[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks for noticing my simple question, Rick.

To Craig, and anyone else who says the USGA shouldn't be more aggressive, I'd simply ask, why does the ODS exist, and should we forever stick with a decision made decades ago under completely different circumstances? Should we not ever revisit this standard?

The very fact that a distance standard exists acknowledges (to me, at least) that there is potential for a real problem if distance in golf is not carefully examined. We've already seen the effects, and it's clear not everyone supports unchecked distance.

George and Rick,
I would assume that the ODS exists so that there will be some measure (however limited) of a level playing field between competitors.  In the same way that fellow competitors tee off from the same place and hole out at the same place, they are using balls and implements that are at least nominally the same.  

In other words, I would be very surprised if the ODS was originally formulated to in any way "protect" golf courses.  It was, and is, primarily a condition of competition.

[TEPaul]

"I'm tolerant too, I'm just not tolerant of bad ideas."

Tom MacW:

Are bad ideas and ideas you may not agree with all of, the same thing?  

If so perhaps you should do some research on both the spirit as well as the definition of "tolerance".  

Perhaps I should as well.  

[Daniel_Wexler]

Mark Fine:

In the simplest sense your point seems valid.  Vardon, J.H. Taylor and others joined John Low in decrying the Haskell ball, yet as we all know it clearly wasn't the end of the world.  But there is one ENORMOUS difference between then and now: Cost and availability of land.  

Sure, we can theoretically say that the game's fundamental architectural and playing values needn't change too much if it's all scaled together...but how much more does it cost?  And how many fewer courses will be built in the first place because in most major metropolitan areas today, it's difficult to find 130 usable, available acres, nevermind 175-200?  And that leaves unsaid the fact that most of our best (yes, top-ranked) courses can never again play as intended.  At the turn of the last century, they could afford to debate the issue 90% on architectural grounds alone.  Today, we clearly cannot.

And I will ask again (though only for the first time to you): What are we gaining from all of this (beyond a little ego boost for the Craig Sweets of the world) that makes it a worthwhile tradeoff??

[George Pazin]

AG -

I could certainly be wrong - I am all too often on rules issues, thankfully I have friends to set me straight - but I think the ODS was only implemented in the early 70s and it was in response to distance concern issues.

Also, recent discussions of tweaking the testing and adjusting the standard to fit newer balls again implies to me that there is a concern over unchecked distance. No one foresaw the ability to combine low spin distance with high spin approach characteristics - and to be clear, I don't blame anyone for not seeing this - and no one foresaw the optimization, at least to any meaningful degree. I don't blame anyone for this, but I do think it is necessary to revisit the thinking on the ball.

As I read older writers, I am struck by the notion that is was simply a given that one must find the balance between accuracy and distance. This doesn't seem to be nearly the case anymore.

I'm not suggesting wholesale change, but a minor rollback might be a good thing to at least test, as well as testing the notion of bifurcation. The rest of the world went through a fairly significant change some 30 years ago with the shift to the big ball - the world didn't end, and manufacturers adjusted. It might be time to revisit the issue in a more meaningful way.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom MacWood, The bad idea begins with the committee that follows the crowd, rushes to judgement, and decides to let the butchers in plaid, earn their fee and work their magic.  

It's much too subjective an arguiment to protect classic courses from ruining themselves, all because of peer pressure.

We all had hand me downs, save for the blue bloods and TePaul (unless his mini-cooper was purchased used?)
 
Why shouldn't American golf courses have a shelf life? (Especially the bad ones) Certainly the majority were built after Max Behr cried they were more like gameboards than fields for sport.

[Mark_Fine]

I was not expressing an opinion, only stating a point raised in the recent USGA newletter.  As pointed out earlier by Lou, it is worth reading.  

[TEPaul]

"In other words, I would be very surprised if the ODS was originally formulated to in any way "protect" golf courses.  It was, and is, primarily a condition of competition."

AG:

I'm not sure I follow you on that but perhaps I do and I sure would not agree with that statement. As in most all games or sports played by man there always seem to be a certain set of rules and regulations that follow in some attempt to create understandable unification in the method in which games and sports are contested or recreated.

The ODS (Overall Distance Standard) was created as basically a "pass/fail" line with which golf balls could be tested to determine and insure that technology would not completely overwhelm the requirement of physical skill in the sport or game. ODS was intended to be a cap to distance increase through excessive technologic advancement (not necessarily physical ability).

Distance regulation or distance increase prevention through technology alone was basically all that ODS was there to do and deal with. Actual competition was not the point, certainly not the whole point.

The record of writing on the subject of exessive distance through technology alone is voluminous and rich with the reasons for something like an ODS standard. Most of the architects and others going back to the turn of the century wrote about the dangers of excessive distance increases through technology and certainly competion alone was not their only concern. Land, cost, the constant necessity of change and alteration, obsolescence etc were also their real concerns.

William Flynn did not write in the USGA Green Section report in 1927 that something had to be done about distance or soon 8,000 yard courses would be necessay because he was only thinking about competition. There were a whole lot more concerns than just that and ODS, in theory anyway, was intended to address all those concerns.  
 
 

[Daniel_Wexler]

George, etc.:

Bifurcation might end up being inevitable since Tim Finchem has indicated that if the equipment makes his product any more uninteresting to watch (my paraphrase, obviously) that the Tour might have no choice but to act unilaterally...and then it's done.  Of course, since the vast majority of his "membership" cares more about not offending the manufacturers who write their endorsement checks (as though said manufacturers would no longer pay Tour pros if there was a rollback...sheesh!) than about anything relating to golf's health or future, that in itself might be an interesting thing to watch.

Of course, the game has always had a bifurcation option because aside from certain competitions, nothing prevents a player who wants greater length, etc. from using non-conforming equipment.  My belief, however, is that those who feel that their golfing happiness rests upon such an ego boost ought well to be receiving it from outside the rules rather than having the rules allow for the loss/diminishment of everything discussed above.

[Lou_Duran]

George,

That's my point precisely.  We are playing a different game, therefore, the excuse that bifurcation would divide the sport does not have a great deal of weight.  Even such a traditionalist and bifurcation opponent as Sandy Tatum has come around and now supports it as a way to ameliorate what's becoming one of golf's major problems (the need for more costly real estate to accomodate a very small percentage of the golfing population).

The Masters could easily contract with a ball company to manufacture two types of balls, one soft and the other hard, which would fly no more than 240 or 250 yards at the average swing speed.  The Tour and the USGA could follow suit for its tournaments.  Should the ball manufacturers seek legal remedies, these golf organizations are not without resources and attorneys to offer a successful defense.  The fact that other sports have "official" balls with defined perfromance criteria should support golf's ruling bodies' position.

As to the 95%+ who are not significantly affected by technology in our games, leave us to choose what we want within current limitations.  I would argue that with more forgiving equipment for the duffer and limited distance balls for the pros, that the game would be more similar for all, though a bit too socialistic for my taste.

       

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam Clayman (and others earlier):

At least demonstrate some reasonable degree of common sense before laying blame for the "destruction" (my phrase) of classic courses on their memberships.  Generally speaking, these facilities were designed to be of the highest "quality" (sorry, Tom Fazio) and have, for decades, been universally viewed as being among the best in the game.  Then, because an outside agency chooses not to regulate advancing equipment, they are, through no fault of their own, very quickly diminished to something a bit less.  How much less?  A subjective decision, obviously.  But it's pretty clear that Merion and others will not host U.S. Opens under the present situation, etc., and equally obvious that well-conceived holes designed to test a player's skills with a mid-iron approach are significantly altered when attacked with a 9 iron or wedge (to give but one example).

Meanwhile, they've had Nicklaus and a number of the game's other top stars essentially arguing their cause, they've seen 20% of the USGA's membership skate and (to far lesser importance), people like myself pleading their case in print -- all to absolutely no avail, at least so far as the organization doing anything more than issuing eloquent statements of concern.

Assuming that you (and others) don't materially disagree with that general scenario, are you seriously suggesting that the memberships (or owners) of such clubs are actually going to just sit back and do nothing as their layouts lose relevance to the contemporary game?  With all the money, love and pride that they've got invested over many decades?  

Be serious!!

Now, whether or not the changes they make (through half-witted green committees, snake-oil selling architects, etc.) are embarrassing is an entirely different question.  The point is that when an outside agency's decision not to meaningfully act begins to fundamentally devalue (and I'm not even talking in terms of $$$) their asset, the suggestion that the underlying fault for making changes lies with them is ludicrous.

Sadly, there are many -- few of whom actually hold a stake in such venerable, long-established institutions -- whose reaction is either "No problem, I'll just go play somewhere else" or "It doesn't effect me personally, so what do I care?," both of which go a long way towards making a bad situation worse.

Why SHOULD American courses (not sure why you see this as strictly a domestic thing) have a shelf life?  So that players who lack both high-end skills and an appreciation of what came before them can have their egos boosted a little?

Or do you see some other positive from unchecked technology that has not yet been introduced to this discussion?

[A_Clay_Man]

So Daniel, it boils down to pride and monies spent?

How, or why, would Brad Klein ever make a statement like "rich people sure are stupid"(my paraphrase)

One benefit of the techno reality could be a new approach to design? It could be almost anything, that I surely would never, or could ever, think of. BUT, One certainty, if you do put the genie back into the bottle, those unknowns will never be known. Unless, as seems will be the case, the Pro's(PGA Tour) take their ball and go home. Through real bifurcation, and, If that happens, the 10,000 yard monstrosities will get buillt anyway. And who will tune in to watch on Sunday?  And what will they see? The optimum of man's ingenuity in sport, or a bunch of purists spining their mashie niblicks off the false fronts?

Please, realize the possibility that the argument you've made (in print) to the USGA has been ignored and will continue to be ignored.

Was there a lesson from the "Ballon Ball"?

[TEPaul]

"Of course, the game has always had a bifurcation option because aside from certain competitions, nothing prevents a player who wants greater length, etc. from using non-conforming equipment.  My belief, however, is that those who feel that their golfing happiness rests upon such an ego boost ought well to be receiving it from outside the rules rather than having the rules allow for the loss/diminishment of everything discussed above."

Daniel:

In either golf strategy or in life itself an option that's rarely if ever used is not much of an option. The voluntary option among golfers to use non-conforming equipment in golf has rarely if ever happened and the reason is major ball and equipment manufacturers just never really considered making and marketing it. Of course that could change at any time these days if the major manufacturers really thought golfers would buy and use non-conforming equipment.

But would tour pros and other serious golf competitors ever use non-conforming equipment, or be allowed to? Well I'd say probably not or certainly not otherwise a mockery would be made of the entire competitive process, wouldn't it?

Lot's of people on here talk about why the USGA should just bifurcate I&B rules and regs, the primary reason being that with the same equipment the tour pros and such just don't play the same game the rest of us do.

In all this time on here of the constant proposal for bifurcation I don't think I've seen a single person try to suppose what the manufacturers would think of bifurcation.

So what do you think they'd think about bifurcation? My feeling is they would do whatever was necessary to quash and kill it. I'd think they would have to because if they didn't the life-long myth they've been foisting on the buying public (professional golfers are hardly their market, only their indirect sales force don't exactly buy their balls and equipment ) would be all for naught---eg that if you just buy and play with what Tiger does you too can play more like he does!

In my opinion, the eternal "Walter Mitty Syndrome" of the golf equipment buying public is the essence of the golf manufacturering business, always has been and always will be. They definitely understand that myth and how to ply it better than most any of us do. And they will protect and preserve that myth any way they can.

Will there come a day when the manufacturers no longer need the pro tour players to market their equipment and that myth constructed on the eternal "Walter Mitty Syndrome"? It might, but if that day comes I fear that non-conformance will then be the hallmark of I&B and golfers and when that happens the sky will really be the limit in the farthest reaches of what unchecked technology can produce.

At that point, in the I&B world, of course the likes of the USGA and the R&A will be totally irrelevent.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"Please, realize the possibility that the argument you've made (in print) to the USGA has been ignored and will continue to be ignored."

Adam:

The POSSIBILITY?  To date I would say INEVITABILITY is more accurate -- though Tom Paul (and others not on this board) seem to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and I sincerely hope they're right.

As for the rest of your comments (the parts that I could understand, anyway):

The notion that what we're gaining is the POSSIBILITY of some "new approach to design" that you cannot think of and which "could be almost anything" definitely seems an argument the USGA should advance.  It's bound to win over those fence-sitters who are having a tough time making up their minds.

And IF you're suggesting that a rollback will somehow hurt the PGA Tour's commercial possibilities (I can't really tell exactly what that sentence is trying to say), you might consider that Tim Finchem raised the subject of acting unilaterally precisely because he realizes that people aren't terribly interested in the pitch-and-putt contests he's stuck with now.  

[Daniel_Wexler]

TEP:

I tend to agree that the manufacturers would likely be opposed to bifurcation, though G.S. and I have discussed this at length and I think he's got a very strong argument that from a strictly $$$ standpoint, they'd be making a mistake.  His reasoning is that virtually all "better" players (define that as you like) will buy whatever the professionals are playing because they wish to measure their games against the best, and inevitably a pretty substantial trickle-down will follow.  In the end -- unless one believes that bifurcation will somehow drive people away from the game (and I can't see the logic in that) -- X number of golfers will still be buying X number of golf balls.  And, as Geoff likes to point out, a "Tour" ball (which Finchem and Co. will surely demand be spelled "TOUR") will give the manufacturers yet another new product to market and sell, something they generally like.

As far as the rest, sure, the non-conforming equipment market was never a large one, primarily because most golfers prefer playing by the rules to cheating.  My point is simply that it was there and, as you suggest, very likely would be a bit larger one today (at least for the first few years after a rollback).  So since the option of one's mis-hits going straighter and longer would still exist, why allow it within the rules and, in the process, damage so many other aspects of a centuries-old game?

No answer beyond ego gratification that I can see, at least until someone here (or elsewhere) advances a tangible argument otherwise.

[TEPaul]

"And IF you're suggesting that a rollback will somehow hurt the PGA Tour's commercial possibilities you might consider that Tim Finchem raised the subject of acting unilaterally precisely because he realizes that people aren't terribly interested in the pitch-and-putt contests he's stuck with now."

Daniel:

Has Finchem really said those things seriously or are you just talking about the statement he made (a few years ago) of the possibility of the PGA Tour entering the I&B rules and regulation world because he was so pissed the USGA and R&A weren't fixing their rift on COR limitation? That statement of his back then was one of the greatest non-starters I've ever heard. A couple of days later he was informed what the hoops were the PGA Tour would have to jump through to even legally enter the I&B rules and regs world.  

But if Finchem has serously said again he feels the PGA Tour needs to enter the I&B rules and regs world because he feels distance is truly hurting interest in the Tour then my question is what possible better ally could the USGA/R&A think they could find to propose a rollback to the manufacturers then Tim Finchem and the PGA Tour?

But I'd ask again, do you really think he was serious about that? If he was, I'm amazed, because Finchem is smart guy and he's got to know that such a proposal given his constituency, the Tour Players, who are so closely linked by equipment contracts to the major manufacturers, that there couldn't be a much better scenario for a classic and massive "Palace Revolt" within the PGA Tour than that.
 
 

[TEPaul]

"TEP:
I tend to agree that the manufacturers would likely be opposed to bifurcation, though G.S. and I have discussed this at length and I think he's got a very strong argument that from a strictly $$$ standpoint, they'd be making a mistake.  His reasoning is that virtually all "better" players (define that as you like) will buy whatever the professionals are playing because they wish to measure their games against the best, and inevitably a pretty substantial trickle-down will follow.  In the end -- unless one believes that bifurcation will somehow drive people away from the game (and I can't see the logic in that) -- X number of golfers will still be buying X number of golf balls.  And, as Geoff likes to point out, a "Tour" ball (which Finchem and Co. will surely demand be spelled "TOUR") will give the manufacturers yet another new product to market and sell, something they generally like."

Daniel:

Sounds logical to me. But I guess we'll just have to see if it ever remotely comes to that (bifurcation) if the manufacturers are willing to "roll the dice" on that one. They at least completely understand the marketing world and the way it's always been under a unified standard in I&B.

On the other hand, and when it comes to the issue of bifurcation anyone can see, at this point at least, the USGA/R&A is squarely opposed to such a thing. Anyone can see that in their relatively recent "Joint Statement of Principles" found on their website.

So if it came to bifurcation maybe it would have to be the PGA TOUR that forced it.

But what Finchem couldn't care less about and what you or G.S. may not fully appreciate is the percieved internal operating problems bifurcation in I&B would create for the USGA/R&A and right on down the line through regional associations and into clubs. The most notable of this is of course the entire concept of equitable handicapping that is somewhat structured on a unified standard in I&B.

If the USGA/R&A did not accept bifurcation then they'd likely become irrelevent in not just I&B but probably the entire world of handicapping too which is pretty important to them and regional associations.

Of course if they had to they could simply innovate their entire handicapping philosophy into a new I&B world of bifurcation but as we all know innovation in some areas is not the USGA/R&A's strong suit or even of much interest to them (spelled "anti-tradition" ).

[Daniel_Wexler]

TEP:

All of the above.

I agree that he's an extremely bright guy, so I'm pretty confident that he knew reasonably well what he was saying.  Of course, I also assume that he said it in hopes of lighting a fire under the USGA, not because he'd really like to undertake matters himself.  My point was only that he knows he's got a very real problem with this equipment diminishing the interest people have in his product.

The palace revolt thing is certainly viable, no doubt whatsoever about that.  But truthfully, I think most players wouldn't publicly say very much one way or the other, for two reasons.  First, with most of the biggest stars on record that something must be done about the ball, guys who state otherwise run the risk of appearing (being?) greedy.  But more to the point, I suspect that Finchem would ask his rank and file: Is there any reason to assume that a rollback would actually cost the players any endorsement money?  Does a rollback to, say, 1990 equipment suddenly mean that manufacturers will no longer want pros to use/pitch their products?  I don't see any logic in that.  If the players simply sit by quietly as Tour-generated rollback took place, what's Titleist going to do, say "That's it, we're not advertising on the PGA Tour anymore?"

As my uncle used to say, "Possible, but definitely not probable."

[Daniel_Wexler]

TEP:

By the way, I am NOT a supporter of bifurcation.  I think we should simply forget about some people's ego gratification and just roll it all back.  But if the USGA continues to do nothing, I'd at least prefer bifurcation to nothing.

But I absolutely agree, it is NOT a good scenario.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but the USGA and the equipment manufactures have almost no common interests, aside from that squishy phrase "growing the game."

Even at that, they have diametrically opposite philosophies about how to attract more players to golf. The equipment manufacturers want to make Merion obsolete, and to turn Pebble Beach into a pitch-and-putt. They have scientists and engineers working day and night to figure out a way for you and me to reach 450 yard greens with a driver, knock every approach shot stiff and hole every putt. The logical triumph of the industry is that we will one day achieve Ben Hogan's fantasy: a hole-in-one on all 18 holes. And at that point, you can pull a sheet over the game of golf.

The USGA, on the other hand, says it wants to preserve the game's traditions, but I suspect Tom Doak is right: they are too worried about protecting their coffers from equipment company lawsuits to risk direct confrontation.

So we've got an invasive force of mad technazis who are in the process of sucking all the fun out of the game in the name of "more fun," and a putative regulatory organization that is nearly emasculated by its own fundraising success.

Neither, it seems to me, is truly working "for the good of the game," no matter what their intentions.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
I guess I assumed that an ODS and conforming ball list existed to make sure that each competitor in a competition was using a similar golf ball, with the purpose being to maintain physical skill as the deciding factor in the competition.  I know that there have writings about distance-related problems for a long, long time, but I thought the ODS came about when the materials and configurations that balls were made of started to vary widely (e.g., surlyn).  If I'm wrong about that (and it wouldn't be the first time   ) I stand corrected.

[A_Clay_Man]

Daniel, Maybe you will understand this? Your approach, The G.S. model, it's negative, it's contractionary, and, should be fought on all levels of morality. Relative or not. Maybe that's why you have been ignored?

If Merion members want to justify their expense, why not open up the doors to per pay play? They could reap the benfits of the Pebble beach model, and charge ridiculous rent for their property, for just a few hours use. Why, it could even lead to more charity? Not under your scenario though. These fat cats(Merion Members) get to sit back and be all happy and satisfied again, now that their venue is meaningful once again.

Give me a break.

 How many golfers is Merion not meaningful to? 500? 1000? 10,000?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam:

Can you put that into English please?  I have no idea what you're trying to say -- except that the belief in rolling back equipment "should be fought on all levels of morality" ??

[TEPaul]

"As my uncle used to say, "Possible, but definitely not probable."

Daniel:

Uh huh. And as my DI in Parris Island used to say to our platoon, "Probable, but definitely not possible", until one day I pointed out to him that that didn't really make any sense. Do you think he thanked me for pointing that obvious fact out to him? Of course not. He thought about it for a few seconds and then punched me!  

[TEPaul]

"They have scientists and engineers working day and night to figure out a way for you and me to reach 450 yard greens with a driver, knock every approach shot stiff and hole every putt. The logical triumph of the industry is that we will one day achieve Ben Hogan's fantasy: a hole-in-one on all 18 holes. And at that point, you can pull a sheet over the game of golf."

RickS:

That's close but no cigar. The manufacturers aren't stupid and generally they aren't exactly dreamers either like so many of the golf consumers are that they depend on for their Mother's Milk called their bottom line.

What the manufacturers are good at and always have been is perpetuating the MYTH that those things may somehow be possible. A number of people outside the golf manufacturing industry understand it but most inside the golf manufacturing industry understand full well that 98% of what they tell you their products can and will do for you is just good old fashioned horseshit wrapped in pretty packaging.

98% of it is the "Walter Mitty Syndrome". It's the myth and that's exactly what about 98% of it is---a myth.

Of course tour pros and good strong golfers benefit from it but they only constitute about 2% of all golfers.  

At all costs preserve the "Walter Mitty Syndrome"---the MYTH! Bifurcation or no bifurcation, that's what the manfacturers want to do and somehow will continue to do which shouldn't be hard because it's probably true what P.T. Barnum said, "A sucker is born every minute."  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom --

You...you mean...I'll never break 50? Those lying bastards!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()