[A_Clay_Man]

Daniel,

If courses are really becoming obsolete, there will be a need to build new ones?  Won't there?

If there is less need for new courses, the people who build, design, and maintain, them will basically be phased out of a job.

It's contrationary, and a negative response to the set of circumstances put forth.

Now Daniel, I have answered your question.

Could you return the favor?

What was the lesson from the Balloon Ball, and how is this situation different?

[Alfie]

Daniel said ; "the safety/liability issues are too great.  

.....
That's exactly right, Daniel. I wonder what the topics for discussion will be in the next few years time ? Daily Fatalities ?
......

Adam asks - "What was the lesson from the Balloon Ball, and how is this situation different?"

Are you suggesting that exponents of a rollback are proposing the Balloon Ball ? I'm certainly not !
The Balloon Ball was over 70 years back in the technology ladder and obviously had it's failings then, and most definitely would have now. Was golf so hellish in the sixties and seventies ? It wasn't for me.

The situation of the Balloon Ball is in IMO, entirely relevant in an historical lesson, but completely irrelelevent as an option for today's "problem".

Alfie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Especially with GREAT courses, such as Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse, Sand Hills and pacific dunes costing less than 3 million dollars to build.

That's one premise shot.

Adam,

I'm afraid that you're misguided on your point.

The land Rustic Canyon sits remains owned by the county, thus, there were no acquisition costs, and permiting was probably easier, especially at the county level.

With respect to Sand Hills, the course was cheap to build because it's in the middle of nowhere, doesn't have a resident membership and sits on a unique soil profile.

Wild Horse is a municipal golf course, in the middle of nowhere, and land costs were minimal.

As to building new golf courses because the current ones are becoming obsolete, where are you going to build them ?
Hundreds of miles from their membership base ?

Theory is just that, the reality is that golf courses have to be convenient to their membership base, not located a days trip away.

If it weren't for men with a dream, deep pockets and remote, cheap land, Bandon, Sand Hills and others wouldn't exist.
[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

Alfie,  There was no suggestion of the specific Balloon ball, just a corrolation to the argument for a new balls  implementation.

As someone once said to me, You have to put yourself in "their" footsteps when trying to understand the past.

   After the 1930 failed attempt at changing the ball, realistically, who in their right mind would suggest another ball change? Especially in a committee type set-up.The USGA is a committee afterall, aren't they?

An underlying fear of "not screwing up" should to be a prevalent attitude in any serious guardian, of anything. Especially your kid's teachers.

 Blaming the current USGA / R&A board, for the loss of artful masterpieces and the current ball issue, is not logical, prudent or productive. The mistakes (if they were) are in the past and virtually uncorrectable.  Especially uncorrectable in the eyes of a Tom MacWood, because the scapel has already fallen on most of the venues he wants to protect from what is afterall a natural proggression. In my world, he would need to work very hard, earn enough money and buy those places, inorder to have any say at all in what their future would be. But that's just me. Call me crazy, and fooliish.

[ForkaB]

Call me crazy, and fooliish.

Adam

You are crazy and foolish, but we love you!

[Alfie]

Adam said ; "After the 1930 failed attempt at changing the ball, realistically, who in their right mind would suggest another ball change?"
......

I would, but then maybe I'm mad ? Obviously every success story in life is successfull at the very first attempt. I don't think so.
Success in many things over history have been WON through perseverence !

As I said in a previous post / thread - mankind creates many wonderful things and it is our natural progression to tinker and try to improve upon them - we just don't know when to stop and leave well alone before totally buggering everything up. Golf is, I believe, getting past the point of no return.

Alfie

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick,The circumstance surrounding, how, or why, they were able to be built so cheaply, does not remove the fact that they were built cheaply. And are great venues.

 If an inner-city course has no more room to expand, then why are not they the ones to prohibit a full flight ball on their property? Assuming The reduced flight ball would still comply with the rules. No dictation on what other courses should do, that's the individual courses choice.

It's not just the builders, it's poeple like a friend of mine who works inventing new materials. To rollback the ball means a loss of a job for him and essentially removes his opportunity for new discoveries, under the current rules.

Is that really in the spirit of the game?

What if fifty years ago, the USGA / R&A boards were so insightful, that they knew, by ignoring this issue, would allow for the ever increasing expansion of an industry? Do you think the 100's of thousands of people who make a livelihood off of this sport would still be in the business, if they had made golf static, by freezing in time, golf's upward mobility on the worlds stage, as a major sport?  Which is what this rollback will do, in my opinion!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,The circumstance surrounding, how, or why, they were able to be built so cheaply, does not remove the fact that they were built cheaply. And are great venues.

Sure it does, you're talkikng about extreme examples far removed from the mainstream of golf. [/color]

If an inner-city course has no more room to expand, then why are not they the ones to prohibit a full flight ball on their property?

Because they don't have the means to do so.

The USGA determines conforming balls, not individual clubs.
What manufacturer is going to spend millions making a golf ball for one, or a few clubs at the outset ?  Hence, the club's don't have the ability to select a "ball of choice".[/color]

Assuming The reduced flight ball would still comply with the rules. No dictation on what other courses should do, that's the individual courses choice.

What choice ?  
There is no choice because there is no alternative ball available.
Are manufacturers going to spend millions to produce a golf ball that may sell a whopping 300 dozen a year to a club ?

And, how would the USGA handle conforming balls ?

How would the handicap system retain its integrity ?[/color]

It's not just the builders, it's poeple like a friend of mine who works inventing new materials. To rollback the ball means a loss of a job for him and essentially removes his opportunity for new discoveries, under the current rules.

It's not the function or the charter of the USGA to act as advocates for the ball and equipment industry.

And, a rollbacked ball will not mean a loss of jobs, especially if my theory were put into practice.  If the rollback took place over the next 5-10 years, new products would be rolled out and mandated for use for the next 5-10 years, creating more jobs.[/color]

Is that really in the spirit of the game?

YES, it is.

You want to protect the MONEY, not the GAME.

I want to protect the GAME, not the MONEY.[/color]

What if fifty years ago, the USGA / R&A boards were so insightful, that they knew, by ignoring this issue, would allow for the ever increasing expansion of an industry?

That's not the domain, function or charter of the USGA and the R & A.   They are not lobbyists for the manufacturers.

One of the reasons they ask for voluntary contributions is to remain at arms length from the manufacturers.

And, golf would have continued to expand had the USGA more carefully monitored the tech issues.

Golf a few short years ago  isn't remotely like golf in 2005.[/color]

Do you think the 100's of thousands of people who make a livelihood off of this sport would still be in the business, if they had made golf static, by freezing in time, golf's upward mobility on the worlds stage, as a major sport?  

Again, that's not the respsonsibility, function, charter, mandate or purvey of the USGA and R & A.

You keep focusing on the MONEY at the expense of the GAME.

And, yes, I think hundreds of thousands of people would have continued to make a livelihood from the sport had the USGA been watching the store instead of sleeping at the switch.
[/color]

Which is what this rollback will do, in my opinion!
We disagree.

If anything the rollback will create more jobs because new balls and equipment will have to be developed and marketed.

And, again, it's not about the money.
It's about the integrity of the game.
Preserving the challenge such that skill not technology is the primary force in the game.[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

We do disagree. I'm watching some very talented players show skills beyond above average ability. What game are you watching?

[Jim_Kennedy]

But to me, the conceit in memberships/developers/whomever wanting their courses to "measure up" to prevailing standards (however grandiose they may be) is considerably less than that of the fair-to-middling golfer who values his artificial performance enhancement higher than all we've discussed above.- Daniel Wexler

If that were the case very little would ever get built.

[Alfie]

Patrick,
Great post !
You know. I think the argument "has" been won ! Golf needs a process at this stage to invoke discourse and then action. Someone should declare the Silly season over on golfs behalf. It would be great to think that the USGA/R&A had the guts to do the job themselves but that's doubtful considering their past history on the issue, combined with their present strategy ?

I wonder how many GCA's consider the sport to be in great shape ? How many on here would welcome change in the balls conformity ?

The "pro" technology lobby does not stack up. It's totally illogical and senseless, and perhaps - suicidal ? I'd hate to think that such a fate would befall golf for the sake of unknown elements in support of progression, rather than the known properties of preservation !

Alfie.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam:

I'm at work and must do this in about 30 seconds, so...

1) I don't see much connection between rolling back the golf ball and fewer courses being built...unless you're suggesting that fewer people will be playing overall...but that's already happening now.

2) From what I know of it, I see little connection between your ball question and rolling the present ball back along the lines of what Nicklaus advocates.  I've only skimmed the last 10-15 posts but I think Patrick and/or Alfie have summed it up well enough.

3) I have no idea what "contrationary" means so I can't address that part.

[TEPaul]

"It's contrationary, and a negative response to the set of circumstances put forth."

Hey, Adam, maybe you think some of these dudes you're discussing this subject with on here are intellectuals or something, but don't go overboard Pal. Just relax and talk to them normally. I'm trying to read these posts and I'd like to read English if you wouldn't mind.

"Contrationary"?  Come on, not only is that not a word, it doesn't remotely sound like one.  

[A_Clay_Man]

.
sorry typo

CONTRACTIONARY

Pat, The ball manufacturers would have to spend millions tooling up for an inferior ball?

They could easily save that on R&D, since this contractionary highly speculative theory would all but remove any desires to improve the mousetrap.

Here's one:

Watched Greg Norman on a commercial yesterday talk about how buying his (The one he is promoting) driver will increase your (consumers) driving distance.

Wasn't he one of those mentioned who is advocating rollback?

Ok, so I believe we can all stipulate that the advertisers push the lure of greater distances, for the average consumer, even though it's pretty much a given that that is a falsehood. Lowering their score is also a red herring, isn't it?

 Given that, the advertisers are usually some of the more savvy minds in the world, and they are selling added distance. If the thrill of hitting a longer ball is inherent in the consumers acceptance of the sport, playing more rounds, why is it unreasonable to assume that once that lure of longer distances is removed,(post rollback) they will come back to the golf course?

Wait, I know, the lower green fees that will accompany an ever shrinking market, due to a lack of new participants and an over-supply of venues.

CONTRACTION

And,  the use of laser randefinders seems like more of afront to the GAME. Having Jack and Arnie endorse them, limits their credibility on any issue surrounding the future of golf, or what is good for the game. IMO

What king will they do their bidding for next?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, The ball manufacturers would have to spend millions tooling up for an inferior ball?

First, it's not inferior, it's just designed with certain specs that govern performance, secondly, they'll sell millions of dozens of the new dialed back balls[/color]

They could easily save that on R&D, since this contractionary highly speculative theory would all but remove any desires to improve the mousetrap.

I doubt they're spending that on R&D.
And, I'm sure that they'll come up with marketing differentials that will make you want to buy their ball, just liike Greg Norman is touting his driver[/color]

Watched Greg Norman on a commercial yesterday talk about how buying his (The one he is promoting) driver will increase your (consumers) driving distance.

Wasn't he one of those mentioned who is advocating rollback?

Ok, so I believe we can all stipulate that the advertisers push the lure of greater distances, for the average consumer, even though it's pretty much a given that that is a falsehood. Lowering their score is also a red herring, isn't it?

Given that, the advertisers are usually some of the more savvy minds in the world, and they are selling added distance. If the thrill of hitting a longer ball is inherent in the consumers acceptance of the sport, playing more rounds, why is it unreasonable to assume that once that lure of longer distances is removed,(post rollback) they will come back to the golf course?

Because NOW, when distance is at it's all time longest, golf is shrinking, losing substantive numbers of its participants.

40 and 50 years ago when there was no substantive jump in distance, golf was getting more and more popular.

The LURE was there without the ball going incredible distances, and straight.  Distance isn't the inherent lure of the game as you claim.[/color]

Wait, I know, the lower green fees that will accompany an ever shrinking market, due to a lack of new participants and an over-supply of venues.

Your theory is all wet.   The market is already shrinking and distance is at an all time high.

Green fees are also at their highest.

You continue to define the issue as a money and market issue, missing the point that the issue is the inherent challenge of the game, and when that challenge is diminished, the lure diminishes.

It's the inherent values of the game that must be returned and preserved.  Skill not technology should be the primary factor in the play of the game.  If everyone can "buy" a game, what's the attraction.

What you also forget is that the ball is already regulated.
Increasing spin rates and dialing back overall performance are in the games best interest.

A juiced baseball and aluminum or titanium bats would make the ball go further, but ruin the sport.  Baseball recognizes that the ball and equipment must be regulated, Golf doesn't and it's time it did.[/color]

CONTRACTION

And,  the use of laser randefinders seems like more of afront to the GAME. Having Jack and Arnie endorse them, limits their credibility on any issue surrounding the future of golf, or what is good for the game. IMO

That's a seperate issue, but clear evidence that MONEY interests don't seek to protect the game, and that's what the USGA must do.

Jack and Arnie, men who were highly respected in golf, have become shills for the manufacturers and have placed self interest above protecting the game.

And that's why you can't view the issue in the context of MONEY.   You have to view it in what's best for the game, not someone's wallet.[/color]

What king will they do their bidding for next?

[TEPaul]

Oh, CONTRACTIONARY!

I should've been able to see that. I thought you were trying to call Pat a devil's advocate because he's so contrary all the time.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Only when I want to be.

[Craig Sweet]

I read that the Indy Car race series does not have the high caliber of drivers anymore, and it sounded as if it was because of regulations to slow the cars down....

I will toss this into the mix....what if the ball gets regulated for tour players and a bunch of pro's....led by Tiger and Vijay, say screw it...we're starting our own tour and we'll use whatever ball WE WANT, not this stripped down rock....oh boy!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I read that the Indy Car race series does not have the high caliber of drivers anymore, and it sounded as if it was because of regulations to slow the cars down....
Are they slowing down the cars or making "performance" uniform so that driving skills, not technology win races ?[/color]

I will toss this into the mix....what if the ball gets regulated for tour players and a bunch of pro's....led by Tiger and Vijay, say screw it...we're starting our own tour and we'll use whatever ball WE WANT, not this stripped down rock....oh boy!

The answer is simple, chaos would reign and their effort would crumble, as would interest in a game without regulation.

The GAME existed and prospered long before both were born.
The game has existed for CENTURIES.
You and many others fail to understand that it's the game itself, and not the individual performers, that make it attractive.

If tomorrow, Tiger Woods met a fate siimilar to Tony Lema's, the game would go on, just as it did when Payne Stewart perished.  

It is the game that must be protected, not the whims of the performers who are paid to indulge those whims.[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat, Do you have proof of what you contend as the reason for the most recent shrinkage?  

My opinion is that poor designs are at the root of why there is a shrinkage. Nothing whatsoever to do with the added distance, alleged ego boosting equiptment provides.  Add to that, the self-serving advice of NGF, back in the mid-80's, that golf needed substantially more courses to be built inorder to keep pace with demand. And Voilla, most of the subsequent modern courses that were designed and built, lacked any semblence of quality, or inspirational gc design. Throw in standardized maintenance and what you have left is a bunch of bored retirees, riding in carts, playing courses which reveal their secrets after one round. Making all subsequent rounds fairly mundain.

THANK GOD Bill, Ben and Tom Doak came along to rock the establishments boat. The return to a more natural design concept and maintenance practices should win out, over the uninspired designs of the recent past. That is at the heart of  why I feel strongly that this issue is best solved through the mind of the architect. Even if that solution is to build par 68 courses.  Such as Paul Cowley's great idea. As long as they are inspired designs, and, respect the craddle, real golfers will always comeback, round after round. Whether the pros play there or not.

[TEPaul]

To say the least, the articles in the latest USGA Newsletter on the history, science, philosophy, politics etc of the distance issue which first hit golf big-time just over 100 years ago are really interesting. They also appear to me to be very even-handed, historically accurate and interesting, and all of them seem to be by Gary Galyean.

The decision making between the USGA and R&A from 1928-1932 with the question and onset of the floater or balloon ball is interesting too. Just as with the COR issue relatively recently the R&A demurred on limiting distance by refusing to endorse the floater or Balloon ball. And then, it appears the golfing public was predominantly against it.

There were a number of significant voices that called for limiting the distance of the ball during the Haskell era just as there are significant voices calling for the limiting of the distance of the ball today.

This time, at this point, in any case, the USGA/R&A seems to be saying they believe the ball will not go "siginificantly" farther in the future because this time (2002-2005) they know so much more about the potential technologies of the golf ball than they ever have before (seems as if they may've said that in the past too, unfortunately).

It seems like this time they're claiming their testing ability, or their ability to stay so much farther ahead of the curve of what might be coming down the pipeline at them, will allow them to rule on I&B so much quicker. I guess by this they're implying it will be so much less likely that I&B will get by them in the future as it apparently has in the recent past.

But this time the "Joint Statement of Principles" (2002) says  they very likely will write additional rules or alter the present ones if the ball goes "significantly" farther for any reason in the future.

The OBVIOUS question, however, is what do they mean by "SIGNIFIICANTLY"? To date they have not said or even implied what that might be.  

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, what has happened with IRL is the equivilant of Hootie declaring that from now on at his tournament golfers would play with a tuned down club and ball...in auto racing the makers of engines,cars and tires, etc...said screw that...the costs to radically modify their cars was too great....however, over time they have to some extent done that...of course by then the fan base was terribly split, revenue was down for both CART and IRL, and a raging debate is on going....initially IRL did not have the best drivers, and they still don't attract the best, especially to their major event the INdy 500....

I think what has happened in other sports when equipment changes have occured is worth paying attention to. Auto racing has a long and well documented history...they have their Augusta's and Merions...they have their Hogans and Nicklauses....but what they did 10 years ago is still reverberating thru their sport...

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, Is that within the rules? Copying and pasting previous posts, just so it will be harder for Huckaby to catch you?

Pat, The only game I know of is Tournament golf. The game mind and analogies to other games is irrelevant and proves nothing.

Also, I don't know of a better way to judge results than by using Money as the stick.

In the 12 years that has past since Ron Prichard's letter, the tour money has grown exponentially. Given that, how is anyones argument that the sport is ruined , to be considered seriously?

[TEPaul]

Another point about the recent USGA Newsletter which is pretty much entirely about the distance issue both historically, scientifically, politically and philosophically, is that it asks the question a number of time that if a rollback was enacted what would they rollback to?

This question is asked in the October issue of the USGA Newsletter. On the other hand, just last Sunday at the Lesley Cup 85 of us listened to Dick Rugge (Senior Director of the USGA Tech Center) state that the USGA is happy with where distance is now and that the goal is to control it where it is now (but with this caveat that it should not increase "significantly" from here).

On the other hand, the USGA said approximately six months ago by public letter that they are seriously looking at two technical areas of I&B----first what they refer to as "spin generation" (the ball) and second MOI (the golf club).

That letter and the recent Newletter implies they are looking at those two areas perhaps with an eye to adding regulations to those two areas.

I'm quite certain that the USGA/R&A has never regulated "spin rate" ("spin generation"?) in any way in the past or presently. But let's say this is an indication of what the USGA/R&A is going to do in the future (otherwise why did they make that letter public?).

The question then becomes at what rate would they regulate spin? Would it be at the rate that balls like the PROV are presently at, or perhaps something that might be at a higher spin rate than balls like PROVs have now?

It may also be their intended scenario to get the manufacturers to agree to this and bring compliance to the new rule in around 2010 or something like that which has been their lead-in time frame for compliance to new I&B rules and regs in the past.

And if all this was agreed to "under the radar screen" we very well may have an effective distance rollback for particularly the long hitter contingent in our future.

In essence it could be sort of a reversal of the technical scenario that effected this distance spike in the first place beginning perhaps 15 or so years ago. Very few seem to be aware how that distance spike technically happened (the technology that created it) and very few may be aware in the future how it was technically removed.

It would not surprise me at all if this is what the USGA/R&A is presently considering trying to do. But the key would be the technical reasons for an effective reduction would fly under the radar screen about the same way the technical reasons for the distance spike did in the last number of years. If this really is what they may be trying to do and they pull it off, I'd say it's a pretty clever move!  

At the very least, I'd think it would a whole lot easier for the manufacturers to agree to this type of "under the radar" scenario than if this whole distance issue and the technical reasons for the spike and a possible reduction were made completely public. It would basically allow the manufacturers to preserve and perpetuate their old "myth" about what their balls and implements can do for you distance-wise.  

[Joe Hancock]

I'm not sure comparing the IRL and golf...at any level...has any merit. Golf doesn't need Hans devices and crumple zones and shock absorbing walls for safety....the IRL regulates not only for good competition, but safety as well. Golf isn't a life and death situation with every trip out on the course.

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()