Arnie calls for doing something about the ball

[Dan King]

Bernie McGuire reports in the Irish Independent (registration required) Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo and Bob Charles all make their case for reducing the distance the golf ball can go.

http://www.unison.ie/sportsdesk/stories.php3?ca=16&si=1294469

Dan King

We can make golf courses impossible to play without lengthening them but that is unlikely to happen. The one area where you can keep golf as we have all known it in our lifetime in proper perspective is the golf ball.
 --Arnold Palmer

[Bill_McBride]

Is this the same Arnie Palmer who endorsed the non-conforming Callaway driver?  There must be some $$$ in there somewhere!

I've been reading MacDonald's Scotland's Gift, great stuff about the fight over the golf ball.  The purist's recommendation was make everybody play a ball with positive bouyancy (a "floater!") but the manufacturers wouldn't hear about it -- not enough lost balls!

[Dan King]

Bill_McBride writes:
Is this the same Arnie Palmer who endorsed the non-conforming Callaway driver?  There must be some $$$ in there somewhere!

It is the Callaway party line.

Callaway doesn't want innovation in golf clubs to be curbed. But since they have hardly made a dent in the golf ball business, to them it is the best place to stop innovation.

Dan King

You cannot stop R & D on golf equipment no matter what rules you put in place. But what we have to stop is the golf ball. That doesn't require a major change but we do need to slow the golf ball down.
 --Arnold Palmer

[Ted Kramer]

It seems odd to me that people are so quick to criticize Arnold Palmer. He has done more for golf than just about anyone in history and in my opinion he has earned his right to speak his mind.

Should the ball be slowed down . . .its an interesting debate, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. But I do know where I stand on the issue of listening to people bad mouth one of the greatest men in all of golf.

Arnold Palmer endorsed a non conforming club to the public as a way to maybe make the game more enjoyable for the masses. His concerns over the golf ball have nothing to do with the general public. I don't think Mr. Palmer or anyone else is concerned with the Pro V making Merion or any other classic layouts too easy or short for Joe Hack.

I understand the fact that technology is a tough thing to slow down. But there is no denying the fact that these guys today are playing a very different game than the one played in years past.

The point being made is valid. The game of golf is and has been changing. Should these changes continue unabated? I for one wouldn't mind seeing the pros play 3 and 4 irons into a few par 4s week after week. 320 yard drives and 150 yard PWs into 470 yard holes just doesn't do it for me the way watching Ben Hogan work long irons around a golf course did.

The subtleties of the pro game are in Jeopardy. Mickelson shot 59 hitting 5 fairways, to me thats a JOKE.

-Ted

[Jeff Fortson]

I want to roll back the ball to Titleist Balata era tech but I'll settle for Titleist Professional era tech.  I know the big complaint is how far the ball is going but it also flies too straight.  I think there are guys out there getting away with murder in their golf swings and we are not seeing the kind of ball striking we once did.  Everyone hits it high and straight.  What happened to Trevino-esque fades and Casper-esque draws?  

I miss the golf of my youth.  It was so much more interesting and rewarding.


Jeff F.

[Dan King]

Ted Kramer writes:
It seems odd to me that people are so quick to criticize Arnold Palmer. He has done more for golf than just about anyone in history and in my opinion he has earned his right to speak his mind.

I don't think you've adequately explained why Arnold Palmer should be above criticism. The  criticism on this thread isn't even that harsh, just saying he might have some self-interest in the debate is hardly dissin' the man. Many people argue in their own self-interest.

He's done lots for golf and golf has done lots for him. I'd call it a wash. And he has earned the right to speak out (as if anyone ever has to earn that right) but not the right to never be criticized.

Arnold Palmer endorsed a non conforming club to the public as a way to maybe make the game more enjoyable for the masses.

Then maybe he should have turned down the Callaway dollars before speaking out. Arnie is sharp enough to know if he accepts money for Callaway and then endorses their club many people will rightfully question his motives.

Jeff_Fortson writes:
I  want to roll back the ball to Titleist Balata era tech but I'll settle for Titleist Professional era tech.

Back in the Balata era there were Top Flite Rocks. The pros just wouldn't play them because there was less premium on distance and they lacked the feel around the greens.

I agree the ball going straighter is much bigger problem than further. Players used to keep a little bit in reserve for when they really wanted to let one go. Now they just swing all-out on every shot, knowing if the ball goes off line it is within a reasonable distance. Also with the consistent courses these guys play, it isn't going to get into too much trouble. But it is much tougher to legislate crookedness rather than distance.

I miss the golf of my youth.  It was so much more interesting and rewarding.

Even with reasonably new equipment and balls I still manage to hit a fair number of glf balls somewhere other than where I am aiming.

Dan King

I'm very much against all the new technology and I'd rather still be playing with hickory shafted clubs.
 --Bob Charles

[Robert Thompson]

Arnie has said there is a need for a change in the ball, as has Jack and Gary.
The big three complained to Augusta about the issue of past champions and the policy was altered.
But tell the PGA Tour the ball needs to be altered and .... nothing.
I've always found it odd, considering how vocal the three have been on the issue.

Robert

[JohnV]

I've been reading MacDonald's Scotland's Gift, great stuff about the fight over the golf ball.  The purist's recommendation was make everybody play a ball with positive bouyancy (a "floater!") but the manufacturers wouldn't hear about it -- not enough lost balls!

Bill, they did try it in 1931 and it was hated by almost everyone.  Read the piece I wrote that is in the In My Opinion section on the floater or balloon ball.

[Bill_McBride]

Will do, John,  I never did get around to reading that one!  

MacDonald was talking about playability as much as distance, but the purists were really harking back to the gutty vs the Haskell and the floater seemed the best current option at the time.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Ted Kramer:

I, for one, wold be a lot slower to criticize Arnold Palmer had he not:

A) Spent god knows how many years serving as the USGA's main spokesperson prior to endorsing an illegal club, and...

B) Not published a book entitled "Playing By The Rules" shortly afterwards.

To me that makes him a world-class hypocrite - and the fact that he now supports doing something about the golf ball (very likely, as Dan King astutely points out, because that's the Callaway party line) doesn't change that fact.

DW

[TEPaul]

I'm glad to hear Arnold Palmer called for doing something about distance. And I'm glad a manufacturer such as Callaway is too. Obviously the best thing would be for the regulatory bodies (USGA and R&A) to try to legislate it.

Palmer certainly has done a lot for golf and popularizing it, surely more than anyone else, except perhaps the age of Tiger Woods, and one can't take that fact away but his deal with Eli Callaway with the USGA non-conforming ERC2 driver as they both sat on that podium and proposed the club should be bought by the golfing public in direct contravention of the USGA COR rules and regs was definitely not one of his finer moments. About that incident, personally, I look at it in the vein of that old Chinese proverb;

"Forgive but never forget".

As for what the golf ball could be in playability to help correct this recent ball distance and performance problem I completely endorse what Jeff Forston said above. If the manufacturers and the regulatory bodies could agree to produce a ball that performs like the old Titeleist balata  today's distance problem could be dialed back some. Of course that'd require that all the manufacturers remove from production these so-called new age balls such as the ProV type.

[Doug Sobieski]

FWIW, his stance on the ball is not new, and it pre-dates his affiliation with Callaway.

[Ted Kramer]

Callaway owns and or is affiliated with Hogan and Top Flight.
I don't think Top Flight is struggling at all when it comes down to selling golf balls.

I continue to miss the connection between the hi-cor driver and this issue of dialing the ball back a few notches.

The high-cor driver was aimed at weekend golfers, the new ball is for the Tour. The two just don't have anything to do with one another. Mr. Palmer did not want a high-cor driver in play on tour, why can't we seperate to the two situations.

Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Faldo, and a bunch of other key figures in golf think that the ball should be dialed back . . .Are you saying that Mr. Palmer is only getting involved with this issue for money? Or are you saying that he is simply Callaway's mouth-piece and this is their issue? Or maybe both?

Do the others involved with this issue have $$$ as their driving motivation or are they speaking out in on behalf of the game? I don't claim to know anything about Arnold Palmer's $$$ situation, but I would find it very hard to believe that ANYONE could get a man of his stature to support ANYTHING that he didn't agree with for $$$.

Now you might not agree with Mr. Palmer's opinion, and that is obviously fine, but questioning his motivation and saying that he is speaking out on issues relating to golf as some, "Peter Kesler Perfect Club Mouthpiece" is out of line in my opinion.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

AFAIK, neither Nicklaus, Player or Faldo ever endorsed a non-USGA-compliant driver shortly after accepting a paid endorsement contract from the maker of said driver. When you do that, people are going to remember that every time you express an "opinion" on matters relating to golf equipment. It doesn't mean Arnie is wrong or that he's dishonest or that we don't still love him.

Not to mention the fact that his logic, as stated, is faulty. Having a hot-faced ERC driver does absolutely nothing for the oft-invoked "weekend golfer" except part him with a few hundred dollars. That 12-handicapper who carries the ball 230 and hits 8 fairways and 6 greens per round is going to gain like 3-4 yards on his one flushed driver per round and nothing on the others. Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

[Matt_Ward]

In my mind there's a mega difference between Arnie the "golfer" of years past and Arnie the "pitch man" who sells his name to the highest bidder.

Arnold sold his soul to the dark side to be the "pitch man" for Ely Callaway's company. Arnold now wants to tell the public that everything "bad" about modern golf happens to be tied to the golf ball -- a product line that Callaway is not a prime contender.

Mind you -- the clubs are OK even though Callaway lead the parade with non-conforming clubs. Last I checked but how does one selectively say one part of the rule book is acceptable and the other is in need of a drastic overhaul?

It's hard for me to see the AP's "independent" assessment when he shills for a big time company like Callaway. Doesn't AP have enough money without hawking someone's product line?

Might it be the possible that the King wears no clothes?

[Tommy Williamsen]

As happens, in my opinion, we get sidetracked from discussing the pertinent issue.  Arnie is not the issue.  Distance control is.  Is the ball the main problem?  No.  My new ERC Fusion literally gives me twenty more yards.  I am 57 years old and am hitting it further than I ever have.  I don't thinkit is possible to limit R&D on the clubs, it is more possible to limit what the ball can do.

[tlavin]

Golf writers were covering this issue back in the 1920's.  Back then, they feared that the "modern" golf ball would make 6,300 yard golf courses obsolete.  They were properly concerned, IMHO.  Nowadays, the "modern" golf ball, coupled with club technology and player fitness has ruined the pleasure of watching the professional game for many fans.  Driver/wedge on 470 yard holes is not all that enjoyable to many fans of the golf game.

At the same time, the advances of the past ten years have greatly increased the enjoyment of the game by the average player.  I love the new balls.  I love titanium.  I think the forgiving irons are great.  The only solution seems to be a different ball for the pro tour and i think the economics of that, coupled with player reticence will make it unlikely that we'll see any substantive change any time soon.

[Jeff Fortson]

I'll say this again to try to get the discussion back on the ball.

I think while the ball may fly further, it flies way too straight.  I hit shots sometimes that I know would slice or hook triple the amount of distance that they do.  There is something wrong with this.  We are not identifying ball striking skill as much anymore.  We are defining our champions through their power and short games.  I also can't bend the ball as much when I need to (like around a tree).  

Some of the most vivid memories I have from my youth as a golfer were watching Lee Trevino, Jack Nicklaus, and Ray Floyd all move the ball at least 20 yards left to right off the 15th tee of PGA West in the Skins Game in the late 80's.  I was standing right behind the tee and couldn't believe my eyes.  Nicklaus had a high trajectory, Floyd a medium trajectory, and Trevino a low trajectory.  It was shotmaking at its finest.

Now, I go to tournaments and everyone hits it virtually the same.  This isn't because there is some magic swing technique that everyone uses, it is because the equipment has leveled the playing field in many ways when it comes to ball striking.  

Enough of my diatribe, I think you get the point.


Jeff F.

[Mike Benham]

I'll say this again to try to get the discussion back on the ball.

I think while the ball may fly further, it flies way too straight.  I hit shots sometimes that I know would slice or hook triple the amount of distance that they do.  There is something wrong with this.  We are not identifying ball striking skill as much anymore.  We are defining our champions through their power and short games.  I also can't bend the ball as much when I need to (like around a tree).  

Jeff is spot on ...

The optimum launch angle and spin rate not only makes the ball fly farther but that same reduced spin rate means that when you impart side spin on it (open or closed face or swing path) the ball will curve less.

Mike

[A.G._Crockett]

Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

Brent,
This isn't strictly true, is it?  My understanding is that the distance gains on current premium balls, esp. the ProVIx, are non-linear.  My distance gains with the ProV type balls has been negligble because I just don't generate the clubheard speed to take full advantage of the technology.  Conversely, the pros get not only more distance, but less curvature than I do.  I DO, however, like the ProV a lot, simply because the damn things are nearly indestructible.  Heck, I read last Friday that automobile tires are soon to made from a urethane!  (Also, I only play what I find, and I find enough ProV's to play only them; 11 doz. currently in inventory at home...)

The ball is a PGA Tour problem.  When the tour thinks that their bottom line is being negatively impacted, then they'll get their house in order.  Right now, Finchem is just hoping that somebody else (i.e., the USGA, who doesn't have a problem) will do the dirty work for the tour.  The USGA has been wise not to get sucked in.

As to the course yardages, I would be curious to hear the various GCA's on the site weigh in on the extent to which there are "magic numbers" from owner-developers for yardage.  Is a yardage number to help sell memberships or real estate more of a reason for longer courses, or is it to maintain the integrity of the courses?  (I'll ask this as a separate thread!)

[Lou_Duran]

I am envious of you fine players who not only hit the ball so far, but also straight.  We should all have similar problems.  

The answer to the question which we have been debating since the site started is not all that difficult- BIFURCATE.  Let the pros and top amateurs play with special equipment- they do anyways- which does not produce the distance and direction control we bemoan.  Allow the rest of us more latitude on what we play.

And Arnie, no matter is said here, is one of the good guys.  His contribution to the game worldwide is without peer.  One can endorse a product which may not be compliant with somewhat unclear and arbitrary USGA equipment guidelines, and still be an honorable man who plays by the rules as they apply.  There is also nothing inconsistent with wanting to change the rules of the game to make golf more enjoyable to a vast majority of its participants.

[Brent Hutto]

Conversely, a longer, harder golf ball that also spins a little is as much of a boon for a long-handicapper as for the Tour guys.

This isn't strictly true, is it?  My understanding is that the distance gains on current premium balls, esp. the ProVIx, are non-linear.  My distance gains with the ProV type balls has been negligble because I just don't generate the clubheard speed to take full advantage of the technology.  Conversely, the pros get not only more distance, but less curvature than I do.  I DO, however, like the ProV a lot, simply because the damn things are nearly indestructible.  Heck, I read last Friday that automobile tires are soon to made from a urethane!

My impression is like yours, the differences in distance between longer and shorter golf balls are non-linear with clubhead speed. But my point is that a Tour player can give up some distance at much less cost to his score than most high-handicappers.

When I first started playing golf 10+ years ago the Tour players were doing very well predominantly using balls like the Titleist Tour Balata. Now on balance they've decided that the longer, harder balls are an advantage but they could shoot in the 60's on pretty long courses with those old short, spinny wound balls. Conversely, very few bogey golfers could afford to play those Balata balls because they cost too much distance and they curved way too much (not to mention having to be replaced after a few holes, the urethane advantage you mention). So they used hard two-piece rocks that just weren't nearly as fun to play with because they were somewhat difficult to control around the green and they felt clunky.

Nowadays the same ProV1-type balls that the Tour players use work quite well for anyone with a semblance of a short game and who can hit the ball 200 yards in the air. So even if the guys with 120mph swings get prodigiously nonproportional distance from them at least we hackers can use something durable and reasonably long that will check up on the green and curve a little (although nothing like the old spinners). Contrast that the advantage of a "hot" driver versus a legal one which only differs when you hit it squarely on the center of the face and which is itself non-linear with clubhead speed.

[A_Clay_Man]

Once again, focusing in on this one aspect, diminishes all the other variables of the sport.

Veejay, practices practices and practices, but he still needs to execute, in the moment. Doesn't he?

Going lower is a trend that has followed golf's results FOREVER.

Halting that, could have more negative repercussions.

Give up on a number, and all will be right with the world.

[Ted Kramer]

Once again, focusing in on this one aspect, diminishes all the other variables of the sport.

Veejay, practices practices and practices, but he still needs to execute, in the moment. Doesn't he?

Going lower is a trend that has followed golf's results FOREVER.

Halting that, could have more negative repercussions.

Give up on a number, and all will be right with the world.

For me this has nothing to do with a number.
I don't care how low the pros go as long as their entire game is tested.

I think it is perfectly normal to long for the days of old.
Watching pros work the ball around the course with long irons and fairway woods is much different than watching Pro after Pro bomb it over the dogleg and hit wedges tight to pins on greens that were supposed to be receiveing shots from mid and long irons.

-Ted

[A.G._Crockett]

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