Ted,
Then stop watching!  When enough people do that, the Tour will take action.

I'm the last person in the world who is going to stop watching. So I guess in your mind you simply have to love it or leave it . . .seems a little silly to me. Why can't I love it and at the same time discuss ways to help preserve aspects of the game which are being lost at the highest level?

-Ted

Quote from: Ted Kramer on November 29, 2004, 01:57:13 PM

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on November 29, 2004, 01:43:58 PM

Ted,
Then stop watching!  When enough people do that, the Tour will take action.

I'm the last person in the world who is going to stop watching. So I guess in your mind you simply have to love it or leave it . . .seems a little silly to me. Why can't I love it and at the same time discuss ways to help preserve aspects of the game which are being lost at the highest level?

-Ted

Ted,
Of course we can discuss it, but the Tour is all and only about money, not about protecting the game.  If you want to motivate the Tour, you can only hurt them where they live, and they don't live in the same world as the golf purists on this site.  If you continue to support the Tour with $, then don't be upset when they do NOTHING to change their product.

I would assume that Palmer was talking about the Tour only, and not the USGA, though I haven't read the comments.

Certainly a fair point.
-Ted

mike beene,

I hear this argument about limiting wedge lofts from time to time, but I don't get it.  How does that fix the problem with hitting a wedge into a 470 yard hole?  And if Seve can play a 3i out of a TOC pot bunker, and I can certainly use my 49.5* PW with an open face as a lob wedge if I have to, how does that help?  I could see players carrying a second 50* club with negative bounce making it dead easy to play wide open and get back the lob wedge.  I don't think that the lob wedge is a major problem in today's game -- even if you outlawed it and kept players from "cheating" like I described above, I don't think it would make much difference.  You need to give some pretty good arguments to convince me and probably most others reading this to go along with your argument, or even to see its logic.

The lob wedge was a reaction to modern courses with tight pins, deep rough and soft conditions that prevent a ground game, it has nothing to do with technology changing the game.  Same argument for those who think the SW should be outlawed.  I'm pretty good out of bunkers using my PW as a SW when I'm just screwing around.  You could probably take it away from me for a season and I'd hardly miss it except for the 3/4 shots from the 100y mark I'm halfway decent at with it.  But less proficient bunker players (i.e. definitely NOT pros) might be hurt by such a rule change.


Brent,

Higher handicappers wouldn't be hurt much by cutting back on the ball.  A guy who hits it 300 yards loses 30 if it is cut by 10%.  A guy who hits it 200 only loses 20.

I'm not 100% convinced it is true that Pro V1 and V1x are nonlinear in respect to distance gains at higher swingspeeds -- I keep hearing both sides argued so I'm keeping my mind open on this.  It is entirely possible it is just a matter of shorter hitters not getting the optimal launch angle to take advantage of them, especially given that the shorter you hit, the higher your launch angle, but you don't see many 200 yard hitters with the 16* degree drivers they probably need for an optimal launch.

But assuming there is some nonlinearity now, then it should be possible for ball makers to do the opposite, and make balls that are nonlinear in the other direction.  If today you had 80 mph = 180 carry, 100 mph = 230 carry, 120 mph = 290 carry, 140 mph = 360 carry, you could make some new distance standards that said there's no distance limit at 100 mph and less, the limit at 120 mph was 270, the limit at 140 was 320, etc. under several sets of spin rates, launch angles, etc. and let the ball makers apply their expertise to making hot balls that are somehow limited at higher swing speeds to stay legal there while still going as far or further than today for shorter hitters.  I could see some people complaining that it reduces the advantage for longer hitters, but they'd still have an advantage.  I'm certainly longer than most, but I have no problem with that.  Perhaps that'd be a fair price to pay in exchange for designers not pinching every fairway at the 300 mark to combat the ridiculous distances of today's ball.

I'd rather see today's golfers smoke and drink more, maybe party all night like Ray Floyd. That should lower distances. And cut the purses.
I still haven't forgiven Arnie, Jack and Gary for screwing up Tiger and taking away the magic.  

Stop building long straight courses and bend a few more holes.

I bet if you maintained a tournament course like they did 30 years ago...longer fairway grass, longer greens grass, no firm and fast...scores and distance would change quite a bit.

AG

I, like almost all of the members of this board, am one of those lesser players, and I'm not that comfortable with a game where courses need to be 7200 yards+ to make even mortals like me play more than driver/short iron to most holes (when I'm on my game, which is rare, of course....).

Most of our best courses are designed to play at 6400-6800 yards, and most of them are unidimensional (in terms of shot selection-- i.e. whack it and fly it) these days.  This is not good, IMHO.

There needs to be a rollback, not an attempt to keep the status quo.

Interestingly, a speaker, I forget who it was, spoke at a GCSAA meeting, and he had the data to show that the average tour player drive had not increased *that much* over the last 20 years.

His point was maintinence conditions had changed.

AG

I, like almost all of the members of this board, am one of those lesser players, and I'm not that comfortable with a game where courses need to be 7200 yards+ to make even mortals like me play more than driver/short iron to most holes (when I'm on my game, which is rare, of course....).

Most of our best courses are designed to play at 6400-6800 yards, and most of them are unidimensional (in terms of shot selection-- i.e. whack it and fly it) these days.  This is not good, IMHO.

There needs to be a rollback, not an attempt to keep the status quo.

Rich,
I am a 7 handicap, with no interest in playing a 7200 yd. course.  In fact, anything much over 6600 yds. or so becomes more difficult than fun.  I am of at least average length off the tee.  If you are playing with lots of "lesser players" who need 7200 yd. courses to force them to hit their long irons and fairway woods, then you guys must be the worst wedge players and chippers and putters on earth to be able to hit it that far and still be "lesser players"!
Thanks, but I'll take the status quo.  If there is a rollback necessary, let the Tour get it's own house in order!

I have to fully endorse the thread from Jamie, it is as much the golf course as the ball.

Whist I agree that we shouldnt worry about the 1%, the way courses are set up, has a huge bearing on performance.
Phil Michelsen's 59 with 5 fairways is ridiculous, hoever look at the stats for this year on tour.
None of the top 5 money winners were in teh top 130 on the driving accuracy list..tell me that is not a problem !!
Even in amteur golf I am seeing the same kind of thing, not at a course like Merion, but in state ams that are played on more"modern" courses.
These college kids are hitting it 45/50 passed me and even if they are off the fairway they only have a short club to the green...6 iron from the fairway versus wedge fron the "rough" guess who wins most of the time?

I am lucky to be involved with Nike research, and there is no doubt that ball technology only truly kicks in at clubhead speeds in excess of what most of us can achieve.
My clubhead speed in the low 100's is insufficient to gain the benefit , but crank that up to 120...and bingo the increase in yardage is exponential.

These balls conform at USGA testing speeds, but do not at the speeds that moders swing can generate..so what do you do?
Ban those guys with efficient golf swings? obviously not, but the USGA can step in and raise the testing speed so that we are all playing on a level playing field.

Will they do that?
Certain people inside the ball making indusrty suggest not as long as Titleist dominate the market..and support the USGA at the same time...much in the same way that some agronomists believe the USGA " spec" greens and course upkeep recomendations are realted to the vast support certain fertilizer companies give the USGA[I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT AGRONOMY TO COMMENT}

I think most of will agree that we hit the current balls starighter than those of 10 years ago, but I for one have not experienced that extra 20 yards the likes of tour players talk about.
As such, I think the problem is not the ball itself, but the way it needs to be tested..make it conform at all clubhead speeds.
One company I know for sure is willing to comply

Rich,

If these guys really drive it 50 yards longer than a single-digit handicapper with decent length then they ought to be hitting wedge into every green. It appears that many developers have the goal of making someone who can carry the ball 300 yards in the air hit long iron approaches. If so, they'll just have to allocate their resources toward 7,600 yards courses.

However, that is not a particularly rational requirement. What I can't understand is the push to change the equipment used by the other 99% of golfers in order to let someone get by with building a shorter course while still forcing the long hitters to play a throwback game. Making an enormously strong and talented player hit long iron approaches frequently requires a lot of land, BFD.

Brent -

You have just made the case for rules bifurcation. (Quite eloquently too, I might add.)

The game has been bifurcated for about a decade. It's time the rules caught up.

Bob

Bob,
Whose rules?  The Tour, or the USGA/R&A?  If the USGA/R&A, when and by whom would the shorter ball be used?  If the Tour, then it is their problem!  If it is the USGA/R&A, then it becomes a problem for us all.

Bob,

I think what I'd prefer to see is almost too mild to be called "bifurcation". A single condition of competition that allows only a subset of the golf balls on the conforming list to be used would do it.

As a thought experiment, imagine the USGA conforming balls list with every ball introduced since 1986 or so removed. The Tour players (and potentially competitors in certain big-time amateur events) would form a market for throwback wound golf balls with soft covers to be used at their level of competition. In reality, it would probably be a totally separate list but that hardly rises to the level of a fundamental bifurcation of the game.

[EDIT] And BTW, a young power-game player at the big-time college or national amateur competition level would still drive a Titleist Tour Balata 30-40 past most of us and would still bomb away right over most features of many classic courses, once they had time to optimize their swing and equipment.

The argument for bifurcation is a specious one, IMHO.  What exactly is solved by that, other than making the PGA more interesting to watch?  I'm baffled by people who don't think it is a problem that distance increases are obsoleting courses and have completely changed the game.  I think it has become too convenient of an argument to claim that all the distance benefits from new equipment have gone to longer hitters so that shorter hitters who also benefitted can continue to fool themselves into thinking they've always been hitting 8i into that 400 yard finishing hole at their home course.

Now I'm sure some of them either didn't play 20 years ago or that 20 years has taken them from their prime to shall we say sub-prime due to the simple ravages of time or poor health choices catching up with them or whatever.  But if someone went from say 40 years old to 60, or 50 to 70, and were still hitting it the same distance, they might want to think about whether that's because they are such a perfect physical specimen or because nature's been getting some help.

Now personally I'm 38, so 20 years ago I was 18.  I swing much less aggressively now than I did then, but I'm longer than I was then.  I'm certainly not in better shape, as though I'm in pretty good shape for 38, I was definitely in better shape at 18.  And since I've never had a lesson, it seems unlikely that my self-taught golf swing has magically improved (unfortunately, the reverse is more likely true)  So I really can't claim that me hitting futher today has anything to do with anything other than the equipment!

Back when I was 18, a 7000 yard course seemed really damn long.  A 450 yard par 4 was a brute, something I'd think I'll probably need a 5i approach if hit a good drive, only rarely less if I pure it or have help from the wind or firm ground.  Nowadays if I'm hitting a 5i to a 450 yarder, I missed it badly or I've got the elements again me.

Brent bringing up Brad Swanson is sort of apropos...  I recall playing with Brad a few years ago, on a course that was something like 7150 yards long.  We had our difficulties (due to a 25 mph wind and some missed shots from each of us) but we were both hitting it about the same distance and both agreed after the round that the course seemed kind of short.  This was a fairly new course, from the tips.  We got to discussing how things have changed and he echoed my comments above about how 7000 yard courses and 450 yard par 4s used be long, but aren't anymore.

I just don't buy the argument that we should bifurcate because the short hitters are enjoying being able to play the 6700 yard tees, so for us longer hitters we should either play the shorter ball on our own or  everyone should have to pay more so courses can be modified or designed with 7500 yard tees so we don't wear out our wedges.  If the next ten years brought more "improvements" such that short knockers were able to play at 7400 yards, then they'd whine at the thought of having to play at 6700.  I think probably a lot of older guys have had their aging hidden by technology and still think of themselves as a player capable of playing a 6700 yard course because they could when they were my age.  If I'm still able to handle the 7510 yard course (at sea level) I played last year when I'm 58, I'll KNOW the technology battle has been lost, and after I get home from that round, I'll flip on the TV and watch the pros hit their wedge approaches on whatever 8400 yard TPC course they'll be playing that week.

For the advocates of bifurcation, how would it work?  Is it just a ball for tour?  What about for college players who are hitting it at least as far as the top pros now, or the outlier amateurs that Rich brings up?  Do we try to work in an adjustment to the handicap system so short knockers who use the hot balls can play against guys using the short ball?  I do have to admit I'd like to see the Masters create a shorter tournament ball and make everyone play it, just to see what happens.  But I suspect they are a bit too traditional for that.  But they are the one place that could get away with it and still have all the big names show up.