Is this the same Arnie Palmer who endorsed the non-conforming Callaway driver?  There must be some $$$ in there somewhere!

I've been reading MacDonald's Scotland's Gift, great stuff about the fight over the golf ball.  The purist's recommendation was make everybody play a ball with positive bouyancy (a "floater!") but the manufacturers wouldn't hear about it -- not enough lost balls!

It seems odd to me that people are so quick to criticize Arnold Palmer. He has done more for golf than just about anyone in history and in my opinion he has earned his right to speak his mind.

Should the ball be slowed down . . .its an interesting debate, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. But I do know where I stand on the issue of listening to people bad mouth one of the greatest men in all of golf.

Arnold Palmer endorsed a non conforming club to the public as a way to maybe make the game more enjoyable for the masses. His concerns over the golf ball have nothing to do with the general public. I don't think Mr. Palmer or anyone else is concerned with the Pro V making Merion or any other classic layouts too easy or short for Joe Hack.

I understand the fact that technology is a tough thing to slow down. But there is no denying the fact that these guys today are playing a very different game than the one played in years past.

The point being made is valid. The game of golf is and has been changing. Should these changes continue unabated? I for one wouldn't mind seeing the pros play 3 and 4 irons into a few par 4s week after week. 320 yard drives and 150 yard PWs into 470 yard holes just doesn't do it for me the way watching Ben Hogan work long irons around a golf course did.

The subtleties of the pro game are in Jeopardy. Mickelson shot 59 hitting 5 fairways, to me thats a JOKE.

-Ted

Ted Kramer writes:
It seems odd to me that people are so quick to criticize Arnold Palmer. He has done more for golf than just about anyone in history and in my opinion he has earned his right to speak his mind.

I don't think you've adequately explained why Arnold Palmer should be above criticism. The  criticism on this thread isn't even that harsh, just saying he might have some self-interest in the debate is hardly dissin' the man. Many people argue in their own self-interest.

He's done lots for golf and golf has done lots for him. I'd call it a wash. And he has earned the right to speak out (as if anyone ever has to earn that right) but not the right to never be criticized.

Arnold Palmer endorsed a non conforming club to the public as a way to maybe make the game more enjoyable for the masses.

Then maybe he should have turned down the Callaway dollars before speaking out. Arnie is sharp enough to know if he accepts money for Callaway and then endorses their club many people will rightfully question his motives.

Jeff_Fortson writes:
I  want to roll back the ball to Titleist Balata era tech but I'll settle for Titleist Professional era tech.

Back in the Balata era there were Top Flite Rocks. The pros just wouldn't play them because there was less premium on distance and they lacked the feel around the greens.

I agree the ball going straighter is much bigger problem than further. Players used to keep a little bit in reserve for when they really wanted to let one go. Now they just swing all-out on every shot, knowing if the ball goes off line it is within a reasonable distance. Also with the consistent courses these guys play, it isn't going to get into too much trouble. But it is much tougher to legislate crookedness rather than distance.

I miss the golf of my youth.  It was so much more interesting and rewarding.

Even with reasonably new equipment and balls I still manage to hit a fair number of glf balls somewhere other than where I am aiming.

Dan King

I'm very much against all the new technology and I'd rather still be playing with hickory shafted clubs.
 --Bob Charles

I've been reading MacDonald's Scotland's Gift, great stuff about the fight over the golf ball.  The purist's recommendation was make everybody play a ball with positive bouyancy (a "floater!") but the manufacturers wouldn't hear about it -- not enough lost balls!

Bill, they did try it in 1931 and it was hated by almost everyone.  Read the piece I wrote that is in the In My Opinion section on the floater or balloon ball.

Ted Kramer:

I, for one, wold be a lot slower to criticize Arnold Palmer had he not:

A) Spent god knows how many years serving as the USGA's main spokesperson prior to endorsing an illegal club, and...

B) Not published a book entitled "Playing By The Rules" shortly afterwards.

To me that makes him a world-class hypocrite - and the fact that he now supports doing something about the golf ball (very likely, as Dan King astutely points out, because that's the Callaway party line) doesn't change that fact.

DW

FWIW, his stance on the ball is not new, and it pre-dates his affiliation with Callaway.

AFAIK, neither Nicklaus, Player or Faldo ever endorsed a non-USGA-compliant driver shortly after accepting a paid endorsement contract from the maker of said driver. When you do that, people are going to remember that every time you express an "opinion" on matters relating to golf equipment. It doesn't mean Arnie is wrong or that he's dishonest or that we don't still love him.

Not to mention the fact that his logic, as stated, is faulty. Having a hot-faced ERC driver does absolutely nothing for the oft-invoked "weekend golfer" except part him with a few hundred dollars. That 12-handicapper who carries the ball 230 and hits 8 fairways and 6 greens per round is going to gain like 3-4 yards on his one flushed driver per round and nothing on the others. Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

As happens, in my opinion, we get sidetracked from discussing the pertinent issue.  Arnie is not the issue.  Distance control is.  Is the ball the main problem?  No.  My new ERC Fusion literally gives me twenty more yards.  I am 57 years old and am hitting it further than I ever have.  I don't thinkit is possible to limit R&D on the clubs, it is more possible to limit what the ball can do.

I'll say this again to try to get the discussion back on the ball.

I think while the ball may fly further, it flies way too straight.  I hit shots sometimes that I know would slice or hook triple the amount of distance that they do.  There is something wrong with this.  We are not identifying ball striking skill as much anymore.  We are defining our champions through their power and short games.  I also can't bend the ball as much when I need to (like around a tree).  

Some of the most vivid memories I have from my youth as a golfer were watching Lee Trevino, Jack Nicklaus, and Ray Floyd all move the ball at least 20 yards left to right off the 15th tee of PGA West in the Skins Game in the late 80's.  I was standing right behind the tee and couldn't believe my eyes.  Nicklaus had a high trajectory, Floyd a medium trajectory, and Trevino a low trajectory.  It was shotmaking at its finest.

Now, I go to tournaments and everyone hits it virtually the same.  This isn't because there is some magic swing technique that everyone uses, it is because the equipment has leveled the playing field in many ways when it comes to ball striking.  

Enough of my diatribe, I think you get the point.


Jeff F.

Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

Brent,
This isn't strictly true, is it?  My understanding is that the distance gains on current premium balls, esp. the ProVIx, are non-linear.  My distance gains with the ProV type balls has been negligble because I just don't generate the clubheard speed to take full advantage of the technology.  Conversely, the pros get not only more distance, but less curvature than I do.  I DO, however, like the ProV a lot, simply because the damn things are nearly indestructible.  Heck, I read last Friday that automobile tires are soon to made from a urethane!  (Also, I only play what I find, and I find enough ProV's to play only them; 11 doz. currently in inventory at home...)

The ball is a PGA Tour problem.  When the tour thinks that their bottom line is being negatively impacted, then they'll get their house in order.  Right now, Finchem is just hoping that somebody else (i.e., the USGA, who doesn't have a problem) will do the dirty work for the tour.  The USGA has been wise not to get sucked in.

As to the course yardages, I would be curious to hear the various GCA's on the site weigh in on the extent to which there are "magic numbers" from owner-developers for yardage.  Is a yardage number to help sell memberships or real estate more of a reason for longer courses, or is it to maintain the integrity of the courses?  (I'll ask this as a separate thread!)

Quote from: Brent Hutto on November 29, 2004, 09:28:05 AM

Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

This isn't strictly true, is it?  My understanding is that the distance gains on current premium balls, esp. the ProVIx, are non-linear.  My distance gains with the ProV type balls has been negligble because I just don't generate the clubheard speed to take full advantage of the technology.  Conversely, the pros get not only more distance, but less curvature than I do.  I DO, however, like the ProV a lot, simply because the damn things are nearly indestructible.  Heck, I read last Friday that automobile tires are soon to made from a urethane!

My impression is like yours, the differences in distance between longer and shorter golf balls are non-linear with clubhead speed. But my point is that a Tour player can give up some distance at much less cost to his score than most high-handicappers.

When I first started playing golf 10+ years ago the Tour players were doing very well predominantly using balls like the Titleist Tour Balata. Now on balance they've decided that the longer, harder balls are an advantage but they could shoot in the 60's on pretty long courses with those old short, spinny wound balls. Conversely, very few bogey golfers could afford to play those Balata balls because they cost too much distance and they curved way too much (not to mention having to be replaced after a few holes, the urethane advantage you mention). So they used hard two-piece rocks that just weren't nearly as fun to play with because they were somewhat difficult to control around the green and they felt clunky.

Nowadays the same ProV1-type balls that the Tour players use work quite well for anyone with a semblance of a short game and who can hit the ball 200 yards in the air. So even if the guys with 120mph swings get prodigiously nonproportional distance from them at least we hackers can use something durable and reasonably long that will check up on the green and curve a little (although nothing like the old spinners). Contrast that the advantage of a "hot" driver versus a legal one which only differs when you hit it squarely on the center of the face and which is itself non-linear with clubhead speed.

Once again, focusing in on this one aspect, diminishes all the other variables of the sport.

Veejay, practices practices and practices, but he still needs to execute, in the moment. Doesn't he?

Going lower is a trend that has followed golf's results FOREVER.

Halting that, could have more negative repercussions.

Give up on a number, and all will be right with the world.

For me this has nothing to do with a number.
I don't care how low the pros go as long as their entire game is tested.

I think it is perfectly normal to long for the days of old.
Watching pros work the ball around the course with long irons and fairway woods is much different than watching Pro after Pro bomb it over the dogleg and hit wedges tight to pins on greens that were supposed to be receiveing shots from mid and long irons.

-Ted