[Alfie]

For a young man, I believe G Ogilvy exudes far more understanding of 'ye olde gem' than most of his fellow pro's, not to mention those bestowed with the power to protect the sport ? Not only is he (Ogilvy) being HONEST with himself, but far more importantly, he is being HONEST to the sport he, and the rest of us, say we love !
Each and every golfer should (IMO) consider themselves guardians for the future well being of golf. Not for themselves, but unselfishly.......for our future generations !
Ogilvy recognises the evidently clear problem distance issue's present within the game and has the guts to say so, unlike so many who may fear repercussions for outspoken opinions ?

Lou,
"What is good for the game may be very clear to Mr. Ogilvy and some on this site.  As one of my favorite politicians likes to point out, rolling back the advancements of the last 40 years is not progress."

Now I think I know where you're going wrong on the distance issue. You actually BELIEVE politicians  
Personally, I never want to push a manual lawnmower ever again ; nor do I want to chip holes in concrete with hammer and chisel when I have my electric core drill / breaker at hand ; nor would I wish that my poor wee wifie had ever to put her bedsheets through an old mangle to dry them like my mother had to do ! The list is endless, whereby modern technologies have advanced our lifestyles for the better. But the point being that most people don't extract all that much FUN from the laborious toils of life. On the other hand, golf is surely meant to be FUN but technology doesn't appear to be delivering the desired effect ? Oh, how it must have been hell for those olde gowfers now 6 feet under the sod ?

No Lou, as my favourite meenister once said ; "There is a speciality in golf and when that speciality is lost, then man has invented a new game - that is not golf !"

Permissable Technology Advances are busily creating another game for a newer generation. I wonder if they'll thank us for NOT drawing the line on "golf" technology ?

BTW. I see from your profile that you're not as old as you suggest....... 2 ?  

Hope you're well.

Alfie.

[Edward Coombes]

It makes me think Star Wars Episode 4.

"A New Hope"

[Lou_Duran]

Alfie,

I recently finished "The Grand Slam" by Mark Frost, an excellent read about Bobby Jones and his successful quest for the four majors in 1930.  Among the many things I found interesting in the book is just how often Bobby hit 300+ yard drives with his hickory shafted driver and a mush ball.

My primary point is that distance is a legitimate issue but for only a tiny percentage of the golfing population.  Mr. Ogilvy's perspectives are from that standpoint and the remedies he suggests may not be what is in the much wider "best interests" of the game.

I don't know how many golfers you encounter who say, "Alfie, I hit it so damn far and straight that golf is no longer a challenge or much fun to play".  Quite the opposite, most of us are trying to get that last yard out of our 85 mph swings, and hopefully find our ball where we can hit it again.  

Strategy?  Unless you are talking about bumping the ball on the ground with your putter 75 yards, how many 18 handicappers play the carom off the right side of the fairway to gain a more advantageous line to a tucked pin?  Please, we aim between the trees (gorse in your case) and hope for the best.

Firm up the greens, something that is much easier said than done in places where sand is not the primary material, and the average Joe will be chipping and putting all day long.

There is not a solution to the technology/distance problem if we don't accept that the game played by the pros and tournament amateurs is vastly different than what the vast majority of golfers play.  To the extent that the "best interests" of the game are tied to it remaining a participatory sport, I don't think we can look at golf like Mr. Ogilvy seems to.

Bifurcation is the only solution that I think is viable.  We already play entirely different golf courses.  With all the temporary immovable obstructions at tournament sites, we effectively play by different rules.  What is wrong with different ball and equipment rules as is common in other sports?  Purity of the sport?  I think that ship has probably sailed some time ago.  

Another thing that would greatly help is if people would swallow their pride and play the set of tees that is most suited for their game.  Just because there is another set further back doesn't mean we have to go there.  Under most circumstances not involving important competitions, I still don't understand why even within the same group, everybody has to play from the same set of tees.

As to being old, it is all relative and situational.  Today I am feeling older than usual, and less idealistic.

Regarding politicians, they all must pass a reasonableness test with me.  The one I was referring to, sarcastically I might add, is none other than Senator Clinton.  I've sworn off politics, so I must not digress.

Cheers!

[TEPaul]

"Is Ogilvy Geoff Shackelford's long-lost cousin?"

MikeC:

Ogilvy and GeoffShac apparently got to know each other pretty well during the LA Open. Philosophically regarding architecture they seem to be birds of a feather and they're apparently email buddies now too which is pretty cool. GeoffShac says Ogilvy is a very smart guy.    

[Troy Alderson]

Great stuff Tim, I am sending a copy to of both articles to the club pro.  He is everything that is anti-traditional golf, loves boring flat greens and golf courses.

Troy

[Chris Kane]

Ogilvy is testament to what happens when you hang around with Clayts for long enough!

[Mike_Clayton]

TEP

Geoff did spend some time with Geoff at LA and they are fans of each other as far as I can tell.

'Over there they all think Shackelford's nuts which is a real problem because he is the one of the few who gets it'

Geoff is back in Melbourne and at his press conference today he again spoke of the need for a tournament ball to defend our best courses - Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath etc.

As far as I can tell he is one of very few tour players who are prepared to make an articulate stand on the equipment debate and the set-up of golf courses.

Geoff is a very smart guy who pays more than lip service to the history of the game and he has an opportunity now to be an important voice.

[Matthew Delahunty]

It makes me think Star Wars Episode 4.

"A New Hope"

Does that make Mike Clayton "Obi-Wan"?

[Mark_F]

Are we sure that article is all Geoff's?

It reads suspiciously like a rent-a-quote document to me.

[Andrew Thomson]

perhaps his home club helped ghost write it.

Where is his home club by the way?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Geoff did spend some time with Geoff at LA and they are fans of each other as far as I can tell.
'Over there they all think Shackelford's nuts which is a real problem because he is the one of the few who gets it'"

Mike Clayton (May I call you "Clayts"? );

My suggestion to you is that you remove the above remarks, and I will as well, because if the USGA happens to read that Ogilvy is a friend of GeoffShac's (or shares any of GeoffShac's heretical thoughts) they will undeniably DEMAND that Geoff Ogilvy give back their US Open trophy IMMEDIATELY and they will undoubtedly try to figure out some way of denying that Geoff Oglivy did win the United States Open.  

This situation has the potential of becoming a bigger brouhaha than Walter Travis's "Schenectedy putter" controversy!!

[ForkaB]

Alfie,

I recently finished "The Grand Slam" by Mark Frost, an excellent read about Bobby Jones and his successful quest for the four majors in 1930.  Among the many things I found interesting in the book is just how often Bobby hit 300+ yard drives with his hickory shafted driver and a mush ball.

My primary point is that distance is a legitimate issue but for only a tiny percentage of the golfing population.  Mr. Ogilvy's perspectives are from that standpoint and the remedies he suggests may not be what is in the much wider "best interests" of the game.

I don't know how many golfers you encounter who say, "Alfie, I hit it so damn far and straight that golf is no longer a challenge or much fun to play".  Quite the opposite, most of us are trying to get that last yard out of our 85 mph swings, and hopefully find our ball where we can hit it again.  

Strategy?  Unless you are talking about bumping the ball on the ground with your putter 75 yards, how many 18 handicappers play the carom off the right side of the fairway to gain a more advantageous line to a tucked pin?  Please, we aim between the trees (gorse in your case) and hope for the best.

Firm up the greens, something that is much easier said than done in places where sand is not the primary material, and the average Joe will be chipping and putting all day long.

There is not a solution to the technology/distance problem if we don't accept that the game played by the pros and tournament amateurs is vastly different than what the vast majority of golfers play.  To the extent that the "best interests" of the game are tied to it remaining a participatory sport, I don't think we can look at golf like Mr. Ogilvy seems to.

Bifurcation is the only solution that I think is viable.  We already play entirely different golf courses.  With all the temporary immovable obstructions at tournament sites, we effectively play by different rules.  What is wrong with different ball and equipment rules as is common in other sports?  Purity of the sport?  I think that ship has probably sailed some time ago.  

Another thing that would greatly help is if people would swallow their pride and play the set of tees that is most suited for their game.  Just because there is another set further back doesn't mean we have to go there.  Under most circumstances not involving important competitions, I still don't understand why even within the same group, everybody has to play from the same set of tees.

As to being old, it is all relative and situational.  Today I am feeling older than usual, and less idealistic.

Regarding politicians, they all must pass a reasonableness test with me.  The one I was referring to, sarcastically I might add, is none other than Senator Clinton.  I've sworn off politics, so I must not digress.

Cheers!

Lou

I quote your whole post because it should be required reading for everyone here on GCA.

Ogilvy's a great golfer and seems to be a really nice guy and apparently a student of GCA, but what is relevant to his game is irrelevant to ours.  Bifurcation exists, and fighting it is like trying to be only a little bit pregnant.  The myth that we "all play the same game, on the same courses" was obviously a myth many years ago.

Children play baseball on 60' diamonds with aluminum bats, toddlers ride bikes with training wheels, geezers play touch football or 1/2 court basketball--why shouldn't we play shorter courses with "illegal" equipment?  Let--no MAKE!--the pros play with persimmons, blades and balata.  Most of us will use our "training wheels" for most of the time, saving the "pro" stuff for places like Merion or Rye.

Thanks, Lou

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Lou

I quote your whole post because it should be required reading for everyone here on GCA.

Ogilvy's a great golfer and seems to be a really nice guy and apparently a student of GCA, but what is relevant to his game is irrelevant to ours.  Bifurcation exists, and fighting it is like trying to be only a little bit pregnant.  The myth that we "all play the same game, on the same courses" was obviously a myth many years ago.

Children play baseball on 60' diamonds with aluminum bats, toddlers ride bikes with training wheels, geezers play touch football or 1/2 court basketball--why shouldn't we play shorter courses with "illegal" equipment?  Let--no MAKE!--the pros play with persimmons, blades and balata.  Most of us will use our "training wheels" for most of the time, saving the "pro" stuff for places like Merion or Rye."

Rich:

As usual, you're just barking up the wrong tree. You say bifurcation exists between today's pros and the rest of us because they play a different game than the rest of us? I'm sure they do. I'm also sure that Bobby Jones and his contemporaries played a different game back in that day than the rest of the golfers of that time. So what?

Obviously you've never figured out that the remark in golf that 'we all play the same game' is a fallacy and it always has been. The only difference in golf between other sports is we all play the same balls and equipment in golf. So what? That fact in golf at least serves the purpose of showing all of us just how MUCH BETTER tour pros are from most of the rest of us. I say that kind of reality check is probably good for golf and good for golfers in the long run.

Golf definitely does not need to imitate little league baseball, 1/2 court basketball, touch football, little kids on bikes with "training wheels" or tennis or any other sport that kowtows to the egos of its participants and skews the comparisons of skill levels.

I say put the little kids on great big racing bikes with no training wheels and let them fall off a few times and ding their heads and skin their kness. They'll obviously learn faster and learn better that way.  

The day that grown men and women started acting like kids are real people is the day the world began to go down the shitter bigtime. There is a certain slice of time that children must go through the caldron of real life training before they can become real people. When baby seals are ready to learn to swim do you think real seals throw their young into "baby seal pools" or into the real ocean?  

[ForkaB]

Rich:

As usual, you're just barking up the wrong tree.

Tom

You are just barking--completely barking mad!

Say "Good night" Gracie, and read what I said (or have your nurse read it to you), next time.

Slainte

Rich

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think I agree with Tom Paul on this one, and I used to think more like Lou and Rich. It's not so much that pros play a different game - it's just that they play so much BETTER.

Lou said:

"Strategy?  Unless you are talking about bumping the ball on the ground with your putter 75 yards, how many 18 handicappers play the carom off the right side of the fairway to gain a more advantageous line to a tucked pin?  Please, we aim between the trees (gorse in your case) and hope for the best."

I think you may be underestimating the average golfer here. While at my home club the other night, I was listening to different tables at the 19th hole around me talking about their games, what they're working on, how they're hitting it, etc. I thought, "these guys are all hacks" - shooting 80's and 90's, but they're serious. We LIVE for this stuff. We work, and read, and think, talk, swing and swing and swing. It doesn't GET much more serious. The difference between us and the pro is that they're just so much better at it, that they can do it for a living. We ALL play strategy, we say things like "hit and hope", to take the sting off from the fact that, even after all of our efforts, we're STILL not that great at it.


I think Ogilvy is bang-on. Everyday golf does everything it can to emulate pro golf. Their game is mostly the same, and getting closer and closer - to the detriment of all. Pretending they're so different is only making it harder for the hacker.

I shot 90 last night. I hacked it out of 6 inch rough and lost two balls on a 5500 yard course. Our club is desperate to build a new course with more length, in order to appeal to 'modern' players...

Everyone knows that a par 68 isn't a REAL golf course!!!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I did read what you said----unfortunately.  

[ForkaB]

Rich:

I did read what you said----unfortunately.  

Tom

Are there remedial reading courses out there on the Main Line?  Let me know if you have trouble looking them up in the Yellow Pages.

Adam

If you read what Lou and I said (I read what you said) you will see we are on the same page.  Just because we play on the same court, do you really think that the game that Federer plays is the same game that you or I play?

As Telly Savalas would have said--"Bifurcation, Baby!  Bifurcation."  (Sucking on a lollipop....).

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Are there remedial reading courses out there on the Main Line?  Let me know if you have trouble looking them up in the Yellow Pages.

Rich:

That's just another piss poor response on your part. If you're going to make various points and take a stance on various things at least learn to defend them more intelligently and to respond to questions about them better than that. You've been reading Pat Mucci too long apparently.

[John Nixon]

Are we sure that article is all Geoff's?

It reads suspiciously like a rent-a-quote document to me.

John Huggan is the author of the piece.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Good article by John Davis in today's Arizona Republic about GO. He was a "club thrower" as a junior among other revelations:

www.azcentral.com/sports/golf/articles/0622ogilvy0622.html

[TEPaul]

Ogilvy's remarks are very interesting to say the least. Huggans' remarks are too.

However, it seems to me there are two fairly distinct lines of reasoning on this overall issue of how golf is approached by various people.

Clearly, one way of looking at this, as Ogilvy and Huggans seem to propose, is for the R&A and the USGA to set a much better example in how they set up and conduct their own tournaments vis-a-vis how most of the rest of us should expect our own courses to be set-up for or own maximum enjoyment.

Should the R&A/USGA do a much better job of explaining to all golfers and all golf clubs and courses not to attempt to do what they do in their major tournament set-ups? Should ANGC do the same? Or should golfers generally, and golf clubs generally, just realize on their own that super narrow, penal rough courses are simply not the smartest and best way to go on a day to day basis for the maximum interest and enjoyment of most all golfers on their own golf courses?

Ogilvy does say that tour professionals do attract an inordinate amount of attention as it relates to the way all of us play golf. Clearly he does mean to say that too many of us try to emulate everything they do (including their tournament set-ups) and that that is an unhealthy thing to do for the maximum enjoyment of the general golfer and the general golf course.

In other words, whose responsibility is it really to figure these distinctions out? Is it the R&A/USGA's or is it ours?

Ogilvy does say that the US Open is just a far different mind-set for the top-fiight elite golfer. Is there really something wrong with conducting a National Open that requires a far different mind-set from elite golfers than most of the rest of the tournments those elite golfers play?

On the face of it, it wouldn't seem so. It just appears that Ogilvy and Huggans and many of us on here feel this sets a very bad example on the part of the R&A/USGA for the rest of us.

Isn't it time that the rest of us simply use our own heads and figure out what works best for us and that it doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing that we see being presented to the most elite players in the world in something like a United States Open?

Shouldn't that be the real message and the best message from the likes of Ogilvy and Huggans?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam

If you read what Lou and I said (I read what you said) you will see we are on the same page.  Just because we play on the same court, do you really think that the game that Federer plays is the same game that you or I play?

As Telly Savalas would have said--"Bifurcation, Baby!  Bifurcation."  (Sucking on a lollipop....).

Rich

I did read it, Rich

And yes, I do think they're the same game. I know what it feels like to hit a drive 310. I know what it feels like to sink a 30' double-breaker for eagle. I know what it feels like to hole out from the fairway, etc. etc. I just can't do it consistently.

However, the fact that we're playing the same game CONNECTS me to the professional game, and allows me to understand why they're so good. That's what makes them interesting.

If they played persimmon woods and special balls, I wouldn't have the same connection. Seeing great players stifled into playing poorer is not what people want to see. We want to see people doing great things - and we want to understand how great they are. We want to entertain the dream that we might pull off a shot like that - even if it's once in a lifetime. That's why golfer after golfer climbs into the fairway bunker on the 18th at Glen Abbey - they want to experience what Tiger was doing when he won the Open there. They want to connect - not to be further separated.

I wonder why the major manufacturers aren't selling a lot of non-conforming hot gear to consumers here in North America. If the game is so different, why don't consumers accept it? Why do thousands of guys take photos of pro bags at tourneys and then seek out the same gear - paying crazy sums to get it? They want to be the SAME as the pros. They want to play the PRO game.

Much of the problems with our own courses come from that drive - to be like the pros; to play the game the same way they do. Because there IS no bifurcation. There is only one game of golf.

The illusion that they are separate is holding us back. If you acknowledge that there is only one game - intimately connected, you'll see that the pro game will always set the direction of all of it. Because it is the one common ground for us all. It is the one thing we can all look to from all of our clubhouses and homes.

This power of influence should be properly acknowledged and that responsibility recognized by the USGA and R&A.

We all meet at Tiger Woods and Geoff Ogilvy.

[George Pazin]

Pretty much everyone on this thread is making sense, and there seems to be agreement from almost everyone that something should be done. (Of course, JakaB hasn't posted yet....)

I think bifurcation makes more sense, but I'd be just as happy if a rollback were tried. Adam, the one point I don't think Lou or Rick made was that Tiger and co. do play a different game - it's just not that they play so much better. They go into manufacturers and have clubs and balls custom made to their own personal stats. I could be wrong, but I don't think Nike will tailor make (or should that be Taylor Make ) a ball specifically for my game. Club-wise, I know I can be custom fitted, but I'd argue that's not exactly the same.

Is there any reason to think something couldn't at least be experimented with on a widespread trial basis? I am well aware of the USGA requesting ball manufacturers make an experimental ball that flies X yards shorter, but this just seems to be crawling along.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I predict that if the USGA makes a tournament ball, amateur golfers will play it. I know that pro's have tailored equipment, but do you really think that Tiger at your home course with equipment out of the proshop is going to fall to pieces?

Hell, he can probably get Nike forged irons and the One Platinum, so he won't be far from his own gear to begin with - and there's a REASON for that.

There is ONE game of golf. One.

We all play it with what we can, but there's only one game.

A

[tlavin]

I'm just catching up to this thread, but I must say that Ogilvy is the first golf professional (save Ben Crenshaw, for obvious reasons) that is on the correct side of this issue and who possesses the necessary gray matter to articulate his views.  It would be great if he had a bigger platform than GolfObserver.com to spread his views.  But, a great start nonetheless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()