[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

I'm old enough to remember when golf was fairly standardized when there were basically four shaft flexes.  X-stiff, stiff, regular and ladies.   Ball compresions were 90 and 80 and ladies, then 100.  Swing weights were most D's but some C's existed, and club lengths were pretty uniform.

And, none of that hurt golf, its enjoyment or its growth.

It's the challenge of the journey which requires hitting your ball from point A to point B, and overcoming the impediments that the architect has placed in your path that remains the inherent lure of the game and the source of enjoyment.

Do you really believe that golfers in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't enjoy themselves ?

I know one thing.  Rounds were quicker then.

[George Pazin]

Patrick makes an excellent point.

When did the growth in golf occur? Has the long ball (which I'd define as the introduction of the pro V1) had a demonstrably positive impact on the growth of the game? If not, can one honestly say that it is that good for the game (i.e. it's brought more people into the game).

If I had to guess, I'd guess that most beginners play cheap balls anyway, so it hasn't helped grow the game at all. It's probably helped grow the bank accounts of the folks involved in redesign. I'd say I'll do an examination of the financial performance of the ball manufacturers, but unfortunately most are subsidiaries of conglomerates, so it'd take more time than I have.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat, Could you please tell me how these two quotes, from you, are consistent?

It's the challenge of the journey which requires hitting your ball from point A to point B, and overcoming the impediments that the architect has placed in your path that remains the inherent lure of the game and the source of enjoyment.

I don't think design, good or poor, modern or classic, has anything to do with participation.

And,

Re; The following...

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 shrinking numbers you cite are mis-leading because the shrinkage is measured from the top. When were those top numbers acheived? 6 years ago? Certainly not in the 50's, 60's,70's, or 80's

[George Pazin]

The shrinking numbers you cite are mis-leading because the shrinkage is measured from the top. When were those top numbers acheived? 6 years ago? Certainly not in the 50's, 60's,70's, or 80's

Ah, but it's not quite so simple as that! People start and stop for many reasons.

The real issue would be who would quit if the ball were a wee bit shorter. Would you, Adam? I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't, either.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Geo, There are alot of stats out there to cloud every issue. But, It isn't so much the starts and stops, as it is the number of rounds played, that is the important one, "for the industry". Unless I mis-read what Pat using as his basis for argument.

Either way, Pat is trying to corrolate the downturn in rounds played, with a lack of allure added distance offers. When all I said was, that's what the advertising agencies were focusing on in thier commercials.

[George Pazin]

That's a fair enough statement, Adam. I wouldn't try to equate the declining number of rounds with the longer ball, but it's very hard for me not to do so with the drastic changes to classic courses.

It's not quite so simple as "Just say no" to changing your course - I wish it were.

[A_Clay_Man]

, but it's very hard for me not to do so with the drastic changes to classic courses.

George, Don't lament too many of those classics. Most of them appear to be tree lined, shot dictational, toruture chambers.  
A nice walk in the park, but, How many are really that great?


I wonder what the rounds played numbers are in other countries? And if thier memberships feel that their courses are being phased-out through obsolescence??

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...yes, I remember those days as well. We were all happy, at least until with hit an iron thin, or off the toe, or put a huge smile in our "club special".....

But I bet all those guys....that are 50-60-70years old NOW...would not trade their current clubs for those "good old days"....

[Daniel_Wexler]

TEP:

Nah, I don't disagree with you too much on this stuff -- or, at the very least, I certainly defer to your (much) greater knowledge of/experience with the organization.  But the phrase "to insure that the major manufacturers remain willing to comply" suggests (to me, at any rate) more flexibility that I personally would prefer.  But perhaps I'm not properly taking your meaning...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Could you please tell me how these two quotes, from you, are consistent?

It's the challenge of the journey which requires hitting your ball from point A to point B, and overcoming the impediments that the architect has placed in your path that remains the inherent lure of the game and the source of enjoyment.

I don't think design, good or poor, modern or classic, has anything to do with participation.

Both statements are in harmony with one another.

There is something incredibly alluring about the challenge of  getting the ball from point A to Point B.  Even if you started at the back of the goal line and the hole was cut into the back of the opposite goal line on a football field.

That challenge is the inherent lure.  
The object of the game is to get the ball from Point A to Point B in the least number of shots, and with that challenge, the golfer can play against himself and his prior performances, the field of play, or fellow competitors.
And, it doesn't matter if the field of play is a flat plane or an undulating plane.
The lure also entails being able to spend a few hours with kindred souls while embarking on your journey, for their companionship and/or their competitiveness.

It's not the pursuit of distance as you claim.[/color]

And,

Re; The following...

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 shrinking numbers you cite are mis-leading because the shrinkage is measured from the top. When were those top numbers acheived? 6 years ago? Certainly not in the 50's, 60's,70's, or 80's

No they're not.
It was you who stated that the LURE to golf was distance.
Hitting the ball long, and that if the governing body reduced that facet the game would lose its popularity.

But, we know two things.  Golf rounds are down.
Distance is at an all time high.
So your theory is flawed.

I drew no conclusions other than to refute your contention.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

I disagree.

What happened in the UK when the small ball was outlawed and the US ball was adopted by mandate ?

Did golf come to a grinding halt in the UK ?

Has golf prospered in the UK since that date ?

A mandated alteration in ball specs and equipment would be embraced because golf remains a gentlemen's game played by honorable men.

And, the element that wants to cheat, to circumvent the rules aren't the type of fellows I'd want to play with.

One last item.

BRING BACK THE STYMIE IN MATCH PLAY  

[T_MacWood]

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.

It was interesting article or series of articles by Galyean. Ironically the R&A wanted to make the floater the standard ball in 1921 (according to John Low, head of the rules of golf committee). They invited the USGA and Canadian rules bodies to help them address a number of rules issues...including setting the first guidelines for a standardized ball. The British wanted the floater, but the USGA insisted on a heavier ball. The 1.62" 1.62 oz. ball was a compromise between the lighter British and heavier American proposals. A compromise that was roundly criticzed by many of the big names in golf--Hutchinson, JH Taylor, Fowler, Guy Campbell, Darwin etc.--what were all pushing for the floater.

The article that claimed the great courses of Woodhall Spa and Merion were only created because of the haskel; I think that is an overly simplistic conclusion.

The ball that the USGA approved in 1929 was not a floater. The British floater was 29 dwt (1.45 oz) and the American balloon ball was 31 dwt (1.55 oz) and did not float.

[Paul Richards]

If someone has a copy of that newsletter that Lou Duran refers to from the USGA, please post it or at least send me a copy via email.


Thank you in advance.

[Sean_A]

Somebody asked if the amount of rounds was down in other countries.  I don't know (though I suspect yes for the UK), but membership at my local clubs is down.  Many clubs in WORCS, WARKS and Birmingham don't have a wait list.

I am not certain of the reasons for the decline in membership, but nobody at my club thinks it is due to the longer ball!  Or to boring courses.  These are both easily avoided.  I would guess there are other factors which are more influential.  

My dues have gone up 50% since joining in 1999.  I would guess these price increases have stopped younger folks with families from replacing the old boys that die or get too old to play.  

Additionally, golf clubs generally have too many rules which doesn't help the cause.  A lot of people don't like being told how they should dress during their leisure time.  

Lastly, I think tougher drink-drive laws have been very detrimental to the social aspect of clubs.  The younger generation have more or less grown up with a much more sensible attitude toward mixing alcohol and driving than previous generations.  So the golf club is no longer "the sanctuary" it once was.  I can remember my father going to the club at 7:30 in the morning and he didn't come back until just short of dinner.  Cards, dice, socializing  and drinking ( jeepers, I make him sound like a right ruffian-honestly, he wasn't) were just as important as golf.  This is no longer the case for many members of clubs.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"If someone has a copy of that newsletter that Lou Duran refers to from the USGA, please post it or at least send me a copy via email."

Paul:

No problem, I'd be happy to send it to you as soon as I get your check for $25.00 made out to the USGA that I'd be even more than happy to forward on to Far Hills NJ.  

Listen, I think I've finally figured out what the real problem is with the USGA in the last 35-40 years. It's that they have their headquarters in New Jersey, the very same state that Pat Mucci and far too many like him live in. If one spends too much time in that state they're bound to be wrong most of the time.

[A_Clay_Man]

Too bad,there would've been no better closing post (ironywise) to this epic thread, then Paul Richard's requesting the newsletter. Dern

[Craig Sweet]

Sean...great post:

"I am not certain of the reasons for the decline in membership, but nobody at my club thinks it is due to the longer ball!  Or to boring courses.  These are both easily avoided.  I would guess there are other factors which are more influential.

My dues have gone up 50% since joining in 1999.  I would guess these price increases have stopped younger folks with families from replacing the old boys that die or get too old to play.

Additionally, golf clubs generally have too many rules which doesn't help the cause.  A lot of people don't like being told how they should dress during their leisure time.

Lastly, I think tougher drink-drive laws have been very detrimental to the social aspect of clubs.  The younger generation have more or less grown up with a much more sensible attitude toward mixing alcohol and driving than previous generations.  So the golf club is no longer "the sanctuary" it once was.  I can remember my father going to the club at 7:30 in the morning and he didn't come back until just short of dinner.  Cards, dice, socializing  and drinking ( jeepers, I make him sound like a right ruffian-honestly, he wasn't) were just as important as golf.  This is no longer the case for many members of clubs."


TIMES have changed, yet some Luddites want to "roll back" to another age...I am once again astounded that they even own a computer to post to this web site

[tlavin]

I think that it's the height of hypocrisy to quit the USGA because they won't do something to alter the pro game.  We are not professionals and even though we are perhaps the dedicated followers of the game that they play on television, there is no way that you are going to be able to stop technology.  Technology in every arena is going to progress, whether you use govenment or regulations to curb it.

I like an earlier post that asked whether people were playing with balata balls, persimmon drivers and MacGregor tour blade irons.  Of course not!  Some purists may play hickories for fun and for competition, but let's face it: the regular player loves technology, because it provides us with a sporting fountain of youth in terms of distance and, at times, shotmaking.  Most of us who play the game regularly are hitting the ball farther now than we did ten years ago because of the technology that is fashionable to disparage.  I know that I love the big drivers and the forgiving irons and I am a major fan of these hybrid clubs.  Technology is my friend.

In terms of the USGA, I'm not pulling my membership.  I bumped it up to Patron status because if the USGA can continue to host national championships at traditional clubs like Pinehurst, Pebble Beach, Winged Foot, Merion, Olympia Fields and Shinnecock, to name a few, I think that they are doing great work in terms of exposing people to the history of the game.  You only have to harken back to this year's Open and remember all of the references that Dan Hicks and the other commentators made to Donald Ross and the classic architectural features of Pinehurst.  No, they aren't as knowledgeable as Geoff Schackelford, but they are communicating information about our particular passion to the masses.

And they wouldn't be doing it if the USGA played its championships at places like Valhalla.

[T_MacWood]

"...is no way that you are going to be able to stop technology.  Technology in every arena is going to progress, whether you use govenment or regulations to curb it."

tlavin
What good is the USGA if it is not capable of reigning in technology? I was under the impression my dues went partially toward purchase of sophisticated equipment to help measure and evaluate equipment. Have I wasted my money?

Technology in golf equipment maybe your friend, but it has not been the friend of classic golf courses.

Speaking of the pro game....didn't you redsign your Willie Park golf course because you and the USGA were interested in doing something about and for the pro game?

[Rick Shefchik]

Nobody has answered my question yet: should there even be an ODS? And if so, where should it be set?

If you're not willing to answer that question, this is a discussion with no purpose.

My answer is this: I would be happy to live with a rollback, but short of that, set the ODS right where it is now and leave it there -- forever. And enforce it.

[Pete Lavallee]

Rick,

I seriously doubt anyone would think that we don't need an ODS. Heck, even the manufactuers believe in it and test that their products conform to it before they submit them to the USGA. The real issue is that the OSD was compromised when the launch monitor came out. Manufactuers found out how to make a ball that conformed to the Iron Byron test but travel much farther when launched at the optimum angle, with just the right amount of spin.

The real issue is that when the USGA finally figured this out and proposed Optimization (testing each ball at its' optimum launch angle) the manufactuers balked, because all of the premium double covered balls would fail and be declared non-conforming.

Although the ODS test was updated to a titanium driver and a higher swing speed, the test is not reflective of what happens in the real world. We just need to admit that the test  was compromised and make the already universally accepted standard relevant for all launch angles.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"The real issue is that when the USGA finally figured this out and proposed Optimization (testing each ball at its' optimum launch angle) the manufactuers balked, because all of the premium double covered balls would fail and be declared non-conforming."

EXACTLY!

The question for me, then, has always been why exactly the USGA scrapped this test when it would, by all appearances, have been extremely effective.  Many I know around the business have suggested the obvious: That Far Hills was simply afraid of the manufacturers.  There might, I suppose, be some other reason -- but if there was, the USGA needs some serious P.R. help for failing utterly to make this alternative reason apparent.

[Daniel_Wexler]

tlavin:

The problem with your reasoning is that if the USGA doesn't address the technology you so embrace, it will not be ABLE to place its events and at the types of courses you cite (Merion, for one, already being off the U.S. Open list).  For most of the pro-technology types, this doesn't matter; The boost to their personal games/egos overshadows all other issues.  But if you care about the relevance of our great old courses, it's not terribly logical to celebrate the USGA's current stance (or lack thereof) because at this point the only Golden Agers they will be using (at least for the Open) are those which happen to have land available for stretching to 7,300+.  Well, strictly speaking that might not be true.  An alternative is to trick something up ridiculously (e.g. Shinnecock Hills) but I don't think even David Fay would have the huevos to suggest that that fiasco was For The Good of the Game.

You used the phrase "if the USGA can continue to host national championships at traditional clubs like Pinehurst," etc. -- if they cannot, they have only themselves to blame

 

[tlavin]

Tom MacWood:

Of course, we altered Olympia Fields in order to host the national championship.  We took our licks in the media (including an "Olympia Yields" headline after low scores the first two days) because the course didn't seem tough enough, but in the end only four people broke par and I think only a couple broke par on the final round.

The relevant point here is, yes, the course was lengthened and "opened up" the course with tree removal, and it was made more difficult because of the length, but it really made no difference to the pros, who just powered the ball over the deepened fairway bunkers.  At the end of the day, however, they couldn't master the Willie Park Jr. designed greens.

I don't dispute that it would be nice if the USGA did something to "rein in" the golf ball, but people have been writing about that since the 1920's.  I have an article by O.B. Keeler from 1925 that fairly begged the authorities to do something to rein in the golf ball or else, "all of our great golf courses will be obsolete".  That hasn't happened to such an extent that the pros only play majors at modern, manufactured courses like the many uninteresting TPC courses out there.

Bottom line, I love technology for myself and despite the decades-old argument about reining in the ball, I think the USGA must be doing something right if they can still host our national championship at Winged Foot next year.

[T_MacWood]

tlavin
How many millions of dollars did you pour into Olympia Fields to upgrade your obsolete course for the pros?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()