples of where a golf championship has been won by someone who had an "unfair advantage."  Golfers are free (and have ALWAYS been free) to choose from a wide variety of equipment that conforms to the rules of the game and to select the equipment that best suits their needs and skills. If some golfers are willing to devote the time to understand how equipment changes can help them play better golf and others are too lazy to do so, why should the former be penalized?
I again refer you to my comments to your point 2. You do not seem to agree to giving competitions a level playing field, but you are not alone, that’s exactly The R&A position for keeping their head in the sand.[/color]

Ben Hogan used to spend hours examining his golf balls under a looking glass to find and discard those balls that had too much paint in their dimples. Legend has it that Hogan's customized his clubs to the point that very few other pros could even hit decent golf shots with them. Did that give him an advantage? Possibly. Was it in anyway "unfair?" Absolutely not.
Good for Ben, as to your question, by being given standard balls by the organisers he would have saved hours. As to having an advantage, possibly.     

4) As is your habit, you again harp on the notion of golf carts, which is of no relevance to this discussion regarding golf equipment and competitive golf at the championship level.
I do not believe I mentioned carts but that abomination of the governing bodies allowing Non Waking Courses. The point is if they can accept Non Walking courses, it’s an even smaller jump to standardising clubs/balls for matches. That is if they gave a F*#! for the interest and quality of the game in the first place which clearly they do not by allowing Non Walking Courses.[/i

You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. 

That’s your opinion and with respect David I believe I am trying to see if we can ever have a fair game of golf decided by the quality of the golfers and the course. That fundamental principal that we should start with a level playing field by simply given each player the same options and equipment. Clearly, you disagree and feel I am wrong, as is your right. Lucky we have a level playing field with our opinions and our right of freedom of speech, pity golf can’t mirror that simple but basic principal.

Melvyn   [/i]

[Niall C]

Melvyn

Reading your final paragraph in your post to David you state that "the fundemantal principle that we should start with a level playing field by giving each player the same options and equipment". What option are you allowing them exactly ? Also, don't they pretty much all have the same choice in equipment ? Indeed that choice is damn near limitless within the regulations as the top guys can get their equipment tweaked/made to order by the various construction companies.

The point David was making in point 2 (I believe) is that a standard set of equipment would actually disadvantage the majority of the field as the "standard" would likely only be ideally suited to a minoritys swings/game. They would have an obvious advantage while the other guys would be putting up with equipment which didn't suit there swing speed etc. Does this idea not run contrary to the history of the game, including a time well before the R&A by the way. I would also humbly suggest that your forefathers were in the vanguard of equipment evolution and happily seemed to embrace, and take advantage of, changes to gutta balls etc.

Niall   

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

As always good to hear from you.

Believe it or not, when on GCA.com or any other site, I try to convey my own opinions on the game of Golf.

Yes, certainly the history is there and whilst I try and follow in the footsteps of my forefathers, I regret that mine are no where near as worthy, leaving my opinions in part to run free from constraint.

The problem as you clearly define it is that their choice ‘is damn near limitless within the regulations’ stating further ‘as the top guys can get their equipment tweaked/made to order by the various construction companies’. All I am suggestion is that each club/ball manufacturer offers the use of a competition set of clubs to each participant that are identical thus offering no unfair intended or no advantage to any player.

I feel we need to see our immortal champions playing using the same clubs available (untweaked/made to order) to us mere mortals. Bring the game closer to the average golfer, showing that with practice and patients they too could improve their skill and therefore their game – I see nothing sinister in that either for the Pro or Mr or Mrs Average Golfer.

Are you telling me the Gods of Golf can’t play with an average set of clubs? That they need super tweaked or made to order clubs to achieve their advantage. If that is indeed the case then there is something more than rotten in the halls of our governing bodies.

Competitions and Championships are there to give us the best players on that day (or over a few days) and on that course. If they cannot adjust from their super God made clubs to the average competition set then I question if they were ever potential winners or championship material in the first place.

In the day-to-day game, I see not problem in using any club or ball as long as it complies with the regulations, but I feel that in the Majors we should see a standard that allows the player to be regarded as true Champions. By that, I mean that they won by their own skill and did not have a ball/club advantage over their fellow competitor(s), particularly in a sudden death play off.

This, of course could just be me with my stupid idea of fair play and being honest in a game that I enjoy. Or is winning at any cost still the God many still worship?

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Melvyn

You are of course quite right, I shouldn't presume to to think that you or anyone else is bound to follow in their ancestors footprints on all or any matters. In mitigation what I would say is that I was trying to make the point that evolution in the game has always been there, as practised by Old Tom etc., and that this pre-dates the R&A.

That aside, I still don't follow your logic on a standard set of balls/clubs for the pros. For instance lets assume the standard set of irons have a flat lie, poker stiff steel shaft and the most bladey of heads. No doubt that would be fine for some, maybe even most but I'm sure that theres quite a lot of successful pros out there who couldn't hit those irons if they tried. Why should they be disadvantaged arbitrarely, after all who decides what spec of clubs becomes standard ? Same could be said for the golf ball.

On your final point hopefully winning at all costs isn't everything, even at the professional level, and that enjoyment comes into it as well, that the thrill of hitting a well hit shot is there for everyone. If someone is more likely to achieve that with a certain spec of club then good for them, as long as its available to everyone.

Niall

ps. when are you up, when are we meeting up for a beer ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

I think you keep hitting on the actual point, why have we continue to pamper the privilege. If they are that good then they should be able to accommodate a standard set of professional competition clubs selected either by the powers that be or a group of professionals. Whatever is chosen each manufacturer that wants his clubs in the Majors complies with these requirements, which must be available to the public at large.

Golf is not about the few top players, it’s about golfers and in these islands, it’s about clubs. Those are the ones we all should be considering not whether a pro is able to use an iron or not.

I do want to see good golf, I want to equate with the Champion playing a hole with a set of clubs that I can buy/use and on the same course that the Championship was played. I feel it will do more for golf with current and future players being more able to tune into the game.

We have the technology to standardise today, there is the money in the game to allow various manufacturers to provide Competition Set of clubs, and I believe would be happy to see their clubs selected for a Major.

I believe we need to stop thinking of the Pro’s in the Pro Game & Championships and consider the average golfer and what golf can do to promote their game and in turn attract more into the game. In addition, this would be a good excuse to also reduce courses from 7,400 down to a more reasonable 5,800 to 6,500 yards. Golf is not a Marathon, that takes around 6 hours, but a steady game that can attract players to try for 36 holes in a day – but at 7,400 plus will kill off the double round and diminish the quality of a days golfing.

I could do with a cool pint right now, but it’s too far to Glasgow, but will let you know when next in the City of Culture (not the English one!). Keep well and play the game

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

I will ask you again, please provide 2 or 3 specific examples of where a golf championship has been won by a player whose equipment has given him or her an "unfair advantage."

Ben Hogan had an extra spike installed on his golf shoes. Did that give him an unfair advantage?

Do you really expect that a player 5'4'' tall, weighing 135 lbs. and having small hands should be obliged to use the exact same equipment as a player 6'4", weighing 240 lbs. and having large hands? That notion is as ridiculous as asking every golfer to compete wearing the same size shoes or pants. 

What has ALWAYS allowed golfers of various shapes, strengths and sizes to compete equitably against each other is the ability to select and use the equipment that best suits their needs and abilities and the characteristics of the course they at playing at any given time. That is what allowed Gary Player to compete against Nicklaus and Palmer. Nicklaus had the strength and heft to hit his long irons high and far, while Player had to use fairway woods to hit similar shots.

Your desire to have everyone compete using identical equipment would make the game less equitable, not more so.   

DT


 

 
 

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

 David

That is your opinion, but you can not prove that it did not give them an advantage either. So its a daft suggestion. As for club selection some common sense I thought might be applied but our debates here do at times get a little silly.

You don’t agree and feel all is well – good for you, but regrettable I don’t see it that way. I see a game that is dominated by those who put back very little of the millions they make, leaving the clubs to struggle on. Perhaps I just have a stronger feeling for the game, perhaps not.

I do know that something needs to be done and soon.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

You would be well advised not to pass judgement my (or any other participant on this board) "feeling for the game."

You are the one who asserted some golfers have won events competing with equipment that give them an "unfair advantage." I am simply asking you to provide and credible evidence that backs up your assertion. As is your habit, when you are challenged on a specific point, you resort to nostalgic generalities about the spirit of the game (as you define it) and the evil of golf carts.

I did not say or assert that "all is good." I simply asserted facts that are beyond dispute. Golfers have ALWAYS been able to select equipment (that conforms to the rules of the game) that best suits them as an individual. Golfers are still able to so. There is no doubt golfers competing at the highest levels of the game have access to equipment "tweaking" that might not be available to any of us mere mortals. Again, that has ALWAYS been the case. They also have access to the best coaches, the best fitness trainers, the best sports psychologists, etc. That is what trying to be the best in the world at something is all about. That is why championship golf is played.

DT 

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

You seem to read more into my post that perhaps I intend or did you read just what you wanted to believe?

I think you have misunderstood as it was not my wish to pass judgment, hence my wording ‘Perhaps I just have a stronger feeling for the game, perhaps not.’ With the emphasis on “perhaps not”.

For me common sense states that if different clubs are used then one golfer will benefit over the other.  That’s my answer to your question – I just thought that you would have picked up on that, but well whatever.

As you mentioned carts, let me in reply to you say that Golfers from the start of the game centuries ago was always about walking, but that has not stopped NON-Walking courses in last decade or so ,nor the introduction of cart about 50 years ago.

As for my habit, yes I am against carts, aids and the right to stop golfers walking. In addition, the stupidity of extending quality courses because no one will take the responsibility to control the game within sensible parameters. For that, I am totally guilty.   

Alas, we seem also to differ on what we consider sportsmanship is all about. 

David, Majors today are just about the money.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

I continue to be amazed that you cannot grasp (or are unwilling to concede to) the elemental concept that use of different clubs is what allows different golfers to compete equitably against one another. That is, and always has been, at the heart of the game.

Jack Nicklaus was a big strong guy who could generate enough clubhead speed to hit a one-iron well. Gary Player, several inches shorter and 50-60 pounds lighter than Nicklaus, could not. Yet, thru mastering the use of 4- & 5-woods, clubs Nicklaus did not use, Player was able to compete with Nicklaus very well. Is this not a fact?

I will ask this question for a 3rd time - please cite 2 or 3 examples where the use of different equipment has prevented golfers from competing equitably against one another.

DT
 

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

I will then have to continue to amaze you. Yet your own comparison re Nicklaus/Player proves, I feel my point.

We are not all equal, while some have the ability to knock the ball into next week (their long game) others excel on the putting Greens. Throw in the joker in the pack - the course, to add another challenge to both golfers.

I believe that golf would be enhanced by the Majors & the Pro games using the same clubs, yet you do not. Nor are you willing to just agree, to disagree.

You do not like my answers so continue to repeat your questions. Every time two golfers go out on a course with different manufacturers clubs, one will have the advantage over the other. Fine, so you do not agree that each big money competition should be equipped by a single manufacturer set of clubs (sized for player). You feel that the total mix-match of manufacturers and their equipment is the correct equaliser, however I do not.

Do you think we are then going to agree? However let’s close on a sensible question noting that the game has been played with various manufacturers clubs for years. Are you not interested in seeing the outcome of using a single manufacturer equipment?


Back to the actual topic, I am hoping that Andy from The Home of Golf TV will soon be undertaking a trip to Askernish given us a report on the club. Which I am advised is doing rather well with many visitors including a few architects. 

Melvyn