[Dan King]

An interesting point/counterpoint on www.golf.com.   Enjoy it while you can, Quokka, which owns golf.com had a reverse split on Monday of 50-1.  That would usually happen when you are fairly close to the end.

Click here for Geoff Shackelford's "Game in critical shape"

Click here for Mychael Urban's "Change is good"

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"It's clear we now have two versions of golf: the professional’s game and the average game. We have players on the Tour with such good equipment that the difficult mental problems posed to players of the past are not relevant anymore."
--Geoff Shackleford[/url]

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Dan,
Thanks for posting the link to give Quokka a few more hits before they disappear into cyberspace. It's rather sad, considering the site had grown so much (a lot like Golfweb) before Quokka bought it, and the Quokka days were certainly interesting from a visual and design standpoint.

I did want to point out something about the article, which was edited substantially at the point where a possible solution was explained. In other words, the ending makes no sense.

I made the pledge (in my version of the article) that we need a competition ball and a two-game split to ultimately unite the game back as one. I know, an odd way to approach it, but the theory in such a concept would be that the competition ball would start being used on the collegiate level, in amateur events, at classic courses and thus, hopefully catch on enough to the point where it could make a return as the only "cool," pure, traditional way to play. I understand all of the problems with a competition ball, but really, how much longer are the people in power going to sit back and allow pro golf to turn into men's tennis (a sport whose demise ultimately had a negative effect on the entire sport of tennis)?

The analogy I used was Coca Cola's introduction of New Coke, and how it revolted people so much that sales of "classic" Coke were higher than ever once they had it fully restocked on the shelves. Some felt Coca Cola planned this little stunt all along to boost sales (right!).

But of course, the golf ball situation is different because people like the new ball (the New Coke in this case). However, at some point enough people have to recognize that the character and future of the game has changed, and not for the better.

Dan, I know we disagree on the importance of the Tour and I agree with you on certain points, but I genuinely believe professional golf can have a very positive impact on the game and it does matter how they handle their "product" for the overall good of golf.

I've given up on the USGA doing anything substantial, which leaves, ugh, the PGA Tour or Hootie Johnson/The Masters or the players themselves to step up to the plate. Not exactly what I'd call thrilling prospects.
Geoff

[aclayman44]

I have seen a few tracks in my day and used to say things like "the pros would never play here" at a select few.
The fact that the pros historically had final say in whether a venue was or wasn't, Doable.(is that a word?)was based on these criterior: whether the course could make them look silly (too much sand)or if you hit a three hundred yard drive right down the middle thru the fairway directly into an ESA or some other hazard.
Now, perhaps the power the boys used to have in gauranteeing their lack of silliability is at end. Venues can start griting their teeth and new venues could be used and/or designed that don't necc. lengthen in yardage, but make strategy paramount.
Food for thought.

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff:

I understand that you are not a real fan Hootie Johnson, but I'm beginning to think he may be key to this Technology vs Tradition thing.

Who is better suited than the Augusta National Golf Club to introduce a competition ball?  

Assuming every manufacturer had the right to produce the new "Masters standard" ball, how could they possibly complain?

And, would any firm really sue ANGC over this issue?

Moreover, once ANGC established the precedent, perhaps the USGA would find the courage to follow.

Geoff, take my "Masters standard" idea, write a first class article on the subject and convince ANGC to step up.

I'm getting awfully bored seeing short irons hit into long Par Fours.

[ForkaB]

Geoff/Tim

I agree.  You might want to look at the long thread on this very subject, advocating the same solution, a few weeks ago.

[George Pazin]

I like the idea of a competition ball, too, but maybe, on a separate note, if someone showed you could make a decent buck on short executive type courses and/or par 3's, there would be more of a move to build something other than 7000+ yard "championship" courses.

Here in western PA, it seems like inexpensive public tracks are more crowded than the big money daily fees. I think the big $$$ CCFAD's being constructed may be more of a herd mentality kind of thing.

P.S. Geoff - nice to see you post again - many here have missed you. Loved the Cypress book.:-)

[RobertWalker]

Aren't all approved balls "competition balls" ? Also the goal here seems to be to see the best players hitting long irons into par fours. Has anyone done any testing with a ball that does not go as far?
Also, can anyone in this D Group describe the specifications for this "competition ball"? (insert smiley face here)

[T_MacWood]

Robert
I for one can not describe the specifications for a 'competition ball', I do not have the scientific background or expertise. I assume you also lack this expertise.

I suspect the only group that truly understands the science of the modern golf ball is the ball manufacturers themselves. It appears that the ruling bodies have concentrated on measuring the performance of the ball using traditional methods and the legality of the ball is based on those measurements. It seems the manufacturers have concentrated their efforts in other areas and have created a golf ball whose overall performance is far superior in all aspects to older balls while still meeting the traditional guidelines set forth.

What I don't understand is your cynical attitude, certainly you are correct that we lack scientific background and it is understandable with your background that you would defend the USGA. But you can not dispute that many great courses have been rendered ineffective ot the best golfers and that has resulted in, and continues to result in, the alteration, modernization  and sometimes mutilation of many classic courses. You seem perfectly content with this disturbing trend.

[BCrosby]

Geoff -

Your piece takes the same approach I took in a thread a while back with J. Morissette (sp?).

Namely, we have two games now and we need to do something soon to reunite things.  But what does "two games" really mean?  

You have "two" games when there is a group of players for whom the strategic elements of the best courses in the world are no longer relevant.  There's no problem with someone hitting it long per se.  Hitting it long is fun and a constant thrill.  It's one of the many reasons we love the game.  But when virtually every pro today is hitting it so far that he can consistently avoid the strategic choices presented by well-designed courses, you have the practical equivalent of one set of rules for pros and one set for the rest of us.  

Let me try to be even more specific.  There have always been long hitters.  In their eras, Craig Wood, George Mayer(sp?) or a Mike Souchaulk(sp?)were enormously long.  You might include Nicklaus in that group.  They overwhelmed the statgetic elements of the courses they played.  But they were exceptions.  Very few other players hit it anywhere near as long as they did.  

Today, however, that kind of length is not the exception.  That would not in and of itself be a bad thing except for the fact that it means that an entire pro sport is being played without regard to its traditional defensive aspects.  The strategic limitations that good golf courses are supposed to impose on players have largely disapppeared for better players.

That is not a good thing.  No, that is a crisis.  The most interesting part of game (i.e., dealing with the stategic challenges of the best course in the world) has mostly vanished.  Gone.  Crushed by the unimaginable lengths that nearly all pros now hit the ball.

There are only two possible ways to reunite  the game.  You could change the greatest courses in the world by lengthening them, relocating hazards, recontouring greens, etc.  A very, very risky business that is doomed to fail eventually.

Or, you let some air out of the ball.

[George Pazin]

Robert -

I'm sure the ball manufacturers could come up with something quite easily, but to me it seems like simply making the ball a tiny fraction lighter in weight would do the trick. The old British ball was slightly longer than the US ball, primarily because it was a little smaller & heavier, though I would guess these differences would almost be invisible to the naked eye.

I don't think anyone here is insisting players have to hit long irons into par 4s, but something other than a wedge would be nice. The other article Dan posted the link to makes some interesting points, but the sad reality is that: 1) watching players hit sand wedges into par 4s IS indeed less interesting and 2) the courses are reacting in exactly the fashion everyone in this DG fears: new courses are getting longer & old courses are getting #$%^ed up. Like it or not, I don't think the thing to do is to put your head in the sand & think the problem will go away.

It seems to me the switch to the bigger ball by the R&A 20 years would be a good model for what needs to be done.

[Mike_Cirba]

BCrosby;

You've said it all and I can't believe that anyone would take exception to your points.  

RWalker;

Do you agree with Mr. Crosby, and if not, I'd like to hear why.  Do you believe that the strategic defenses of golf courses are almost completely negated once a player is hitting sand-wedge to a target that required a 6-iron fifteen years ago?  I'm thinking the 18th at Augusta as the most recent example.  Heck...the ball is still rising when it reaches the fairway bunkers on the left, which used to come into play rather frequently.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoff;

By the way, great to see you here again.  Your voice is valuable and needed here and it's been my pleasant surprise in recent weeks to find out that this site is viewed by many more folks than some might realize.    

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

I'm not a scientist either, thus I appreciate your comments to Robert Walker.

By the way, do you remember Hogan's description of the 10th hole at Winged Foot:
"a three iron into someone's bedroom"?

This hole is still one of the great par threes ever built, but what a shame it would be to see the hole being attacked with seven or eight irons.

That seems to be where we are headed.

[dratcliffe]

Geoff,

I enjoyed the article, and I agree with you on most points.  Your comments that we need a "two-game" split not only reflect a distinct possibility, in some ways it is already a reality.  The PGA tour is focused on "viewership", while those of us in the golf industry are focused on "participation".  Recent years have dramatically demonstrated that they are not one and the same.  While the tour has been very successful in increasing viewership, we have done a poor job of increasing participation.

Your comparison to tennis is interesting, because they have actually performed the reverse; while viewership of tennis has declined, the actual number of participants has increased... tennis is one of the few traditional "participation" sports that have increased in participation in the last 10 years.  

So, to me, we already have a "two-game" sport... those who WATCH golf, and those who PLAY golf.  There are a lot more who WATCH golf than actually play golf.  The PGA tour obviously falls under the first category, so a different set of rules for them would not necessarily doom the sport, IMHO.  All of this sounds strange, and is really difficult for me to understand, but it is the reality of what we face right now.    

We've had some interesting discussions here lately on a local golf sports-talk show that I occasionally participate in... one of the key points that I keep bringing up is does all of this "technology" really render our courses obsolete?  If so, wouldn't we see a dramatic decline in the average handicap of your typical golfer?  I certainly haven't seen that yet, but at the same time I haven't seen any nationwide studies on the subject yet, either.  I HAVE seen plenty of guys with the latest technology in their bags, who STILL can't break 85 on a regular basis.  Technology benefits the more advanced golfer more than the less experienced, just as hazards penalizes the less experienced golfer more than the advanced...maybe we should just adjust the slope system to account for the difference? Golf survived the transition from featheries and hickory shafts to where we are today, and certainly that was a more dramatic change than what we are faced with at the present moment.  When I see the average USGA handicap fall into single digits, I'll believe that technology has begun to conquer existing courses.  

Del

P.S.  To George Pazin:
I'm really working on trying to do exactly what you proposed, George... come up with a profitable way to develop more "breeder" courses, short Par-3 and exectutive style courses that make sense economically.  I have some real promising concepts, and have actually made some headway into developing some working models.

[RobertWalker]

I pose the question (rhetorically):
Aren't all balls competition balls?
Approved balls are. Yes, the RANDA did the right thing by changing the size of the ball to the USA standard. Why did they do it? Because they were playing a different game than we, and their players were not competitive with ours.
I would like to see the professionals hitting long irons into par fours again,
but I do not ever want to see a "competition ball" as described by some in this D Group.

I am in favor of rolling back the OAD, and I have a method of doing just that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Robert Walker;

Are you just going to leave us dangling or will you share your proposal?  

[RobertWalker]

I ask a few questions, and I am called a cynic! (insert smiley face here)
As for my propsal, I have suggested that the ruling bodies start a gradual distance roll back in the OAD. I would block out 5 years for this program, and at the end of 5 years, the OAD might be pushed back 5-7 yards.

Innovation would not be stifled.

What many on this D Group do not want to recognize is that players' clubhead speed has increased over the past 30 years. There is not much we can do about that.

[RJ_Daley]

Del,

so smoking you out of your hibernation is just a matter of getting a thread going that trips your trigger?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Del, Is this just going to be a one-post performance?

Glad to see you here old friend. Leave the driving ranges and golf courses aside. time for some mass postings on your part!

[Dan King]

Wow, I started a thread that got both Geoff and Del out of hibernation.  How cool is that?

In the past most manufacturers designed clubs intended to improve the game of the masses and tried to pay the players enough to use these new innovations.  Many of the big innovations in golf were intended for the average players.  

That has changed in the last ten years. Many of the more recent innovations only increase performance for the best players. Now the players are more likely to switch for the innovation (and still get paid, pretty cool for them) and the manufacturers market it to the gullible masses that they should play the clubs the pros play, knowing the masses are likely not get any real improvement out of the new product.

Robert, I don't think the USGA and R&A can roll back the OAD without facing heavy lawsuits (and these are lawsuits they will probably lose.) It will require making balls that you once ruled as conforming, now non-conforming. I don't see this five-year window making any difference. What will the ball manufacturers do during the five-year window, sit on their hands? Just use up existing inventory?  The USGA has the $200 million gorilla that could scare off many lawsuits but the R&A doesn't have that luxury. Also manufacturers will be more willing to take on the $200 million gorilla knowing they have a legitimate case.

Better to start with a competition ball, therefore it doesn't directly effect the manufacturers inventory. The gullible masses will follow eventually and the move to the ball that doesn't go as far would be market driven rather than fought in court.

Besides, is there a problem with the ball going too far for most golfers? Seems at least 90% of golfers would still find plenty of challenge at courses like Merino and Augusta.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:
"To control his own ball, all alone without help or hindrance, the golfer must first and last control himself. At each stroke, the ball becomes a vital extension, an image of one's innermost self."
 --John Stuart Martin (The Curious History of the Golf Ball)

[RobertWalker]

Were there any lawsuits when the RANDA did away with the small ball?
What would be the basis for suing the ruling bodies if they rolled back the OAD, without outlawing existing stock piles.
Also, can clubhead speed be governed?

[T_MacWood]

Robert
It is nice you acknowledge there is a problem. Interesting you propose they turn the ball back after arguing for months that there was nothing wrong with it.

Don't you think the problem is more complicated than the distance the ball travels? Sure players are swinging harder, but what is allowing them to do so without hitting it sideways?

It appears that increased clubhead speeds are now possible due to a number of reasons - technically advanced clubs, lightweight shafts and heads, harder materials, spring effect, much larger heads and sweet spots, perimeter weighting, dimple patterns with improved accuracy, ball materials that imporve feel and stopping performance. When senior players are hitting the ball farther now than when they were in their primes -- certainly not due to fitness or an improved swing -- some new development, unrelated to improved technique or physical performance, is allowing them to hit the ball further.

When equipment improvements and brute strength begin to replace skill, the game is negatively effected. It would seem to me the current problem with the game is due to innovation, innovation run a muck. And anything that reverses that trend and perminently stops innovation would be a good thing. Has the lack of improvement of the football or baseball or puck or basketball or tennisball or horseshoe or shuttleclock negatively effected their repective sports? If anything not only should equipment be turned back, innovation should be haulted perminently and equipment performance should be standardized.

[Dan King]

The R&A did with the smaller ball similar to what we are proposing with the new competition ball.  They only ruled that the bigger ball had to be used in the Open and Amateur Championships. The European Tour followed suite.  Eventually the idea caught on with everyone else.  Besides we live in a much more litigious society than 20-years ago, especially comparing 1970 era Britain to 21st century U.S.

There is also a big difference between the British ball and the competition ball. Many thought there were advantages to using the larger ball.  There will be no advantage to using the competition ball over the regular ball.  It will just not travel as far.

The USGA tells Titleist that today the V1 is conforming, but in five years it will not be. Also Titleist is probably already working on the V2 or whatever the next generation will be -- using the assumption of the current USGA rules. I don't see how they wouldn't sue, and win.  

If you were Titleist, what would you do during the five-year period? Would you continue to manufacture V1s, V2s, etc... or would you start working on the new. shorter ball knowing you would see no return until the five years is up? Would you do any sort of new innovation -- knowing you aren't going to see significant return because the window is shrinking. Say the plan was to work on the V3 starting in 2003, but you'd only be able to sell it until 2006, would you do it, or just fall behind your competition?

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote: "It became slowly but painfully apparent that playing a different sized ball in the championship matches of each country would present a problem, if not an ultimatum. The R & A followed the usual practice of British diplomacy. They thought a sensible compromise was possible, in the shape of a ball somewhere in between. They manufactured two experimental balls, 1.65 and 1.66 inches in diameter respectively. They were offered to the Americans as a proud solution. The Americans, however, remembering Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, and sneaky, but worked), had a better idea. Why not compromise, they suggested, by using our ball. And so it was. The bigger American ball is now compulsory in all R & A championships and in British professional tournaments."
--Alister Cooke

[RobertWalker]

I repeat...(perplexed face here)
Were there any lawsuits when the RANDA did away with the small ball?
What would be the basis for suing the ruling bodies if they rolled back the OAD, without outlawing existing stock piles.

Also, can clubhead speed be governed?

[Bill_Coggins]

Without addressing the topic at hand, I thought I'd note several points that have been made and remade - perhaps for future conversation:

1) Strategy is overcome by length.
2) Loft makes the shot easier.

Hmmmmmm....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()