Would It Bother You to Lose Distance if They Rolled Back the Ball?

[Jay Flemma]

Not for nuthin, but I'd rather they roll back the ball.

[JMorgan]

Q:  How did clubs deal architecturally with the Haskell ball when it replaced the gutta at the turn of the century?  Long hitters could drive a gutta 180-190 yards.  A long drive with the Haskell was 240-250 yards.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

James Morgan,

I don't know the answer to your question.

But, a reasonable guess would be that the prefered method of play called for a low draw with roll since it was long before automated irrigation systems were introduced.

I suspect that the features and hazards had to be accounted for in strategizing and playing, whereas today, with howitzer like drives, features and hazards can be ignored.

[Phil Benedict]

I would really be interested to know more about the impact of the Haskell.  Was the Haskell as revolutionary in its time as the ProV1 (and its counterparts from the other manufacturers) and Titanium has been in modern times.  What was considered a long course in 1900 (ie right before the introduction of the Haskell)?  What was considered a long course after the Haskell achieved pre-eminence?

The Haskell is generally considered to have been a positive force in golf, unlike recent changes.  

[TEPaul]

Phil:

You are very right to ask what the impact of the Haskell ball was around and just after the turn of the century. And you're very right to ask what the impact of the Haskell was compared to the impact of the so-called new age golf ball in the last decade such as the ProV type.

It's so long ago now that most of us probably have little idea of what an impact the Haskell made.

On the other hand, the general impact it made on golf and architecture is very documentable because all the old literature (magazines and newspapers and comprehensive commetary) is all still around and frankly much more available now (through recent digitzing and Internet availablility) than it has been in many decades.

My sense is the Haskell was many times more impactful on golf and architecture than a ball like the ProV is, and the reasons are so numerous.

But first you asked what the general distance of courses were before and after the onset of the Haskell.

Before the Haskell a long course or championship course was almost never over 6,000 yards. Following the Haskell the expected necessary length for a championship course jumped up enormously----eg many many hundredes of yards.

PVGC, as it was designed originally, was a direct result of the expected increased distance of the Haskell and PVGC was originally designed at 6,700 yards. That's a huge jump and the fact is the Haskell was believed to be responsible for obsoleting so many courses (relative to the amount of courses back then). Another reason many of the courses back then were obsoleted, however, is they were simply too close to some cities.

But we also need to recognize that around the turn of the century golf and architecture were so much more unformed compared to today. Back then they were looking to not only popularize the game amongst Americans particularly but also to better define what the game should be and what architecture should be. Around the turn of the century when the Haskell (an American invention) came in not many played golf or understood it, and golf architecture was so much more rudimentary and simplistic then. Those were so much more formative years in both golf and architecture than now.

Back then there really was no standardization or even restriction on balls or equipment.

But one interesting significance of the Haskell compared to a ball like the ProV today is the Haskell was considered to bring good players and not so good players closer together in both distance and performance----basically the opposite of what the ProV is believed to be doing today.

Back before the Haskell it was considered to take some real talent, skill and practice to play effectively with those gutta balls and only the very best golfers were believed to possess that ability. For the rest it was apparently very hard and it was believed that the Haskell changed that dramatically and that's the reason it was considered to be such a benefit for golf and such a primary reason for its wild-fire like increase in popularity.

Plus it was less expensive than what preceded it, and far more available.

But all in all my sense is the onset of the Haskell ball was much much more impactful on both golf and architecture than a ball like the ProV type is today. The ProV type in reality has only effected a relatively small percentage of golfers distance-wise but the Haskell really effected all golfers in all kinds of ways.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks; a really good post.

Not exactly connected to the Haskell question, but just in case it was of an interest to Phil B or others, here's an excerpt from a NY Times article from 1910.  The article suggests that the period of lengthening courses has passed, and notes that CB Macdonald’s “ideal course, near Shinnecock Hills” is a “trifle over 6,000 yards” Then it quotes Macdonald extensively:  

"The advent of the lively ball is not the only change in modern conditions which  needs to be considered. One other factor, a least equally important, is the improvement in the art of greens-keeping, which makes a good lie on the fairway a matter of course. The result is that brassie shots are few and far between. The lies are so good that the second shot really called for is another slog with the driver. Now the player’s prowess in this direction is surely sufficiently tested when he plays fifteen or sixteen full shots from the tee in the course of a round without it being necessary to call upon him to repeat the same stroke through the green. The par-five hole of an earlier day, by demanding a full wooden shot for the second from lies that were often indifferent, tested the real brassie stroke, but this has almost disappeared, and the most important test of the wooden club shot through the green is the par four hole (….) It is the difficult par four holes, especially those which are at the same time bogie 5s, which do most to make the would-be champions show the golf that is in them”

There's some more there; I can't cut-and-paste from the pdf, but if anyone's interested let me know and I'll email it when I get a chance.

Peter

[Craig Sweet]

"Back before the Haskell it was considered to take some real talent, skill and practice to play effectively with those gutta balls and only the very best golfers were believed to possess that ability."

TPaul...how much of that was "just talk" to enhance the myth, the legend, of those better golfers, and to discourage the masses from taking to the sport?

Wasn't availability and costs of gutta balls also a limiting factor?

[JMorgan]

Craig, there were about 166 different types of gutta balls, so I don't think price was a factor, as there was certainly a lot of competition.   The Haskell brought many novice golfers to the game IN AMERICA, and the complaints were similar then as now regarding distance, accuracy, and penalty.  Just as the gutta brought many novice golfers to the game in England.

Another interesting artifact of the Haskell was how it handled putts.  It acted similar to a gutta for short putts, but rolled about 15-20 yards more on longer putts.  Macdonald tells a great story about how he came upon Travis on the practice green at Atlantic City CC before the 1901 Amateur.  Travis, for whom putting was his strength, had two or three of the new Agrippa Haskell balls and was having a heck of a time keeping the ball on the green.  

Again, going back to my original question above, a jump of 60 yards for the best players would no doubt wreak havoc on existing architecture.  I wonder how clubs dealt with it then?  Is that why Brancaster added 55 yards to #9, for instance?  Bringing the creek into play would have changed the configuration of the hole as CBM saw it when he made it part of his Ideal Course.

[Phil Benedict]

TEPaul,

Thanks for a great answer to my question about the Haskell.  It sounds like the Haskell added at least 10% in distance - as you point out Pine Valley was more than 10% longer than what was considered long before the Haskell.  Not so different from the modern ball and driver.  The benefits of the Haskell appear to have been more democratic than the ProV - everybody got longer - and there were only a few courses to become obsolete as a result of the Haskell, whereas today virtually all classic courses are out of date unless drastic action is taken.

[TEPaul]

"TPaul...how much of that was "just talk" to enhance the myth, the legend, of those better golfers, and to discourage the masses from taking to the sport?"

I don't know Craig.

Obviously anyone can question anything at any time but I've never seen anything written from that early time that said it was easier for the average golfer to play those old gutta balls than the Haskell, and it seems most everyone agreed it took some real talent to play those old gutta balls well. I've also never seen anything written that anyone back then was trying to discourage the masses from playing golf. Where did you get that idea? From the turn of the century on the popularity of golf and the courses built virtually exploded. That doesn't sound like a discouragement to the taking up of the game to me.

[Tony Ristola]

Wouldn't bother me a bit. Would make a lot of short courses more interesting.

As for the masses, they don't hit the ball well enough to recognize the difference. The USGA or someone should do a blind test. (Too bad the golf aficiandos don't have their own lobby and fund to do this themselves). Give thousands of golfers a half dozen balls, only with numbers, and "ESOD" stamped on the side. Tell these golfers it is a project from one of the three most successful ball manufacturers, and that they have to use the balls for that round and give the rep feedback after the round. Tell them the ball has new ESOD (Elastomatic Spin on Demand) technology, that optimizes spin and distance.

I bet you few will recognize the ball flies 10% shorter.

[BCrosby]

As late as 1927 people were still complaining that the Haskell was too long.

Bobby Jones, after winning the '27 Open with (a then unheard of) under par score, advocated not just a roll back of the ball, but a return to the guttie.

Another thing to note is that by the early 20's a number of courses had fallen off the Open rota. Prestwick, N. Berwick and others. Muirfield was redesigned. I assume that the Haskell had something to do with that.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

Even though I am in favor of doing it, it would definitely bother me, and many manufacturers and players will ignore a rollback if it is not imposed recognizing that most people would feel the same way.  

That is why I believe the only way to reasonably accomplish a roll back is through a condition of competition.

(1) it will eliminate the problem of manufacturers and players defying the rules  (see ERC); and

(2) It will create a trickle down effect, rather than force the change on people that do not want to make the change.

[Craig Sweet]

I was talking with Patrick Shea at our spring GCSA meeting here in Montana. Pat travels around, on his own dime, and gives presentations on golf traditions and gender....as they pertain to growing the game....

However, we got to talking about skiing and how much more enjoyable, how easy, skiing has become since the advent of "shaped" skis, more comfortable boots, and better binding technology....for Pat it is keeping him on the slopes, and has brought others, who gave up on the sport, back to skiing.  We began to compare it to golf technology and both agreed, technology has made golf more enjoyable, easier, and has brought many former golfers back to the game....

[Garland Bayley]

Craig,

I want to see the empirical data for your claim!

[Craig Sweet]

Garland...empirical data that golf is fun and easier?  

[Garland Bayley]

Craig,

Easier. As you may have noticed it has been reported here a few times that the average handicap has not changed one iota over the years. Now when and how did golf get easier?
 

[Phil Benedict]

Garland,

I think the game is probably easier with perimeter weighted irons and big-headed drivers.  It doesn't show in the handicap statistics because courses have gotten harder on average, primarily due to added length.  At least that's my theory.

[Craig Sweet]

handicaps haven't changed because greens speeds increased and courses are longer....

But yes, the game is easier in that the newer equipment does not penalize a poorly struck shot near as much...

Golf is still the most difficult sport to play at an advanced level...

[Ted Kramer]

I like Titleist Balata type ball technology and performance.
I'd like to see the ball rolled back to that level.

-Ted

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I think the game is probably easier with perimeter weighted irons and big-headed drivers.  It doesn't show in the handicap statistics because courses have gotten harder on average, primarily due to added length.  At least that's my theory.

Your argument does not work for me Phil, because courses are rated for difficulty and handicaps are adjusted appropriately.

[Andy Troeger]

Is the game easier? That's a complicated question.

There's a heck of a lot of factors in play other than handicap averages. How many recreational golfers even keep a handicap? How many golfers are there?

Has someone who was a 15 handicap a few years ago improved to a 12 now? I'd say it depends more on their work ethic and interest in the game than technology.

[RSLivingston_III]

I would like to see a survey on the amount of practice time players devote to the game. I would bet the reason scoring hasn't dropped is because of less practice, and less playing. In the last 10 years it seems like people don't have as much time to devote to the game and that scoring is staying the same says much about what the equipment is causing.

[Phil Benedict]

Garland,

I have no data for anything I am about to say, but I will say it anyway.  I think the new equipment has made it easier to hit the ball.  Off-center hits with perimeter weighted irons and big-headed drivers provide better results than off-center hits with blades and persimmon.

However, because of architectural changes - longer courses and faster greens - the game may not be any easier.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I have no data for anything I am about to say, but I will say it anyway.  I think the new equipment has made it easier to hit the ball.  Off-center hits with perimeter weighted irons and big-headed drivers provide better results than off-center hits with blades and persimmon.
...

You see Phil, that is what the golf club manufacturers want you to believe. The took advantage of the pschological scientific study(ies) that was(were) done.

It has been silly for a long long time. Back in the olden days, when I was young, new clubs were basically the same as the old clubs. All there was was blades and the lofts were (probably informally) standard. A scientific investigation found that buying a new set of clubs improved your play for a while, because the new clubs gave you confidence, and confidence was one of the key factors in playing ability. Eventually you hit enough bad shots with the new clubs so that all other factors being equal you regressed back to the game you had before you bought the clubs.

Unfortunately, someone in marketing figured this out (or some normally intelligent person made the mistake of telling someone in marketing about it).

Now every year clubs are marketed as being better than last years clubs! Think about it! That is pretty much impossible! The changes made might save one stroke in several million! People buy these new clubs, play better at the beginning and credit the golf club designers with an innovation that really didn't exist.

Remember! The average handicap has not move one iota in ages!

Now I notice Tom Wishon golf has some new hybrids with these new fangled rails on the bottom. I reckon I ought to get me a couple of heads and then there is the new black gold shafts from True Temper that ought to let me knock at least five off my handicap. I better get right on this before my playing partners buy themselves better clubs!  
NOT!