[Mike_Sweeney]

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-intro.zgi?ID=L2236NFPDN9L&PIN=WB7EJ1G76X7W

Above is a link to a survey I set up to look at GCAers views of the rollback issue.

I will post the results next week, and I am limited to 100 responses. It is free.

Here is the question:

Should the USGA:
 
 
      * Roll back the ball 1 year
 
      * Roll back the ball 3 years
 
      * Roll back the ball more than 3 years
 
      * Keep it where it is today
 
      * Let technology continue at its own pace
 
PS. Please only answer once.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The answer or proposal I'd give isn't there. It's not so much about when they do it---it's much more about how they go about trying to accomplish it which as we all should know is the real problem, the real issue here, and in my opinion the real answer.

[A.G._Crockett]

I agree with Tom.  Not to be an obstructionist, but the whole term "roll back" is a concept, not a practical matter, since we're still within the ODS numbers that have been in place for years.

In other words, roll back to what?

I have written this before, but I'll do it again.

"It is harder by far to write a good law than a good play, and there are not a dozen men alive who can write a good play."
                                    George Bernard Shaw

[TEPaul]

The more I think about it and particularly with this little GCA survey here, the more I like the idea of the USGA/R&A going massively public with this issue. Right off the bat doing this solves all kinds of obstacles and problems and perceived obstacles and problems for them. What they'd be doing is taking a survey and making it massive and public!

It's the golfing public who have to weigh in here with an answer on this distance issue because in the end of the day it's the golfing public who are going to be effected by it or think they will be.

Get their answer before moving forward and use that answer to move forward. It's the most honest and open way to proceed. And it's something more than honest--it's the most defensible position to move forward from. If some entity, like the manufacturers, ask them why they're offering rollback legislation for the ball they can honestly say because OUR constituency which is YOUR constituency is ASKING us to!

How can you create a better and more defensible platform from which to move forward than that?

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

I initially liked your idea of a large referendum on technology, then thought what if they got an answer which they didn't want?  Would it not limit their ability to take action?

As a libertarian, I like as few rules as possible.  When some are needed, and I think that they are at the competitive levels of the game, craft and apply them narrowly to address the specific problem which they seek to overcome.

If I was the golf czar, answering Mike Sweeney's question, I would somehow seek to freeze distance and direction to today's level of technology for the vast majority of golfers.  For competitions involving colleges, professionals, and most anything beyond club tournaments, I would roll-back the ball to where the top swing speeds achieve around 85% of the current distance (with increasingly less proportional impact on the slower swings; basically, the mirror image of what apparently has taken place in the past 5+ years).

This would make me a most unpopular czar, and probably one with the shortest tenure.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
I initially liked your idea of a large referendum on technology, then thought what if they got an answer which they didn't want?"

Lou:

At first I thought you must be kidding to ask a question like that it's so self-evident and then I realized maybe it isn't to a lot of people, perhaps even most on this website.

An answer who didn't want---who's "they"? The boards of the USGA and R&A? The participants on Golfclubatlas? Some other small group out there somewhere? Of course those opinions matter but they shouldn't matter that much more than anyone else's.

It's the far larger majority of opinion out there the USGA and R&A who make these rules and regs, and hopefully will continue to, should be after! In a survey such as this although I foresee it as capable of having a massive reach if they want it to, they're really only going to get opinions and feedback from golfers who really consider this issue no matter what their feelings are or which side of the issue they might be.

But "what if they don't want it or don't like it" doesn't work for me--not even close--if by that you mean some small group of people, even if it is the board of the USGA and R&A who at present do have a great deal of potential say in this issue as they are the only ones in the world who actually vote on this issue of world-wide I&B! And for your information we're talking only a little over 30 PEOPLE here.

That's precisely why they need to get out there and poll the world's golfers! You said in your post if you were the czar! Well, you not the czar, noone is and noone needs to act like they are either---no one.

That's what I sometimes suspect on this website--that there're these staunch opinions and few are willing to consider the opinions of others which has to mean they really don't care what others think, they only care about what they think.

That won't do, in my opinion, and that's why I say it's not that important what I think, or you think or Pat Mucci thinks only what the vast majority of the world's golfers think. That's the constituency of the USGA and R&A and the manufacturer's too. And in the end what they think is the way it'll be anyway--even if they never do get polled or asked.

So whatever their answer is, that's the way we all should go. This certainly doesn't mean that in the process of this convocation strong opinions and recommendations should not and will not be made and heard. The ones who care the most are the very same ones who are going to make themselves heard anyway. And I think the USGA and R&A need to be very vocal in their recommendations--but even theirs should be recommendations at first, not blind or precipitous legislation.

So what if "They" get an answer the didn't want? They should learn to live with it---that's what!

And again, my proposal would include both the USGA and R&A making a very strong recommendation in this process and in this broad reach convocation. But the point is they need to ask--and sooner rather than later.

This is a PROCESS only I'm trying to recommend and propose here, no more. As for what I personally would like to see the USGA and R&A recommend for the future of I&B and golf and architecture, I'm thinking of starting two other interrelated threads on that.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Sweeney:

Having discussed the subject offline, I agree with Tom Paul that there is a serious issue just concerning the "process" of how to address the golf technology arms race problem.

But, to answer your question, I'm basically of similiar thinking to Lou Duran. A rollback of around 85% for competitive golf makes sense to me.

That puts me in the more than 3 years category, I think.

It would be nice to see pros hitting 260-270 yard drives again.
This 300 yard plus stuff has just become so boring it isn't worth watching in person or on TV.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
   Having a large amount of input from people throughout golf is simply not a good solution. Aren't the vast majority of golfers pretty bad at the game? If you let them decide what they want they will ask for a ball that goes further, straighter, stops on a dime, and has some sort of built in GPS system/microprocessor that makes it impossible to miss putts. I don't have any numbers, but I know an awful lot of golfers try to buy a golf game, in order to improve their scores.
    Its the best players who are making some courses obsolete, so the solution should be geared towards them.

Mike,
  Do a survey on getting the long putter banned. I was thinking about it the other day. People use the long putter as a crutch. To my mind, it's like giving a pitcher with control issues a bigger strike zone, or a basketball player who can't make a free throw a bigger hoop to shoot at. The long putter is an abomination that needs to go.

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

Are you saying that I am a bit obtuse?

You said "The more I think about it and particularly with this little GCA survey here, the more I like the idea of the USGA/R&A going massively public with this issue."

My reply was to this suggestion, so the "they" in this context is the USGA/R&A.  I do think that the boards, committees, and staff probably have serious apprehensions regarding the techonology and economics issues.

This is mere speculation based on relatively varied reading and conversations with individuals from throughout the game and industry, but there might even be some concensus forming along the lines I suggested.

The problem is that golf is a big game with numerous constituencies and a variety of interests.  I am often suspicious and critical of the "elite", but in some cases "they" have to lead.  As you know, not all majority positions fleshed out in the democratic process are right or just.

It is only a feeling, but a general survey would probably yield mixed results at best, with a default to the status quo.  It is very hard to pull the trigger when the information is not conclusive or goes against your better judgement.  I suspect that the USGA/R&A have a good idea of what such a survey would reveal (they get input from all stakeholders on a regular basis).

I'd bet that a consistent finding would be that people want lower costs, an easier game, and one that doesn't take as long.  Of course, these objectives are mutually exclusive to some extent.

I may be well off-base, but, this time at least, I am not trying to pull your leg.  Really.

   

[Jim_Kennedy]

I voted to leave it alone. The people who would suffer most from a rollback are the vast majority who are responsible for the 541,000,000 rounds played in this country every year. Based on percentages, a 10% rollback loses fewer yards for the shorter player but the shorter player has a much greater need for them.  
Consider this: every ball that's been built in the last 25 years would most likely fail the present day ODS if it was tested using the methods and ODS that the USGA is proposing for the future.


 

[Doug Siebert]

Jim,

I don't buy that.  Even accounting for the fact that any distance loss from a ball change would be on a percentage basis, and Joe Sixpack who hits maybe one 250 yarder every other round when he hits it square on a downhill hole with a bit of wind behind him loses less than the pros, you have to account for the fact that a lot of his hits are not square, and thus he is affected much less than by a pure percentage basis by any change to the ball.

The better player hits it square every time, and gets full advantage for every distance increase, and takes full penalty for every distance decrease.  Thus say a 10% rollback would hurt the pros by 30 yards, whereas it might hurt the AVERAGE for Joe Sixpack by perhaps 10 yards, even though his driving average as measured by the PGA would be over 100 yards.  This is because changes to the ball don't have much effect on mishits, worm burners, etc. and hell probably help you if your banana slice goes a bit shorter from the tee!  I know I wish I wasn't getting the Pro V1x's supralinear increase when I hit a wild one!!

I'd prefer the idea of trying to make a ball that gets progressively less extra distance the harder you hit it, a sort of reverse optimization to undo the deeds of the recent past.  Maybe they can do it by making the ball larger and/or lighter, maybe they can mandate some type of construction or cover requirements that aid in this, I don't know.  I do wish someone would look into it, but the ball makers have little reason to do so for obvious reasons!  If they could produce a ball that went only 4 yards shorter for someone driving 180, 10 yards shorter for someone driving 260, and 30 yards shorter for someone driving 340, I think they'd really have something, and they could sell it the golfing public.  Kind of a progressive taxation on swing speed.


As to a survey for the general golfing public, I think the problem would be defining it.  How a survey is worded has a large difference in how the results come out, as anyone who looks at political "surveys" taken by the Republicans and Democrats or any other group with an axe to grind can easily see.

Joe Sixpack would almost certainly vote against something like "cut the ball back 10%" since he'll think of the 25 yards he'll lose on the one drive a every other round he catches square, and mentally associate it as having 25 more yards into every hole as if it would matter on his worm burners and banana slices!  If it was sold as an adjustment to where the ball was 10 or 20 years ago, a lot of people may not have any problem with it.  It is like money, Joe Sixpack sees everyone else getting richer than he is in terms of distance, especially the pros.  He keeps getting promised more yards every time he plunks down $400 for a new driver or switches to a new brand of balls, but he really doesn't notice it, and believes deep down that he hasn't gained anything while his buddies keep getting extra yards from every dollar they spend.  So the idea of turning back the clock might really appeal to him.

[TEPaul]

"Consider this: every ball that's been built in the last 25 years would most likely fail the present day ODS if it was tested using the methods and ODS that the USGA is proposing for the future."

Jim Kennedy:

What are you talking about? That's just utterly untrue!

[Jeff Fortson]

Polling the general public on ball regulations is dangerous.  It is not the USGA's responsibility to bend or fold to the desires of golfers, it is their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game.  

I think your average Joe golfer will not want the ball "rolled-back".  Most people can't understand or identify with the crisis the ball has created.  All they know is they are driving it longer now.

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.


Jeff F.

[JakaB]

 Let those that play the game to "hit it long" quit, and draw back the people that quit when shotmaking became obsolete.


Jeff F.

Jeff,

Quit when shotmaking became obsolete....are you getting any sleep at all...have you gone insane..

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I said:
"Consider this: every ball that's been built in the last 25 years would most likely fail the present day ODS if it was tested using the methods and ODS that the USGA is proposing for the future."

It should have read:
"Consider this: every ball that's been built in the last 25 years would most likely fail the present day ODS if it was tested using the methods that the USGA is proposing for the future ODS.

I hope this clears up the confusion. What I was trying to say was this: Take most any ball manufactured in the last 25 years and "shoot" it at the face of an .820 COR, ti faced, stronger lofted driver. Do so at the new test speed of 120 mph and it will fail the ODS it was constructed to meet.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I see virtually no difference in those two statements and as to your explanation in the third paragraph that's utterly untrue too.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

I certainly hope I don't sound like I'm saying you're obtuse--I didn't mean to.

I am, however, fascinated by some of the suggestions and feelings on this thread. There're a number of regular contributors to this website who have been highly critical of the USGA/R&A in the past and presently, many of whom have accused the USGA/R&A or suggeted they're out of touch elitists. Those accusations and suggestions always sounded to me like those contributing those thoughts didn't think much of elitists or elitism.

But now that a suggestion has been made that perhaps the USGA/R&A should go public and educate with strong recommendations and then poll the feelings of the golfing world before moving forward on this issue that those same contributors on here who've accused the USGA/R&A of being elitists and practicing elitism appear not to trust in any way golf's larger consitituencies.

So who appears to be the elitists now? It seems to me this has all become very ironical!

[TEPaul]

"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."

JeffF:

There's no question that's a way to go. Matter of fact, that scenario does have some historical precedent---the USLTA's conflict with the burgeoning professional organizations about 40 years ago. The result of that conflict may be instructive to what might happen if the USGA 'circled their wagons and dropped a bomb on the manufacturers'.

The I&B manufacturers at that point have two basic choices--first to go along with the USGA/R&A---or second, simply to say; "OK, we don't need you people and either do vast majority of the world's golfing public". At that point, serious factionalization will result in golf in an organizational sense, as happened in tennis 40 years ago.

The interesting thing about the game of tennis as a possible analogy to the future of golf under that "circle the wagons and drop a bomb' scenario is tennis rather quickly lost it's old and interesting and rather beautiful serve and rally game that was closely akin to golf's old shotmaking, highly strategic game! If the power in tennis today could be made into an analogy to future distance in golf it would probably be golfers hitting drives about 400 yards!

But the more interesting thing about tennis as a result of that old 'circle the wagon' scenario by the USLTA 40 years ago is  in tennis today there is virtually noone who plays that old serve and rally game or who even has the equipment it used to take to do so.

If the USGA/R&A lose the manufacturers and a vast majority of the golfing world's voluntary compliance, something they have heretofore always had, as the old USLTA once did, the same thing will very likely happen to them as happened to the USLTA 40 years ago and the same thing will very likely happen to golf in the future as happened to tennis beginning almost 40 years ago! In my opinion, that would be the most likely scenario and again, one that has a pretty poignant historical analogy!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul, One of the ironies of democratic life is how often the majority is wrong.

There are other possible bastardizations of your altruistic idea of asking everybody first and they ocurr in the educational process. i.e. Slant and mis-information

If it were possible to remove all the half-truths, making the right decision is easy.

I'd rather it were left up to one person, to decide for everyone. Similar to the head honcho at the club level who isn't restricted by the committee decision making process. That person, if informed of all the facts and all the half-truths are removed should be able to come up with the better decision. Whatever that may be. Bifurcate, rollback or natural progression.

[Jeff Fortson]

JakaB,

Through my recent sleep deprivation I have reached a certain level of enlightenment.  Through constant meditation during inconsolable and unstoppable crying, I have come to many conclusions about many things.

First, let me clarify my comment that you felt was the babble of an insane man.  Actually, I'll rephrase it.....

"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."


Secondly, I know you think the game is fine and that equipment advances don't hurt the game.  This makes me think it may be you that isn't getting enough sleep at night.  Are YOU insane?  

Being in the golf business, I have seen rounds plummet and fewer beginners signing up to take lessons.  This is not "Good for the Game".  You may not see it because it appears that what you value in golf is different than what others value, and your fully entitled to feel that way.

The USGA has dropped the ball for the last 15 years in the technology department.  There is no denying it.  They have even admitted as much!  By dropping this "ball" (no pun intended) they have let the control they had over shepparding this fine sport slip through their greasy, East Coast, old-money hands.  

Thirdly, I grew up playing persimmon woods and balata balls.  There was something special about shaping the ball.  Don't you remember that day at Pajaro!  We were having a blast playing with our old "wooden" woods and balata balls.  That was the moment I jumped the fence on the ball issue.  I used to be completely against any attempt to take away my Pro V1x and now I wish they would enforce regulations that would make the balata the elite ball in the game.  

The balata is a better ball for golf.  It can be shaped, it can go offline with a missed shot, it can only penetrate the wind with a skilled stroke, it provides tremendous feel around the greens, it can be damaged with a bad shot, it is less expensive than the modern ball, and most importantly, it would give us back the game we grew up with.  A game where course rarely went over 7000 yards, the cost was affordable, and rounds lasted 4 hours or less.

JakaB, your line of thinking would allow Major League Baseball players to use aluminum bats.  Imagine what the game would be like if it were allowed.  It would be fun the first time you watched Barry Bonds launch a ball to Oakland but when the pitcher gets up to bat and does the same thing, it would lose its appeal quickly.

Ultimately, I think golf is the Donner Party and right now we are somewhere near Reno.  If and when we get to Truckee, make sure to pass the salt.


Jeff F.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff Fortson,
I accept your premise that the golf business is troubled.  That isn't necessarily the same thing as the game of golf being troubled, but I take your point.

I would assume that the decline in the number of rounds and the number of beginners signing up for lessons is reflective of two things.  One is the expense and time commitment of the game in a currently weak economy and a hyperbusy society, and the other is the demographic of US in which most, if not all, of the Baby Boomers that are going to take up the game already have, and some are actually beginning to reducing or stopping playing as they near retirement and worry about the excessive dollars involved.  I truly believe that the golf boom was a function of the Boomers taking up the game over the past 20 or so years, and there's no way that level of growth can continue.  The population demographics in the country just don't support it.  Strategies to help the golf business must take that into account if they are to have a chance of succeeding.

Having said all that, I agree with what I believe you are saying IF you are saying that making golf more financially accessible is the key to the golf business' problems being solved.  However, I'm not sure I see a direct connection in the ball situation to this solution.  There are plenty of cheap balls available now that are clearly better than anything made previously, and "long" balls have been available for decades.  Long, difficult golf courses that cost a ton to play, and take forever to boot, are a function of rankings and marketing needs rather that golf ball technology directly.  I'll buy the indirect connection of the ball problems, but if the ball was "rolled back" tomorrow, would you see an increase or decrease in the number of rounds played in the US over the next five years?

My suspicion is that you would see a decrease as the game remained expensive, time-consuming, and became more difficult.  I can't really imagine anyone saying, "Wow, now that the game is not only expensive and time consuming, but much harder, I can't wait to play!"  I think that is a lot of the reason that so many intelligent, well-intentioned people are having such a hard time figuring out how to attack the problem.

If the golf business wants more people to take up the game, then let the golf business figure out profitable ways to get people on the course for under $35 a round and off in less than 4 hours.  Whether that is doable or not is a great question, but nothing about the golf ball is gonna do it!

[Jeff Fortson]

A.G.,

Nice post and many great points.  

My problem is that I see a direct link with the increased expense and time it takes to play golf with the technological advances in the modern golf ball.  Courses have become longer to combat a longer ball which drives up the cost due to having to buy more acreage to build or expand courses and maintenance goes up because there is more to take care of.

I also see a rise in the price of the ball and the driver to combat this Cold War escalation between courses and equipment technology.  As courses get longer, drivers and balls get better to combat it, and vice versa.

This increase in the length of the course has lengthened the time it takes to play because there is more territory to trek over and the narrowing of the route in which to play a hole to combat lengthy tee shots.  Width has been taken away from the tee shot which leads to more drives in the rough, bunkers, and water which end up making the game more difficult for the average player and tags on senseless minutes and hours to a round.  

All of this is destroying the enjoyment of the game for many people and that is where I draw my conclusions on decreased play and interest from.


Jeff F.

[corey miller]

     I think professional baseball players appreciate the limited technology because it helps to identify the best players.  Hence, a powerful constiuency in place.  Contrast this with professional tour golfers.

     If EVERYONE had to play with 1980's equipment, would we still have the same people on tour? what percent?  These guys have learned to play with this stuff, they have been successful, why would they ever want to change?

     It would be a big big help if the tours agreed to a rollback, but I believe these guys would be too afraid to shuffle the deck.

[ed_getka]

I don't think people have dropped out of golf because of the "power" game. People have dropped out because of the expense and the time commitment. For people in Norcal, if you take up the game and play once a week at an average cost of $40-50, you are looking at up to $200/month (a pretty expensive hobby). Add in golf balls at $20-50/dozen, and other associated costs of a round.
   Average rounds here are in the 4-1/2 to 5 hour range. Not to mention that I think more than a few people golf to spend some time relaxing away from the stresses of modern day life. I don't think that is accomplished when you are waiting to play on almost every shot.
   To address Tom's point about the elitists of the USGA and the irony of the positions some of us are taking, I don't see it. I for one, would rather have a handful of addled old men make a decision on the rollback, then a mass of self interested "golfers". The longer the distance issue goes unchecked, the more expensive and time consuming the game will become, and the less people will be attracted to the game.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff

I think we agree on the fundamental point that longer, more difficult golf courses translate to longer, more expensive rounds, and that in the long run that can't be good for the game of golf OR the business of golf.

Our fundamental disagreement is on the role of the ball in that development.  I don't deny that equipment is part of the equation; I just think its a really long and complex equation.  Golf course developers have a profit motive just like any other business, and if they see their new clientele in the years to come as being similar to the clientele in the two decades just past, they are going to get killed on the balance sheet.  I don't believe that courses have been built the way they have been in recent years to combat the ball. Its all been about marketing to high-disposable income middle-age white males; rankings, 7000 plus yds., high course and slope rating, etc., big-name architects, cool clubhouses, etc.  In the next couple of decades, that will be a losing strategy to draw new customers, and it won't matter a bit what ball the USGA deems "legal."  

I don't mean by any of this that the ball is irrelevant; just that the current focus on it in the golf business may be obscuring what the real issues are.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()