[Patrick_Mucci]

Namely, "What game shall we play ?"
1760, 1860, 1910, 1965 or 2005 ?

The issue shouldn't be viewed solely in the context of distance, rather it should be viewed in the context of overall performance, including trajectory, curvature, spin, etc., etc..

To what performance year should the USGA dial back the ball ?

And, Why ?

[Brent Hutto]

I think the game played in 2005 is just fine. I'd be perfectly satisfied if they could effectively regulate the performance of the ball to the level available in October, 2005. Better yet would be a slight rollback to the c. 2001 early ProV1 era.

[EDIT] And why? Because most courses who feel the need to accomodate the very strongest players will have already made changes or started planning changes to adjust to the distances that have surfaced in the past decade. Not having to do yet another round of lengthening in the 2010's and 2020's would be a boon to those courses. Reverting to balta wound-ball performance would render all those changes moot retroactively.

A second answer to "and why?" is that there would be some prayer politically of keeping the performance at ProV1 levels whereas there's no way the mass of golfers would accept going back 20-40 years in golf ball performance.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it me or is this a Randian dilema?

Who gets to decide?

If we had an omnipotent defacto leader, complete with vision and honor, I think we'd listen to him/her, in less than a NY heartbeat. But, since we don't, who should decide? and, What if they're wrong?

[Steve Lang]

 

You can never really go back in time, so if they're going to do something, there can really only be a 2005 stamp on it, eh?  

After 44 years, I can work left, right, or go straight, hit a wide variety of full and partial shots.. so just get me on a course & I'll have fun, even though I don't hit as far as 10-15 years ago,.. and was into the power game..  I think its only ego that someone wants "others" to be restricted in some way.  

And frankly,.. its way overdue and time for a really new group of courses to be considered as championship venues.. the turnover is way too slow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Wow!  You take a real chance saying that on this board!

I agree with Pat, and posted similarly, deep in some thread (or knowing how my comments kill a thread, probably at the end)  My point was, has anyone really proved that hitting spin shots, arieal game, putting on flatter faster greens, etc. is NOT inherently  as enjoyable or more challenging than any previous version of golf?

Granted, we all have our opinions, and no one gets to decide - since its decided by several independent decsions by golf course architects, club and ball makers, and others, not to mention literally 25 million "where to play" decisions made every year by American golfers.

What is happening right now is so good, I am surprised that more here don't see it - we all have more choices than ever in all those areas and we should be loving it, not complaining about how it should be one certain way......this is the golden age for golfers, as much as the 20's but much more accessible to the average golfer.

But, I am an optimist.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

I think the answer is pretty clear. Nobody is staying home from watching PGA Tour events since those players adopted Hit It Long, Hit It High, Stop It Fast as their dominant mode of play. At the highest levels it seems to be an enjoyable and exciting thing to watch.

Likewise, there are balls available today that spin pretty strongly and yet I don't see any top amateur players and darned few weekend club players who attempt to paint big curves in the sky with the ball rather than bombing it Tour-style. If it were that much fun to work the ball surely you'd see guys out there on the weekends enjoying that style of game. It seems that the modern aerial game is fun to play by those who aren't earning a living shooting low scores.

I'd think if there were some huge amount of fun to be had playing Balata covered wound balls you'd see at least some little niche of people playing that game among themselves, sort of like the hickory-shaft crowd. I've not seen any such subculture evolve around short, high-spin golf balls. I wonder what Johnny Miller plays for fun when he's out with one of his sons playing golf. Probably a Callaway ball of the same Tour specs as anyone else uses nowadays. Yet he's one of those who loudly pine for the days of old when shotmakers ruled the game.

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

What's a "Randian dilema"?

Not that I am all-knowing or all-powerful, others on this site might be, but if elected or appointed, I will accept.

I tend to agree with Jeff B. about the current era of choices.  Whether or not some or our anachronistic, sky-is-falling friends wish to acknowledge, there is so much more available today than was 20 - 30 years ago, and the game is much more inclusive and diverse.

So, if I was made "keeper of the game and its traditions", I would do the following:

1) All professional and scratch level regional and national amateur tournaments would be played with a competition ball made to carry 240 yards maximum into a neutral wind at sea level with a swing speed of 110 mph.  Subject to my approval, each regional golf association would be allowed to make special adjustments to the ball rule in order to take into account regional and local differences relative to the average national standard.

2) Implement (golf clubs) standards based on current data and criteria would be provided to all stakeholders.  These could be adjusted accordingly in the future (to maintain the consistency and relevance of the distance standard).

3)  Clubs would be encouraged to hold its scratch championships with the tournament ball, but handicaps could be maintained regardless of the ball used to record the score.  Like playing from different tees, the course rating with the tournament ball would differ, normally higher, than with a non-tournament ball still on the approved (USGA) list.

4)  For those clubs that lack the purity and desire to be so knit-picky, do what you want.  Just let your members know that their handicap will not travel well when playing at clubs who are, and that whining about it will not be tolerated.

5)  For local and daily play, allow matches to be played however the participants wish in regards to which one or both balls to use.  Only when handicaping is a concern should the one-ball rule be in effect.

6)  Encourage all golfers to compete, bet a little, play fast, but most of all, to have fun while leaving the course in better shape than they found it.

As the final arbiter, I ask for no recompense other than just ocassional access to "America's Best".  And even as a short hitter, to prove tha EGO is not my driving factor, I'll use the tournament ball exclusively.  Titleist may send my year's supply in care of this website.  Please have "In the Best Interests of Golf" as a straight line with arrow heads where the ProVx1 normally appears.  On the other side I would like to have "Golf is a Game of Walking".      

 

[George Pazin]

It's not really a Randian dilemma. To me that implies that there should be no ruling body. It's a game/sport, somebody has to set the rules.

As for the question, why the gigantic leap from 1965 to 2005? I'd be happy with 1995, or really any year pre-pro V1. In other words, dial back the pro V1 5-10% and I'd be satisfied.

One of the real differences to me is that there seem to be more "surprise" monster drives this year. It seems like if you really hit today's long balls - pro V1, Callaway's best, Nike's best, etc. - perfectly, you can get a drive in the neighborhood of 350 not infrequently. It's these drives that are really turning the game on its ear. There are enough that you have 480 yard par 4s that are drive and pitch often enough that people feel the need to stretch things out further and further.

In a perfect world, people who "ruled" courses would be immune from the feelings of inadequacy that cause them to Tiger proof their course. But this isn't a perfect world, and it seems a whole lot easier and more reasonable to revisit the ODS periodically than to try to change everyone else's minds. One can deny that the ball (or other technology) is that problem, but one can't deny what is happening to most golf courses.

[A_Clay_Man]

Geo, It doesnt' imply no ruling body, it implies that "For the good of the game" means different things to different people. All of whom should have both a say, and no say, in what is fair and right and any future course of action.

I'm not unreasonable and your 1995 time frame sounds reasonable enough. I miss the old Balatas and how I could cut one. I was a little shocked when Titleist made a ball that had so many more rounds in it. Heck, I'm so dumb i thought it was fiduciarly irresponsible of them to make a better ball. People kept having to buy the inferior ones, repeatedly.

I do like Tom Pauls idea of a sneak attack on a rollback.

 I think the joint chiefs should do the same in Iraq. Say they are leaving, put on birkas, and stay. Similar to the russian invasion of poland, but different.

Lou, If I were king I would make every stipulated round posted, for handicap purposes, be veryfied. How Reagenesque.

[Sean_A]

Lou

What happens when nearly everybody can carry a ball 240 yards?  This artificial limit seems to go against the ethos of hard work, practice and physical prowess.  This is my problem with any across the board standardization.  

If standardization is the answer, I don't see how every other bit of equipment shouldn't be standardized.  From hats down to spikes and from grips to club heads.  

It seems these debates continue to center around the professional game when at the end of the day, it shouldn't matter the least bit to the vast majority of us how far Tiger hits the ball.  Why is this bit of useless info so important to people with no investment in pro golf?  Is it truly about our viewing pleasure?

Last I played, the game was still how many, not how.  I still find the how many part quite difficult.

Ciao

Sean

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

What on earth do you mean by dialing the ball back to 2005?

[TEPaul]

"Making a put on a fast, flat green is largely a matter of physical execution.  Everyone knows where to hit it, it is just a matter of who can hit it there.  Making a flat on a contoured green involves more of a mental and physical challenge.  One must first decide where to hit it, and then one must execute.  More choices."

Apparently you must not be familiar with the "dreaded straight putt." Obvously it must be a typo but knowing you perhaps not. And so what is 'making a flat' all about? Is that when you hit a putt on a contoured green and the ball sort of acts like all the air went out of it or something? I would asume a "flat" probably doesn't have the distance to get anywhere near the hole, huh?

[TEPaul]

"I do like Tom Pauls idea of a sneak attack on a rollback."

Adam:

Sneak attack??

I didn't say that. What I'm suggesting is perhaps they may be going about this without first attempting to rile everyone up over it----most importantly the manufacturers who are obviously the least sanguine about controlling or rolling back distance.

It seems to me on this discussion group that far too many come at every issue by attempting to BLAME someone first. Is that really the best way to solve problems? Personally, I doubt it.

[TEPaul]

"I am familiar with the dreaded straight putt."

And what is a straight putt to you? Is it inside the hole? Is it right center, left center, inside right, inside left? Have you ever seen someone ask their caddy or partner for a read on a basically straight putt and have them answer; "Just hit it right at the center of the center? I've never heard anyone say that although that's what I tell them if that's what I see. Most seem to try to read sometihng into nothing and I guess that's why they call it "the dreaded straight putt".  

[Forrest Richardson]

Perhaps that is the answer: Confuse everyone so they do not know the year.  

But wait...if we did that then recent courses with classic looks would not be "in"...they would be, well, at the mercy of whatever year you happened to think it was currently.

[Ted Kramer]

Roll the ball back to the balata technology. . .
That ball spins enough to slow down a lot of the distance issue.
The balata might even bring an element of shot making back to the game. And I don't think that it reacts like today's balls offering an exponential increase in distance at the higher ends of the swing speed spectrum.

I also kind of miss those thinned wedge smiley faces  

-Ted

[A_Clay_Man]

Sorry, Tom, That was my characterization of what I thought you meant, and would be a reasonable compromise, and a senseable way to handle the matter. That's if two things also happen. One, the rollback advocates have made headway. & Two, no one notices thier hitting 2-3 extra clubs.

[Mike_Sweeney]

One solution that I have never seen suggested is to follow the pattern of Squash which basically has 5 balls for a variety of conditions, skill level, court and style of play. From the US Squash rules site:

No specifications are set for faster or slower speeds of ball, which may be used by players of greater or lesser ability or in court conditions which are hotter or colder than those used to determine the yellow dot specification. Where faster speeds of ball are produced they may vary from the diameter and weight in the above specification of a standard yellow dot squash ball. It is recommended that balls bear a permanent color code or marking to indicate their speed or category of usage. It is also recommended that balls for beginners and improvers conform generally to the rebound resilience figures below.

Beginner Rebound resilience @ 23 degrees C not less than 17%

Rebound resilience @ 45 degrees C 36% to 38%

Improver Rebound resilience @ 23 degrees C not less than 15%

Rebound resilience @ 45 degrees C 33% to 36%

Specifications for balls currently fulfilling these requirements can be obtained from the WSF on request

The speed of balls may also be indicated as follows

Super slow - Yellow Dot

Slow - White Dot or Green Dot

Medium - Red Dot

Fast - Blue Dot

Thus a club tournament at Merion could use the Red Dot ball, and the US Open would use the Yellow Dot. Everyday play would be the Blue Dot.

The manufacturers would be happy as they would get to sell more balls. Most golfers would buy the Blue ball for every day play, but would buy additional balls for certain club tournaments.

PS. In Squash, a slower ball is generally easier to play with.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Here's a fair question for the USGA: why have they chosen now as the place to draw the line on distance (as they claim their new testing is doing...)?

If everything up to now is progress in their view and a natural part of an evolving sport, then why are they stepping in now?

It seems that they are posing the question to their members regarding dates in time to put their critics on the defensive and in a position where those questioning the USGA's authority are forced into an answer that allows them to say, "see you are just nostalgic for a certain era." Mr. Fay tried this concept on me during the Sports Illustrated roundtable. It's clever, but a slightly twisted approach when you really think about it since they, as a governing body, should be the ones developing positions based on their expertise.

But the question of a date in time where the equipment should be rolled back to also seems to call into question why people like Mr. Fay were so concerned about distance increases in 1998 during the ERC saga (and willing to stake their reputations to those stances), and why those same people have now taken a different or more nuanced stance when it comes to equipment aided distance increases today.

[TEPaul]

" & Two, no one notices thier hitting 2-3 extra clubs."

Adam:

That's a technical question that will have to be answered---eg would the app 85 MPH swing speed golfer be hitting 2-3 clubs more if the USGA/R&A adopted a rule or regulation that the balls used in the future had to have a considerably higher spin rate than the balls (rocks and such) that have been in existence for the last 40 or so years.

[Paul Richards]

> "javascript:replaceText(' ')What game shall we play ?"


How about 1990 - 1992 or so.  Before technology really took off and got really out of control.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

What on earth do you mean by dialing the ball back to 2005?

Michael Moore,

The dialed back reference was a general statement made to  encompass a variety of years, quoted by the USGA.
For most of us the 2005 golf season is over.

But, thanks again for making an incredibly valueable contribution.

Geoff Shackelford,

I agree, that's why I indicated in an earlier post that the USGA hadn't adopted a philosophy with respect to where golf should be, performance wise.

It's not the confluence of science and philosophy that's creating the debate, it's the lack of any position, let alone a firm positon that's creating the debate.

They've had 13 years since Ron Prichard's letter to form am positon, but, to date, none has been establshed, let alone published.

TEPaul,

What many forget is that the only reason swing speeds have increased so dramatically is due to the technology.

I defy golfers to swing a 43.5 inch, X-stiff shaft, 225 cc clubfaced, D-3 swingweight driver at 140 MPH when a ball is on the tee under tournament conditions.

Combine those specs with a ball that spins and the results will be dramatically different from today's performances.

46 inch grafite shafts with 460 cc clubheads, coupled with a straight ball are what allows golfers to generate enormous speeds without fear of wildy eratic shots.

I believe Tiger and Daly routinely carried the ball 340 yards over trees and a lake on the 18th hole today, to a fairway narrowed to single file width.

Dave Moriarty,

I think high tech has also had a negative impact on non-PGA Tour players.

Almost every competition now incorporates high, dense rough and super fast greens so that the host course isn't embarrassed vis a vis lots of low scores.

More and more courses are narrowing their fairways and growing their rough, just like they see on TV.
Did you see how narrow the 18th fairway at Harding Park was ?   Well, so did every green chairman who was watching the tournament.

Lastly, guys 65 shouldn't be hitting it higher, straighter and farther then they did when they were 25.[/color]

[Brent Hutto]

If everything up to now is progress in their view and a natural part of an evolving sport, then why are they stepping in now?

It seems that they are posing the question to their members regarding dates in time to put their critics on the defensive and in a position where those questioning the USGA's authority are forced into an answer that allows them to say, "see you are just nostalgic for a certain era."

Exactly. That's why I say 2005 is just fine. Show me an ability to effectively regulate distance without a rollback and have it accepted. If you can do that, then maybe some sort of rollback is desirable. If you can't keep it from increasing again in 2006 and again in 2007 and so forth then discussion of 1985 or 1965 is just a smoke screen.

If they couldn't keep the 2005 model balls from being longer than the 2004 models then how the heck am I supposed to believe they'll not only do that but also make the 2006 balls be shorter and spin more and whatever else shows on on the  old-fogey wish lists. I've used this analogy before. It's like hiring someone to fix a hole in your roof. Next time it rains you call them because there's water still coming in the house and they say "OK we'll get to that later, wouldn't you also like us to build you a new garage?". No, just shut up and fixed the darned roof.

[Ron Kern]

After reading the latest USGA propaganda in October's "Inside the USGA,"  I concur with Geoff's observations.  They talk out of both sides of their mouth so many times in the article that it's almost dizzying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto,

I'll wager you that distance doesn't max itself out in 2005.

And, I'll state that the ball is going too far, too high and too straight in 2005.

As Geoff stated, why wasn't 1995 or 1996 picked ?

And, will the suggestion be to pick 2010 five years from now ?

Ron Kern,

I found their contention that the PGA Tour players average drives are only 26 yards longer than they were at the begining of the 20th century mind boggling.

I also enjoyed reading Pete Dye's quote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()