Deeper Ball Questions

[A_Clay_Man]

Correlating the arguments made, when other ball advances ocurred, why wasn't anything done then? Hasn't this debate been around a long time? ANd, if those that were closest to the cradle didn't react, why should we?

"They" say Jack's been behiind the comp ball for 20 years. Part of me, sees that as somewhat self-serving.

Tatum, for 15 years, would have more credibility if he used an old Dot.

Are these numbers exaggerations to create credibility for the cause?

[Mike Benham]

From the various interviews with him, I would agree that Jack comes off as self-serving in many of his comments about many a topic.

Whether it is a subliminal way of protecting his records and legacy or not, Jack wants to remind everyone that he his the greatest.

(Sorry that it doesn't discuss the ball issue ...)

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I would be careful. Many people cite history to justify continuing the golf technology arms race. But, that will get us nowhere.

The essence of the game remains the BALANCE between player skill, the equipment used and the configuration of the playing field.

Proponents of the golf technology arms race are just trying to extract more money from consumers.

Making everything bigger won't make it better. It will only make playing the game more costly.

Tim

[Jeff Fortson]

Tim,

.....and more time consuming.....and more one-dimensional.....and more boring.....and more dangerous.


Jeff F.

[A_Clay_Man]

Making everything bigger won't make it better. It will only make playing the game more costly.

Tim- My question gets past that and asks why wasn't it "designed-in" or ruled on, 100 years ago?


Nobody says every new design had to be a certain style (boring, as JF put it) or length (which relates to time issues). The subtext of your post seems to be related to score and in reality, the score of the elite few.

[Norbert P]

 Gutta percha replacing the Featherie made golf affordable to the masses.  The Haskel got up in the air and flew farther for even less than the gutta percha and, if memory serves from reading material, became much more available. There was hardly a decision in choosing when economics and playability came in to the equation.  

  ProV1's are 40 bucks for a dozen(!).  I paid that once but only as a gift for someone's generosity.  I'm a muttball player and get ribbed for it sometimes but I find that the hard, dead action, straight(?) golf balls give a linksier action than the softy spinners that plunk on the greens.  I find them more interesting and I don't get (financially) bent when I launch one into a void of netherness.

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I'm not sure I understand your question, but you seem to be asking why people years ago failed to understand it is the BALANCE that counts not absolute size.

Is that right?

If so, I would merely point out that some people DID understand it. That's my takeaway from something like Simpson on "Attack and Defence".

But, before we get too critical towards folks years ago, look at things today.

Look how many people are confused about the difference between absolute and relative distance. Look at how companies like Titleist deliberately encourage confusion on this subject.

How often have we heard the suggestion on weekly PGA Tour broadcasts that today's technology is an "improvement"?

If you tried to sell people new tires that required them to replace the engine in their car, consumers would laugh at you, wouldn't they?

But, look what companies like Titleist are doing. The exact same thing. They are consciously building products that enocurage or require costly modifications to golf courses......just to accomodate a small elite group of players.

Isn't that INFERIOR technology?

Why can't more people figure that out today?

Has the average IQ of golf consumers fallen below 100?

Or do we just need more effort to counteract the "big lie" approach of equipment manufacturers.....the whole idea of trying to buy a game?

Want to make golf more fun? Tell people to stop buying the latest equipment.......tell them to spend the same money on golf lessons.

Tim

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim, I know I seem dense, but by asking these question I hope to get a better understanding of the overall picture.
Perhaps most of my "non-believer" status comes from what you said near the end of your last post. Something to the order of "telling people". This simple little act, is not so simple. I don't feel I have been manipulated into my opinions by some genius advertising campaign because I don't buy the newest equiptment.

 Now, it was you who said that the essence of the game is about balance of skill, equiptment and the playing field.

 How do the courses that choose to implement surgery on their designs, justify it to their memberships? Aren't they the ones caving into the hype, not the guy paying greens fees at public or municipal courses?

And you want to tell him something?

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I see the pattern of course owners buying into the golf technology arms race as the phenomenom of "groupthink".

In short, YOU may not be brainwashed into buying the latest driver, but a very large number of people are acting like pigs being led to slaughter.

By that I mean, they have completely lost sight of the fact that the essence of the game is the BALANCE. They have been brainwashed into thinking bigger is better......nevermind the added cost.

I don't have the exact numbers, but every week about 8-10 hours of PGA Tour brainwashing takes place for millions of golf viewers. They all get fed this silly notion that technology - more and more and more of it - is good.

Is there ever equal time? Do we ever hear commentators saying:

"Companies like Titleist should be creating products that don't encourage or require course owners to spend money modifying their golf course......the Titleist guys should be creating golf balls that lower land acquisition, course construction and maintenance costs"?

Adam, just imagine the progress we could make if just a few television journalists really started to challenge the notion of modifying golf courses just to accomodate an elite group of players?

No, there is no "equal time"......the manufacturers have their agenda.....extract money from consumers......while a consumer oriented point of view - the game is the BALANCE......achieved at the lowest possible cost - never even gets mentioned.

Tim

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim,
Aren't you assuming that the longer and longer golf courses are primarily to combat technology, when marketing-driven blurbs of yardage and slopes, etc., is a far bigger factor for MOST courses?  (The exceptions, of course, being many of the classic courses still seeking to host professional events, and therefore very important exceptions.)

As to your commentary about PGA broadcast content, surely you don't think that the equipment companies could reasonably be expected to begin to unilaterally say "No Mas!"  In what other industry does that happen?  Cars?  Shampoo?  Clothes?  Music?  Golf publications?  I know of none.  Why would it even occur to the commentators to advocate something that is, in a market economy, a fantasy, and an undesirable one at that?

In your business, aren't you "extracting" money from the consumer?  Don't you aim for more and better in meeting the wants/needs of the consumer?  Where's the balance there?
What if some outside "authority" began to advocate the reining in of your industry, or your company?  I suspect that you would think that was in a bit of bad taste...

[JohnV]

I don't see why the equipment makers are the bad guys in this, other than they are trying to run a business and make a profit.  Why should it matter to Titleist and all the other companies if the ball goes 300 or 275?  They will still argue that their ball which goes 275 goes further than someone else's ball that goes 275 when hit with their driver vs that other companies driver.  As a matter of fact, changing the ball should help them market new clubs to everyone.  I can here it now,

"We've got the new Taylor Made 666 which is designed to hit the new shorter ball as far as the 580 hit the old ball."

They are only competing with each other.  All they care about is convincing us suckers out here that their driver (or ball) is better than the other guys.  Titleist does that by saying, "Look how many guys play the Pro V1" not by saying that it goes further.  The NXT is a competitor with the Top Flite XL so that is where they concentrate on distance with their silly ads with John Cleese.  You don't see him pushing the Pro V1 do you?

Lets say that the Pro V1 had never happened and that all the pros were playing the Professional or even the Tour Balata.  Would that have meant that they wouldn't advertise the NXT the same way they do?  I don't think so.

The only reason Titleist made the Pro V1 is because all the other manufacturers started to come out with hard balls that the pros liked and they were afraid that the players would switch, which would take away their biggest selling point.  It worked fantastically for them as they've even stolen market share from the Top Flite XL with it.

Tim, your first assumption is that the customer somehow doesn't want to hit it further than he did last week, but he just doesn't know it.  Well, that isn't the case.  I don't see how anyone can tell Joe Golfer, you know you really don't want to hit the ball as far as you are because it is costing you money and expect him to believe it.

I have heard plenty of comments lately from commentators on both tour broadcasts and the Golf Channel talking about the ball going too far and the cost of the game going up.  Maybe you should start watching again.  You might even see some interesting golf.

[Tony Ristola]

I am curious...it's a nice throw-out comment, but why would it be "self serving" for Jack to fight for a roll-back of the ball?  20 years ago he knew he was at the end of the rope...even though he did win one more major...it wouldn't have been in his self interest 20 years ago to call for some sanity about the ball.

How about Jack offering an honest, far sighted analysis?!! Knowing the game would be significantly cheapened in the future?  By reducing shot making and the whole host of arguments that go with a reduction of the ball's distance?  Perhaps he didn't have all these arguments in mind, perhaps he did...but self serving?  I don't think so.  I think it's an unfair shot at Jack...and I'll say this...I haven't been a big Jack defender when it comes to some other things he's done...but here I give him credit...because it's due.

Too bad nobody listened...

[Tony Ristola]

John V:  I agree...the manufacturers are not the bad guys...they have a business to run. They would be crazy not to make a product right up to the edge of the precipice...and I'd be crazy not to use these products in a tournament...which means I have to practice with it during the week.

The bad...I mean weak guys are those who have a role managing the game Mr. or Mrs. USGA and the R&A.  Nobody else.  It is all in their hands.

[TEPaul]

I couldn't agree more with Tony Ristola about Jack Nicklaus. It seems like the first reaction of too many on this site is a knee-jerk one questioning someone's motives regarding why they're saying something instead of considering what they're saying. Nicklaus has been concerned about increased distance for years. The thing that's always surprised me is why the regulatory bodies never used Nicklaus and his stature more effectively as an ally to do something more about the increased distance of the ball. Failing to do so all these years was an excellent opportunity lost!

[A_Clay_Man]

Gentleman- I said "self-serving", I didn't criticise him for it. I just stated that, as one who is looking for an objective voice in this debate, I questioned the comment, based on perceptions. That is all.

As I stated before, I really am trying to find the credible. Saving the older venues so they can hold pro tourneys, isn't enough for me. Maybe because I grew up golfing only public venues, or maybe it's my version of comeupance for a segment of the population who hasn't held the ideal this game represents. Ideals violated, when a Gary McCord gets thrown off the grounds, for making a comment. To me, that one little infraction of "freedom of speech", if analysed and compared, is of greater import, than how far the ball goes or how low the score is. It's no wonder Tirrico and Strange don't say shit about the alterations at the Riv. It's the middle of Feb. and these guys play in SoCal every year. They want to be allowed back.

Since I will never swing over 110 mph, I still believe a ball is a ball and a stick is a stick.

[TEPaul]

To me it's become increasingly obvious that the distance issue to a very large extent is in the realm of the very good (and stronger player) and probably always has been.

The reasons why that distance increase has occured over time and particularly quite recently in that narrow band of player is also quite obvious now!

This in fact is the insidiousness of this distance issue in that it's bascially become a two-edged sword. It's the dark little secret that the manufacturers have been hiding from the golfing public for decades and particularly recently and for some reason the regulatory bodies don't want to let that dark little manufacturer secret out of the bag.

So golf clubs all over the place do things to their couses they really needn't do and they do it because of the misperception of who this ongoing distance increase is effecting!

Somebody ought to let this ongoing dark little secret out of the bag regarding who this distance increase is effecting--because basically it's not effecting about 99%+ of the golfers out there!

[TEPaul]

I spent last Thursday with the Mayor on a guided personal tour from one of the top tech guys of the USGA's tech and testing center, and man did I learn a lot about a lot of things certainly the history of testing and the distance issue.

They're too numerous to go into now but the first thing I think can be said with complete assurance is if anyone thinks this distance increase issue can be laid at the feet of Frank Thomas--they should definitely think twice---because there's no way the facts support it!

[A_Clay_Man]

What's really ironic is that the boys who use the ball, don't pay for them.

For that reason alone, I would support a comp ball, if I was a stockholder. WHy spend all that money on inventory that goes out the door for free. Plus, with the inability to cut the ball, sales have to be effected.

[Tim_Weiman]

John V et al:

Never mind this bit about manufacturers being "bad guys". They might be perfectly honorable gentlemen, trying to run a business and make a profit. So what?

That doesn't mean what they are doing is good. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn't push just as hard to support golfers who want to play more not pay more.

Building products that encourage or require golf course owners to waste money modifying their course just to accommodate a small, elite group of players is not "progress". It is a step backward. It makes no more sense than tire manufacturers building tires that require car owners to also buy a new engine.

Golf manufacturers have the ability to build products that minimize:

land acquisition costs
course construction costs
course maintenance costs

They just need to be pushed to do so. Folks like Tony Ristola are correct. The ruling bodies (USGA & R&A) need to start acting more responsibly about this silly golf technology arms race. It is clearly pointless for golf consumers. Shouldn't the USGA/R&A stand up and say so?

AG Crockett:

I grew up in a business (the oil industry) where "outside authorities" heavily influenced and controlled product specifications. For example, the Clean Air Act mandated that the oil refining industry invest the equivalent of the entire value of the industry just to produce cleaner burning fuels. No guarantee of any profit for doing so. No guarantee of higher sales. Just cleaner fuels.

By comparison, asking the golf ball industry to simply manufacturer golf balls that don't encourage or require costly golf course modifications is a minor inconvenience.


Tim

[Pat Brockwell]

For as long as I can remember the USGA has had testing and standards for balls. It has been the intent of the organization to excersize control over the distance a golf ball will go.  Recently manufacturers have figured out how to stay within the old testing parameters yet still get the ball to go much farther when struck with clubhead speeds outside the testing parameters. So why won't the USGA and the R&A find a way to be effective at doing what they have been trying to do all along?  I wish they would step up and protect the game.  It is clear that by allowing distances to get out of hand they have not helped the Game.

[Steve Lang]

 

Tim Weiman,

As you may remember, I have voiced some empathy on this ball subject previously (as at your course being modified for a few), but mostly skepticism on global impacts.. My bottom line is that I don't care whether the classics see any more majors and would prefer that folks not screw them up in order to host them again.. I say let them be museums, and Play On!

With that said, please don't hold up the Refining industry as some victim in any arguements, especially because of clean fuels issues,  after all, one may find at :

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/programs/caa/oil/index.html

refiners forced into reductions of 43,746 tons of nitrogen oxide and 95,173 tons of sulphur dioxide... to invest more than approximately $1.9 billion in control technologies and pay civil penalties of $36.8 million. They will also perform supplemental environmental projects valued at approximately $25 million.  They can afford that in addition to costs for clean fuels.

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve Lang:

I don't hold up the refining industry as a "victim". In fact, after leaving "big oil", I served as a consultant to the State of California to assist in the analysis and adoption of new air quality standards for the LA basin that went beyond Federal standards.

But, the experience of the Clean Air Act does shed light on industry regulation. The Act, adopted during the first Bush Administration (supposedly pro oil industry), mandated very large expenditures on an industry with a long term ROI that had been running about equivalent to passbook saving accounts.

Surely, if government can force such massive investments on the oil industry, the USGA can enforce very, very modest regulations on golf ball manufacturers.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim,
But that's exactly the problem, isn't it!  The USGA HAS enforced very, very modest regulations on the golf ball industry in the form of the ODS.  The problem is that now many want the rules to change after the companies have complied in good faith with the regulations given to them.

Additionally, the USGA is a governing body, not a government.
That also complicates matters, since the USGA depends on voluntary compliance by both golfers and manufacturers, unlike the U.S. government.

[ChasLawler]

Steve/Tim - I thought we were talking about golf balls here.

never mind

[Pat Brockwell]

Shorter courses with clever design.  If we keep popping out longer and longer tracks we are just playing into the whole longer is better mess.  Grow the rough, reward good strategy and shotmaking.  I know of owners that lengthen courses just to be the longest.  As players, communicate with operators. The market will decide eventually, but now I'm in another thread.