[TEPaul]

AG:

Competitive golf does depend on conformance to I&B rules and regulations of which the ODS is a part. But other things such as the entire structure and philosophy of equitable handicapping also depends on I&B conformance of which ODS is a part.

And then there have always been many others who have depended on the idea of some sort of distance limitations in golf for a whole variety of other and very different reasons.

Not all support distance control, however. I heard it told the other day that the Pella Window Company has told the major golf equipment and ball manufacturers that if they would  start manufacturing nonconforming equipment in contravention of the USGA/R&A I&B rules and regs they will  buy stock liberally in those major golf manufacturing companies.

[A_Clay_Man]

Daniel, Mostly, I was responding to this..

 

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!!

Tounge-in-cheek, too.


There's a flaw in the premise.

Golf is not Tennis

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam:

By the way, when Geoff and I (and others) first started writing on this subject five to ten years ago, very few people were paying much attention.  Since that time players like Nicklaus, Els, Faldo, etc. etc. have come to address it, as has Tim Finchem and, quite eloquently, Deane Beaman.  Architects now discuss it routinely and, as some here have correctly pointed out, the USGA feels a need to make (even more) eloquent statements and, according to some, to actually begin addressing it.

Do I/we take credit for all of this?  Not by a long shot.  (I tend to think common sense plays a much larger roll).

But to suggest that we are being "ignored" is completely out of touch with reality.

[A_Clay_Man]

Do I/we take credit for all of this?  Not by a long shot.

And when YOUR solution is adopted, and golf fails, we won't blame you either. Or should we?


On a day, when a 15 year old girl turns pro, and the prospects for her career earnings could reach the Billion $ mark, you and others are going to convince the majority, that golf is being ruined?

Sie geh gesund!

[Daniel_Wexler]

"On a day, when a 15 year old girl turns pro, and the prospects for her career earnings could reach the Billion $ mark, you and others are going to convince the majority, that golf is being ruined?"

This is relevant...how?  Because if the equipment gets dialed back 10%, girls like her won't play the game?  Won't have extreme talent?  Won't get paid A LOT for their skills?  What on earth does this have to do with the USGA rolling back equipment?

[Craig Sweet]

daniel, you're still advocating for an equipment roll back?

I assume you mean course maintinance equipment as well as club and ball?

[Daniel_Wexler]

"daniel, you're still advocating for an equipment roll back?"

Nope, you've convinced me.  By adding 10-15 yards and having my mis-hits fly straighter, I'll feel much better about things...because it's all about MY GAME.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

When 9-irons are hit 180 yards on the fly, maintainance conditions have no relevance.

When drives carry 300+ yards, maintainance conditions are immaterial.

It's the ball and implements that are producing prodigious distances, not maintainance practices.

Or, do you think John Daly was hitting a ball across Niagara Falls with some help from firm and fast fairway conditions ?

[Craig Sweet]

Yes it is. I don't know about you, but I play golf for MY enjoyment, not yours, nor that of your friend.

Back to the equipment roll back. You're looking for 10%? What does that translate into yards on a drive?  And is that 10% roll back across the board for ALL level of golfer?

I'm just curious, because I'm pretty sure if we start mowing fairways back at .75, and maybe watering them a little, we can get this "roll back" to 20-25%....of course selling the idea of longer fairway grass and some irrigation to the membership at some clubs might be more difficult than getting the USGA to "roll back" the equipment.  But hey, I have an idea!!! The USGA could STOP being hypocites about "speed"...heck, they are constantly  reminding us that these low mowing heights will kill our greens, and fairways, invite poa, and cause all sorts of nasty problems...but MAYBE they could set the example by first appologizing for Shinnicock and other sins of excessive speed, and then set up the 2006 Open with .75 fairways, and greens that stimp at 9.5!!!!

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, who the heck is hitting 180 yard 9 irons and carrying the ball 300 yards off the tee?  I saw NO ONE at the Montana Open doing that....even at 3500ft elevation.

By the way, how far would Jack or Arnie had hit the ball in their prime, given today's fairway mowing heights?

[A.G._Crockett]

Craig Sweet,

When 9-irons are hit 180 yards on the fly, maintainance conditions have no relevance.

When drives carry 300+ yards, maintainance conditions are immaterial.

It's the ball and implements that are producing prodigious distances, not maintainance practices.

Or, do you think John Daly was hitting a ball across Niagara Falls with some help from firm and fast fairway conditions ?

Patrick,
There is at least SOME relevance.  A modern 8 iron is roughly equivalent to a 6 iron of 25 yrs. ago, and 180 doesn't seem outrageous for a 6 iron, even then.  Daly's drives did NOT carry the Falls.  The 300 yd. drives I'll grant you, but at least a LITTLE BIT of that might be maintenance, no?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

How can you state that a modern 8 iron is equivalent to a 6 iron from 1980 ?

Craig Sweet,

I agree that lower cuts will produce more distance, but only if the ground is firm and fast, which, is the opposite way that golf courses have trended when it comes to condtioning over the last 50 years.

Unfortunately, the, green is beautiful syndrome is fairly well established and it's a difficult task to reverse it.

Wall to wall irrigation systems with 1800 to 2400+ heads have almost guaranteed that brownish-yellowish-greenish conditions are a thing of the past.

The great majority of golfers, club members, want lush, emerald green fairways, roughs and greens, and that trend doesn't lend itself to enhancing distance, especially in the spring and summer.

It seems like the only time fast and firm conditions are prevalent is in the fall, in the afternoon.

I also don't think that Superintendents are willing to take the risk, over a few seasons, to reduce to a minimum, watering their golf course to the minimum necessary to produce firm and fast conditions.  It's a dicey proposition.   And, even if the superintendent has the support of the President and Board today, just wait two years until a new group rotates into power.   It's a very difficult dilema, and it's not made any easier when golfers, members and those in power see those green, manicured golf courses when they watch the PGA Tour on TV.

The USGA's turf advisory service can only do so much to encourage clubs to turn off the water.

And, ask yourself this.

Who gets greater exposure with the membership:

1.     The golf courses on the PGA Tour
2.     The USGA turf advisory service and staff

This is one of the reasons that I was hoping that the Walker Cup would be awarded to NGLA rather than Merion.

Merion already received exposure vis a vis the US Amateur.

The Walker Cup at a treeless, fast and firm NGLA would have been good for golf.

Oh well, perhaps it will happen in the next 6-8 years

[A_Clay_Man]

Mr. Wexler, I don't know how, or what you use, to base or make decisions on, but certaintly, the PGA TOUR's money list's exponential growth (in these same ten years that you've been advocating for a rollback) is proof enough of golf's success. Michelle Wie's decision to turn pro is based on that success, that is how it is relevant.

Plus, 10% ? is that all you want? Bullshit. It won't be enough to make all those venues relavent again.

Build a new! Make the big world bigger.

Or, hows this for a better solution for the venues in worry?

Have their own damn ball. The Merion Ball, The Augusta nat'l Ball, The Oakmont Ball. Why the ball manufactureres will have many new customers?

Better yet, Each player has his own ball. It's a reverse function of their handicap. The lower the handicap goes the shorter the ball goes.

[A.G._Crockett]

Craig,

How can you state that a modern 8 iron is equivalent to a 6 iron from 1980 ?

I wrote that, not Craig Sweet.  I wouldn't guarantee 1980, but its common knowledge that most irons have been delofted by about 2 clubs over the last couple of decades.  That has created not only the need for the gap wedge, but brought hybrids to the fore at the low end of iron sets due to the extremely low lofts of modern 1, 2, and 3 irons.

I don't mean this to be interpreted that the ball is NOT going too far, but if it is, the distance that irons go now is difficult to assess as evidence because of the delofting.

[Rick Shefchik]

Isn't the PGA Tour seriously contemplating cutting its season back by 5 to 10 events? That, to me, is a significant indication that something isn't working in pro golf.

It would be fair to say that lesser tournaments suffer when Tiger and Phil don't play, but the Tour schedule swelled to its present size before those guys came along.

More to the point, the game should be interesting enough on its own merits to attract customers when the game's top two or three players take a week off. Michelle Wie has a lot of game and is fun to watch, but her current success is an indication that, at the top level, the game is becoming increasingly about stars, and less about the game itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

You're right, my appologies to Craig Sweet.

My Ping Eye 2 irons are from 1985.
So you're saying that if I get a new set of Ping I-5 irons, I'll hit my new 8-iron as far as my old 6-iron ?

Why do I seriously doubt that ?

Based on your contention, I'll order a new set of Ping I-5's with, as it turns out, the same specs as my old Eye 2's.

How delighted I'll be if I can now hit my new 8-iron 160 yards as you promise.  I will post the results in November or sooner, when I get a chance to play with them.

If you're wrong and I don't pick up two club lengths, where can I send you the bill ?

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

You are a bit mistaken on the first part of your post when you opine that "something isn't working in pro golf."

The Tour is rearranging the deck chairs (tournament schedule) for two main reasons ...

1). The conflict with the NFL fall schedule and its direct tie to the new TV contract that is being negotiated as we speak. Golf cannot attain prime viewing spots save for the President's Cup and Ryder Cup Matches -- the NFL viewership dwarfs golf.

2). The limited number of corporate sponsors who can afford to remain in the game. Finchem had a flush hand the last time the TV contracts were agreed -- this time it's a different game.

One last thing -- the top players will only play so many times and as "independent contractors" are not going to play at venues that they have had limited contact with over the years. The only way to do that is to pay them to show up at such places like Milwaukee, Tucson, etc, etc. That is not likely to happen anytime soon given the Tour's non-starter on that issue.

Rick -- one last thing -- the stars in any sport is what drives the interest of the masses. Without stars -- the viewership and ergo the sponsorship simply dries up.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam:

I think I'm about done here (as if there's anything new to cover at this point anyway) because for third time on the thread, I have no idea what you're trying to say.  The subject, at least for several pages now, has been the USGA's control (or lack thereof) of modern equipment...and you're talking about the PGA Tour money list?

Are you suggesting that the Tour's massive purse growth has somehow come about BECAUSE of modern equipment?  If that's your point, hey, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  But you might first want to consider that both the present PGA Tour Commisioner and his predecessor (in a HUGE way - just ask Fred Ridley) stand 180 degrees opposite to that point of view.

And if you're not suggesting that the Tour's $$$ has come about because of modern equipment....then what the heck are you trying to say??  That the top pros play for really huge money, therefore even though both this Commisioner and his predecessor think the equipment is hurting the Tour, they're wrong and it's really a good thing?

Tim Finchem and Deane Beman have done, by most reasonable definitions, a really fine job of building the Tour into the giant that it is.  Tiger Woods obviously was a godsend.  How any of that relates to the USGA's not regulating equipment is beyond me.

I also wouldn't hold the Tour up too high in this discussion because they happen to be in pretty rocky waters at the moment anyway.  Finchem did a splendid job just to find enough sponsorship not to lose any events in '05 and as everyone around the issue is well aware, they are not holding a particularly strong hand in the ongoing TV negotiations.

I agree this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.  I'm still trying to understand why you brought it up....


Craig:

I'll be the first to admit that it might be an incidental example but I was standing next to the Shotlink guy on the 18th at Riviera two LA Opens ago when, in heavy, late-afternoon air, driving to a fairway that is elevated roughly 50 feet above the tee, Tiger CARRIED his tee shot 299 yards.  And he was NOT the longest drive of the day there.

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel, Tiger carried it 299 yards? Well, darn, I guess you're right something HAS to be done about these long drives!

On the other hand, I spent all day out aerating fairways today and I didn't see a single carry over 240 yards...well, I did see a young stud bang one close to 300 yards on our 585 yard 4th hole...but he was the exception. He still hit a fairway wood into the green.

[Rick Shefchik]

Matt --

1.) Why wasn't that true 15 or 20 years ago? And,

2.) ditto

As to your last point, sure, sports have always been about stars. But sports create stars. The leading money winner is going to be a star, no matter who he (or she) is. It just seems to me that golf is throwing more and more money at fewer and fewer players, which indicates to me that they haven't got a whole lot of confidence in the basic appeal of today's pro game.

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

Tiger's coming onto the scene gave Finchem incredible leverage when the last TV contract came into existence -- it was finalized, I believe, right after the '97 Masters.

The development of the Fall circuit of events has only blossomed recently on network television. 15-20 years ago the TV time related to golf really went into hibernation -- save for the Skins Game which for a time was the only real golf exposure in the Fall. The ratings for Fall golf have not been good at all.

In fact, The Tour Championship is only a recent development and clearly it suffers when buried alongside what's happening with the NFL season. Hence the desire by the Tour to move it away from that clutter and likely have it played in early September at the latest.

Time keeps me from answering the rest of your reply right now.

[TEPaul]

"The USGA's turf advisory service can only do so much to encourage clubs to turn off the water.
And, ask yourself this.
Who gets greater exposure with the membership:
1. The golf courses on the PGA Tour
2. The USGA turf advisory service and staff

Patrick:

You make some good points in that post. I would say the golf courses of the PGA Tour get much greater exposure with club memberships across America but perhaps you have not noticed the roll-out that's getting relatively standard on tour pro drives each week. I've been watching it very carefully for the last few years. To see the tour pros get 20-30-40 or even 50 or more yards is not in the slightest bit unusual each week. If the weekly TOUR stop courses get the weather to cooperate you very rarely see balls not rolling out in tour stop fairways.

What I'm saying is if the USGA really wants to get on board with promoting drying out and firming up golf courses they can certainly get the PGA to go along with helping to promote it because it certainly is happening on the PGA TOUR.

[A_Clay_Man]

Daniel -

I dont have a dog in this hunt. But what I do recognize is how those who argue on the rollback side, somehow always cloud the lines of logic by blaming the usga for how far the pros hit it. It does not compute, but keep trying. It sure worked for Hitler.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Yes, highly analogous!  

I'll just let that stroke of genius speak for itself.

[Alfie]

Daniel,

Marvellous comments. Sense and sensibility !
.....

Adam,

You make a great argument for Women's golf and their growing success. I've always seen the ladies game - as a rolled back version of the gents game, distance wise ! Strange how they hit shorter distances from shorter tees and are reaping rewards for being rolled back golfers ?

Also noticed your mention of the failed hickory project at Arbory - so I'll answer (belatedly), as only I can, but briefly as it's late here.

I tout the hickory concept because it is / was the living "proof" that the rollback of THE BALL does work with all golfers of all abilities. Hackers enjoyed the experience while the more talented and able found it amazing (their words, not mine, but they may have all been liars ?)
No one ever left Arbory Braes with their sky falling down on them ! Men, women, CHILDREN ! Contrary, they left enlightened by a simple experience of taking a step back in the golfing timeline. Not only had they taken a "massive " leap back in ball technology, but also in equipment technology.
Now. It was made explicitly and "intentionally" clear to each and every one of them that I was NOT asking the world of golf to step back one hundred years, but MERELY to take THE BALL back to (IMO) the technology conformation rules and distance averages of around the sixties / seventies.
To add to this, they also had to contend with a rolled back golf course which was rugged and scared most of them shitless as they first cast their eyes on the ground. And you know what - they had the time of their lives ! Their words, not mine, but they could have been lying ?
This is why I make a big deal of Arbory in connection with a proposed roll back of the ball. You see, Adam. I was there, and so were all those visitors to Hickory Golf circa 1892. All that was missing was a visit from Old Tom or Willie Fernie, but they were both unavailable ! I truly think you would have loved it too.

Failure ? Financially yes, but in every other aspect, a definite NO. I got a bum steer with Foot and Mouth disease and the 'so called' enterprise people who couldn't have shot themselves in the foot without missing ! Many of them were failed business people empowered with the funding pot ? I got zilch for my TRY for Scottish golf tourism ! £5,000 would have kept it going and I was personally in enough trouble as it was - so I reluctantly pulled the plug. I'm still paying for the project and not a single penny was lost by any other individual but myself / family. That's life, Adam, as we've spoke about before. Shit happens, and I took it fairly (unfairly) on the chin. But I've lived my dream and learned much from it, unlike the so many in this world who adopt the can't do - won't do - mustn't do attitude.

In my book, there's no such word as - can't ! And a simple little ball CAN be rolled back IM- somewhat experienced- O ?

Anyway Adam, and anyone else who reads this, that's the highly abbreviated version of the real -  Field of Dreams.

And if Daniel Wexler is a Cafflik, I hope he becomes the next Pope.
......

For the good of the "sport"

Alfie

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()