[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul.

You're confused, that's the wrong story.
The one you referenced happened in Florida  

Ask Bob Huntley to refresh your memory.

AGCrockett,

I see that you haven't connected the dots yet.

Are you aware of the backround behind the USGA instituting a "one ball" rule and the impact on golfers using several balls during a round ?

[A_Clay_Man]

What you and the others lose sight of is the damage that high tech and distance have done to wonderful classic golf courses.   Is that in the purview of the USGA?, If so, where does their charter state such? As far as ME losing sight, I'd say all the board of directors, in all eras, post Max Behr's(and others) warnings about "the problem" are the ones who lost sight. not me. I can't lose sight of something I never had. All I have ever done, on this web site, was challenge the rollback advocates argument. It should be no great task to convince 1500 GCA enthusiasts that classic courses need saving. So, what about convincing the rest of the world? How are YOU going to do that, convinceingly, with all the moral relativism around?

You cannot continue to allow technology and distance to reduce the inherent values of the playing grounds I'm not continuing to do anything but question the arrogance of those who say they know better. Personally, I feel the aftermath of the open at Shinnecock, was a lost opportunity for all of you who want to spread the word on the inherent positives found in the classic courses. IMO, the usga,PGA, gcsaa, have all evolved into a confluence of circumstance that has led to a ruination of what was supposed to be an honorable game, through attitudes and practices that were in-place, long before Ron Prichard's letters.

It's not just about the ball and the equipment, as if they exist in a vacuum.  It's the related damage they've done to classic golf courses, the cost to create new ones and renovate existing ones. Well, you're right about one thing, it isn't just the ball and club that has added distance. Maintenece is responsible for 15% of that added distance, according to Superintendent News. Did you watch the AMEX this last week? Did you see JD out drive Tiger? Did you see him 3 putt too many times, after out driving Tiger?  By focusing on the distance issue, you diminish the other aspects, which are important, to scoring well, in this multi-faceted sport. ya know, the between the ears part.

Everyone screams at how ANGC is being ruined, how the architectural values as intended by AM are being squeezed out of the golf course.  Why is ANGC making these changes ?  Because they're responding to the distance problem,  the one that you and others don't see. The good Doctor's design was disfigured well before the distance issue was front and center. In hindsight, it appears the negative impact of the Augusta syndrome has expanded beyond just lush green turf, complete with pretty flowers version of a golf course. They pioneered the art of disfiguration. Thanks Cliff Roberts  

Merion, Pine Valley and many other courses are being lengthened to combat and offset the distance brought about by hi-tech, and, it's not for the PGA Tour Pros that all courses are being lengthened.  Even my dinky, little, 6,500 yard, wonderful golf course in New Jersey is being lengthened to offset the distance brought about by hi-tech.

And, courses that can't add length due to land restrictions are moving bunkers, narrowing their rough, growing it deeper and more lush, speeding up their greens to a comical degree and losing them due to the adverse results, as are courses that can add length at the tee end.  Some courses are moving greens to add length. Besides the moral relativism, making people's problems, other people's problems, is also pervasive in our society. The only other pertinent statement was made by Dr. Klien, on the intelectual capacity of the fortunate wealthy.

And, you're worried about some marginal golfers who MAY turn tail and abandon the game because they don't hit it as far or as straight.  Are you kidding me. I'm not worried about them, the industry is catering to them. It makes no sense to me that they do cater to THEM. But that doesn't change the fact that they do. My head is not in the sand, and, it isn't slanted by the commercials of the manufactuers.

My position is, let them go and good riddance.
They're not the core of the game and they're not golfers at heart. That's what I said. I knew you'd heard it before

I recently lost 50+ yards on my drives and comparable distance on my irons and my love and enjoyment of the game didn't diminish one iota.   I just had to alter my plan of attack and navigation of the golf course.

What's all this whining and worrying about the manufacturers and marginal golfers, focus instead on the destruction and disfiguration of classic golf courses, the cost to build and maintain new golf courses and how expensive distance has made the game. Those marginal golfers are the ones who boost the margins, for those who view this game as a business. I fear there are alot more of them, who will fight the rollback, then the few of us, who at least are enthusiastic, and realize the underlying importance of GCA.
 

[T_MacWood]

What you and the others lose sight of is the damage that high tech and distance have done to wonderful classic golf courses.   Is that in the purview of the USGA?, If so, where does their charter state such? As far as ME losing sight, I'd say all the board of directors, in all eras, post Max Behr's(and others) warnings about "the problem" are the ones who lost sight. not me.

The USGA--as the rules body of American golf (which includes testing, ruling and setting standards on equipment) is charged with looking after the best interests of the game, and is responsible for creating the current unhealthy condition relating to classic courses. They have created a condition that forces many of these clubs to modernize in the face of rapid equipment advancements, equipment advancements which have made these traditional championship courses obolete. The health and stability of golf  is directly related to the health and stability of golf architecture (including golf architecture's greatest works from the past).

[Brent Hutto]

The health and stability of golf  is directly related to the health and stability of golf architecture (including golf architecture's greatest works from the past).

That's a strong assertion. "Stability" maybe but "health" I dunno. You are stating that the "health" of the game equates in large part to the ability to conduct tournaments at the highest levels of play on 100-year-old courses without modification. That definition of "health" is probably one shared by only a tiny, tiny minority of golfers.

[A.G._Crockett]

TEPaul.

You're confused, that's the wrong story.
The one you referenced happened in Florida  

Ask Bob Huntley to refresh your memory.

AGCrockett,

I see that you haven't connected the dots yet.

Are you aware of the backround behind the USGA instituting a "one ball" rule and the impact on golfers using several balls during a round ?

I am aware of the background of the one-ball condition (it is NOT a rule, if we are being precise).  I'll quickly agree that the adoption of a local condition for stipulated rounds that 99.9999% of the golfers in the world have never played even a single round under has NOT hurt the popularity of golf.

Now, tell me how the one-ball condition is in any way instructive for what might happen if ALL golf balls were changed?

[Jim Thompson]

With regard to the original question, is this not the ultimate red herring?  If the game were rolled back via equipment, wouldn't that create more options for play? Consider that playing the back tees could create shot values of the past while every time you move up a tee you could play the game of a more current era.  From the fronts you could still play the driver wedge par fours and still reach par fives with 4 iron second shots.  The real qestion is will those that have played "new golf"  abandon the back tees to continue to play the game they enjoy, adistanc subsidized game, or will they stay back and find a new type of test?

Speed of play.  The one thing that slows down the game most is looking for balls.  Is it not easier to keep ones eye on a ball that travels 230 yards than one that travels 270?  I know at about 260 I loose sight of the ball and have to find it in the first cut.

Cheers!

JT

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Macwood- The only part of your eloquent statement that I would take issue with, is the word "force".

No one is forcing these older courses to keep up with the Jones'. I suspect Ego, and a desire to keep revenue flows acceptable, are the cause. If these venerable clubs appreciated their venues as art, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to disfigure? And Maybe, just maybe, they should have come up with a more creative solution, or been more proactive before now, to solve their perceived inadequacies, rather than blaming the usga for their plight?

Jim T-

If the game were rolled back via equipment, wouldn't that create more options for play?

No, Just the opposite would be the case. The option of driving the 336 yard green would be removed.

[Jim Thompson]

Adam,

If driving greens is fun for you, all you you need do is move up a few sets of tees.  From your response I assume you currently can drive a 336 yard green from the tips with driver, from the club tees with three wood, from the seniors with 3 iron and the ladies with 5 iron but in each case you are attempting to drive the green, a singular option in your mind.

Its OK to play different tees.

Cheers!

JT

[A_Clay_Man]

Actually Jim, I was refering to Tiger's drive on #7 on Saturday, in the AMEX. It was certainly exciting and showed that shotmaking isn't really dead, it's just mostly dead in the hands of the majority of above average ability golfers.
FYI, I play all the tees, mixing it up as often as possible. I even have enough security to play the forwards. Especially on the holes that have an unnecessary climb to a teeing ground that takes advantage of some vista. Usually the forwards are at ground level, causing the fairway bunkering  to be more of a factor, both visually and playability, risk/reward, wise.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
In order to hold their long standing position as traditional championship venues many courses are forced to redesign in the face rapid equipment advancements.

The Old course went decades with little or no change. In the last decade that golf course has undergone significant change...including creating rough to pinch the fairways. ANGC has had a number of cosmetic changes over the years, but it always retained its width with little or no rough, its original design intent....that situation has changed in the last ten years. Those courses (and number of traditional British and US Open courses) were forced to make changes. The alternative of removing those two as major championship sites is/was completely unrealistic.

My own home course is a traditional site for the NCAA championship....what was once very stiff test for the very best collegiate golfers is a pussy cat. As a result the course has been blown up and redesigned to meet the equipment onslaught. It will reemerge as a modern 7500+ yard behemoth.

I understand you are now sporting an oxford shirt and bow tie.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"It was certainly exciting and showed that shotmaking isn't really dead, it's just mostly dead in the hands of the majority of above average ability golfers."

Well, that's certainly a sign of progress...

[Lou_Duran]

To those so adamantly defending the USGA, a noted golf course architect recently sent me this:


"I have been reading some wonderful and appropriate responses to your decision to refuse continued membership in the USGA .  (However) ...there are those  ...  who choose to bury their heads in the sand.  The point you make is so clear and it reflects the very essence of Golf Club Atlas".

-----------------------------------------------------------

Paul Richards,

Thanks for settling the matter.   Everyone, withold your dues and support immediately.  By the way, could it have been the same noted golf architect who remarked in my presence that gca.com was mainly a bunch of whackos who can't play worth a lick and have way too much time in their hands?

Could others hold a different view of the evolution of the game and the USGA's role in this process without being sub-human?  If the concern is indeed that classical golf courses are being modified to their detriment, shouldn't the accusations be at least aimed at the owners of those courses?  Do we really need government, the USGA in this instance, to save us from ourselves?  

Why is it important that Merion hold another US Open?  Are there not any number of courses early in golf's history who've been bumped from the rota because they no longer provide a relevant test?  Is that in itself a problem?  BTW, just how many pre-1950s arenas in other sports are in continual use today for top competitions?

Mr. Lott,

One of the most popular US presidents both here and specially abroad governed extensively through polls and focus groups.  Hell, he even took the country's pulse on where to vacation!

No doubt that the USGA is seeking input.  Unlike your characterization of the article in its current newsletter, I would summarize it as follows:

"There are numerous issues involved in this growing problem of how far the ball is going at the highest levels of competition.  The USGA has been studying the science, history, and psychology of the game for quite some time, and is intent on making the best possible decisions to ensure a healthy future for golf"

"In this context, the USGA has to balance the wants and needs of a large constituency with the realities of what is possible and doable.  We believe that what is best for the game has, by necessity, much to do with those things which affect the most.  This is being diligently pursued, albeit much too deliberately for everyone's concern.  Unfortunately, serious matters require thoughtful, serious due diligence and reflection which is seldom accomplished in timeframes we are generally accustomed to."

"With your patience, input, and continued support, the USGA will continue to lead in maintaining the long-term integrity of the game.  Historically, the game has evolved not without some hiccups along the way, into what it is today- a sport that is practiced worldwide by more people of different social and cultural strata then ever before".

"We will address the distance issues arising from technology advancements not only from the balls and implements perspective, but will also focus on similar progress being made in agronomy and course maintenance.  Some of the pronouncements will be made shortly- months as opposed to years, and clearly communicated".

       

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave- And when the physical and mental abilities, combined with improved agronomy, allow the top golfers to exceed this magical 250 yard number, what will they(usga) do then? roll it back farther?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

You continue to view the issue in the context of commercialism and the manufacturers as opposed to the impact that hi-tech is having on golf courses, new and existing and the playing properties that are so critical to the inherent values of the game.

If everyone hits it straighter and farther, where is the challenge ?

How can the architecture respond and adapt to ever increasing distances ?

AGCrockett,

The "one ball" rule is a local rule.

Prior to the adoption of the rule, it was a rather common practice to use a variety of balls during the course of a round, depending upon condtions.

When the one ball rule was adopted most golfers abandoned multiple ball use voluntarily.  And, noone left the game.

Tournaments almost universally employed the one ball rule and noone withdrew or abandoned golf.

The connection of the dots reveals that there was neither a mass exodus or diminution in the number of participants due to removal of the option of playing with a number of golf balls.

When the "cheat" factor was removed, golf went back to being played as it was intended, with one ball, not with one ball that was great into the wind and another that was great with the wind.  One that ran forever and one that stopped on a dime.

If you look at the impact of the "policing" of balls and equipment by the USGA & R&A, from adopting the 1.68 ball, to the one ball rule, to the banning of the paddle grip to the banning of croquet style putting, in each and every instance, the game continued to retain existing and lure new golfers.

And, if performance standards with the ball and equipment are "dialed back" golf will continue to retain existing and lure new golfers.

The inherent values of the game are such that they aren't dependent upon ever increasing distance and accuracy vis a vis high tech.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

The 15 % distance gain you cite vis a vis agronomy is pure BS.

Long drivers CARRY the ball enormous distances, they don't ROLL it enormous distances.

Long Drivers who launch howitzer like shots want the ball stopping on a dime, and not run, where it can get into trouble.

A ball that runs is subject to the whims of the topography.

[A_Clay_Man]

How can the architecture respond and adapt to ever increasing distances ?

By firming up the canvas and losing the rough,(Shinnies only flaw in 04') introduces the way layer, to the unpredictable bounce (on quality topography) and roll, to it's rub O' the green ultimate final resting place.

But, thats not acceptable because ma and pa don't want to hurt their little wristies. And then, how the hell is the old man gonna stop his seven wood, on the green from 147 yards?

It's quite the trick trying to please everyone. I know.

The 15 % distance gain you cite vis a vis agronomy is pure BS.

Paging Dr. Klein Paging Dr. Klein

[A.G._Crockett]

AGCrockett,

The "one ball" rule is a local rule.

Prior to the adoption of the rule, it was a rather common practice to use a variety of balls during the course of a round, depending upon condtions.

When the one ball rule was adopted most golfers abandoned multiple ball use voluntarily.  And, noone left the game.

Tournaments almost universally employed the one ball rule and noone withdrew or abandoned golf.

The connection of the dots reveals that there was neither a mass exodus or diminution in the number of participants due to removal of the option of playing with a number of golf balls.

When the "cheat" factor was removed, golf went back to being played as it was intended, with one ball, not with one ball that was great into the wind and another that was great with the wind.  One that ran forever and one that stopped on a dime.

If you look at the impact of the "policing" of balls and equipment by the USGA & R&A, from adopting the 1.68 ball, to the one ball rule, to the banning of the paddle grip to the banning of croquet style putting, in each and every instance, the game continued to retain existing and lure new golfers.

And, if performance standards with the ball and equipment are "dialed back" golf will continue to retain existing and lure new golfers.

The inherent values of the game are such that they aren't dependent upon ever increasing distance and accuracy vis a vis high tech.

Patrick,
You are the king of knocking down the straw man!

Again, 99.9999% of the golfers in the world have NEVER played a even single round under the one-ball CONDITION (it ain't even called a local rule in App. I)!  I would even dispute your contention that tournaments "universally" use the rule; my experience with both club and junior tournaments is that the rules sheet generally says "The one-ball rule is NOT in effect."  Because of this, I would think it would be hard to provide data as to the effect of the rule on participation, and, in fact, you do NOT provide data.  You only provide your personal seat-of-the-pants guess.  Hopefully, the USGA is acting on a bit more empirical info!

However, even if I concede all of that, the whole argument is meaningless, even though I'm not bothered in the least by your total lack of documentation for the effect of the one-ball condition on participation.  

It's meaningless because the player still got THEIR CHOICE of the ball best suited for their game, even in the rare instance that the condition was in effect.  If they want a distance ball, they use one.  If they want a control ball, they use one, and so forth.  That wouldn't change with a rollback; ALL the balls would just be shorter, so the one-ball rule is not in any way shape of form instructive.

The issue here is only this:  would making the game more difficult by shortening the ball's flight help or hurt participation, or be a non-factor?  The obvious answer is "Can't help, might hurt, hope for a non-factor"; you apparently choose the last, and you may be right.  I just think the USGA's standards are higher than hoping for a non-factor outcome.

Also, please remember this:  the great majority of rounds of golf are NOT played with ProVI's at private clubs.  They are played with Pinnacles and TopFlites and the like sold in 15 ball packs for $20 or less.  Those balls are significantly longer than ProVI's STILL.  If you roll back the ball to a point at which the ProV's are flying a distance that you find acceptable, then you have to roll the others back by even more.  Bigger penalties for worse golfers; no wonder the USGA is reluctant to make a hasty move.

[A.G._Crockett]

Shivas,
I think that it is for a really simple reason; you create an administrative nightmare monitoring it during the competition, especially now.  The are two types of NXT's, half a dozen Nike's, several varieties of Pinnacles, God knows how many varieties of Topflites, and on and on.

It is worth noting also that the condition is not in effect unless adopted locally.  That is, if nothing is said, the one-ball condition is NOT in effect for any competition or stipulated round.  The statement on rules sheets that I referred to is actually redundant, but obviously there just for clarity.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll pass on living in THAT village!  When nothing else works for the yips, Lesson in a Can usually does.  Obviously, the town council doesn't play the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would think it would be hard to provide data as to the effect of the rule on participation, and, in fact, you do NOT provide data.  You only provide your personal seat-of-the-pants guess.  

It's simple.  Did rounds played go up or down after the rule was adopted ?[/color]

Hopefully, the USGA is acting on a bit more empirical info!

Every USGA event I tried to qualify for or played in since its adoption was played with the one ball rule in effect.[/color]

However, even if I concede all of that, the whole argument is meaningless, even though I'm not bothered in the least by your total lack of documentation for the effect of the one-ball condition on participation.

The documentation is there, you just don't want to look at it.
Did rounds played increase and continue to increase after its adoption ? [/color]  

It's meaningless because the player still got THEIR CHOICE of the ball best suited for their game, even in the rare instance that the condition was in effect.  If they want a distance ball, they use one.  If they want a control ball, they use one, and so forth.  That wouldn't change with a rollback; ALL the balls would just be shorter, so the one-ball rule is not in any way shape of form instructive.

You're wrong on two points.
First, citing the one ball rule and the increased popularity and participation is proof positive that a restraint placed on ball use didn't hurt the game.

Second, a dialed back ball would have performance constraints.  In baseball, football, soccer and basketball each team doesn't select a ball of choice, they play a spec'd ball with uniform construction and performance standards, and so should golfers.

There's currently a list of non-conforming balls.
Balls that didn't conform to the dialed back competiton ball would suffer a similar fate.[/color]

The issue here is only this:  would making the game more difficult by shortening the ball's flight help or hurt participation, or be a non-factor?  The obvious answer is "Can't help, might hurt, hope for a non-factor"; you apparently choose the last, and you may be right.  I just think the USGA's standards are higher than hoping for a non-factor outcome.

That's pure nonsense.
Did golfers abandon the game in 1990 when you alleged it to be harder ?  1980 ?  Did golfers in the UK abandon the game when it became harder in 1990 with the adoption of the 1.68 ball ?  

You conveniently forget about the damage done to existing courses, the cost to construct and maintain new, longer courses and the total loss of shot values meant to be encountered, as conceived, designed and constructed by the architect.  The game is being destroyed from the perspective of interfacing with the intent of the architecture and you're focused on the game becoming harder.
How about focusing on making it based on skill instead of technology.[/color]

Also, please remember this:  the great majority of rounds of golf are NOT played with ProVI's at private clubs.  They are played with Pinnacles and TopFlites and the like sold in 15 ball packs for $20 or less.  Those balls are significantly longer than ProVI's STILL.  If you roll back the ball to a point at which the ProV's are flying a distance that you find acceptable, then you have to roll the others back by even more.  Bigger penalties for worse golfers; no wonder the USGA is reluctant to make a hasty move.

According to you, inferior players, "worse golfers" are hitting cheaper balls far beyond the distances attained by better players with ProV's.

If I bought into that bizarre line of flawed reasoning it would be even more reason to dial back distance.
Now we don't have to worry about Tiger Woods and John Daly, it's those guys buying cheap balls at the golf outlets that are blowing it by everyone.

You may want to reread and rephrase that paragraph.
It alone would justify an immediate roll back.[/color]

Shivas,

What tournaments are there besides National, regional and State competitions ?  

The class C, net, stableford club championship.  

As to administration, that's the easy part.

At the start of each round competitors are asked to identify and mark their ball.  This is done in a visual and oral exchange.
The integrity of the golfer coupled with his fellow competitors responsibility to protect the field is all the enforcement you need.

You'd know that if you were actively engaged in meaningful competitions.

P.S.  How'd you do in that net, throw out your two high holes, ten club, mixed scotch sixsome you played in the other day ?

[Doug Siebert]

There's no point in even debating rolling back earlier than 1965 (not to say 1965 is the right date) because that's before the vast majority of golfers started playing.  The idea of rolling back to 1910 or whatever is just a red herring tossed out by those against the whole idea of reigning in technology.

I'm not particularly worried about rolling back to a particular date, just recapturing the playing characteristics that existed before the Pro V1 took all the skill and strategy from driving the ball by making it a hit it hard and fly it fly thing.  If you had higher spin rates you used to that prevented the high launch angle low spin balls carrying 300+ yards you'd fix the problem.  This is probably doable with little or no distance loss from the average golfers, because most of them aren't launching it with the optimal launch angle in the first place (to do so a guy who carries it 220 needs to use about a 13 degree driver, and I can't even get my dad who busts one 180 yards to give up his 9 degree driver!)

[Forrest Richardson]

A few times per year, at Oakhurst, they play with old clubs and old balls. I have never heard anyone championing that Oakhurst is somehow dealt an unfair blow because it is less than 9 holes, only a few thousand yards or that it has no likeness of most modern courses.

Is Oakhurst golf?

This discussion is about deciding an era — one man's or woman's idea of when technology should be deemed appropriate versus inappropriate. The debate is as old as Bernard's great discussion on the subject. It will outlive us all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()