[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

When I need my ProV1 to spin, it does so just fine, thank you...

...

Yes, but you violate the spirit of the rules by having that virtual vaseline there when you hit driver. Next, I suppose I will learn that you use the cheater line!

[JESII]

Now, a question to you:  How is the game served by equipment that leads to golf course obsolescence, at the elite level if not the recreational level?

I'll answer your question, but first I am going to argue your assertion that any course has become "obsolete". The game is the game.

In every endeavor, the goal of those participating is to find a better way to play. Usually, "better" equates to easier. Are you hoping to change human nature?

I do think the game of golf has grown around the world in part because of the influx of capital from major international corporations. That would not be as active if equipment had been capped at some prior date. Equipment has been in a constant state of evolution. Courses in the 1800's were 5000 yards long.

Your issue is with the individual clubs that make poorly conceived renovations to their courses, not the equipment manufacturer's or the USGA.

[JESII]

Garland,

When I need my ProV1 to spin, it does so just fine, thank you...

...

Yes, but you violate the spirit of the rules by having that virtual vaseline there when you hit driver. Next, I suppose I will learn that you use the cheater line!

Shivas is really hoping I'll admit to that at some point, but when I tried it I realized I was too stupid to line it up correctly, and too stubborn to not worry about it...


Now, tell me about this "virtual vaseline"...and Joe Hancock, stay out of this...

[Garland Bayley]

...
Now, tell me about this "virtual vaseline"...and Joe Hancock, stay out of this...

It is virtual, because no vaseline was used, but the same effect was created. The effect was created by adding an extra layer to the ball that prevents the driver from imparting all the spin to the ball that it should with no such covering. It is very convenient, because you don't have to lift, clean (wipe the vaseline off), and place your ball before hitting your wedge.

[Melvyn Morrow]

All very interesting, yet not much changes or leadership from the Ruling Bodies. Technology marches on with longer courses, using excuses that it’s for The Tour and the Top Professionals.

Ideas are suggested, regards ball and their composition, technology with club design – various shapes, sizes, angles etc, etc. Problem is no one is actually doing anything to stop it.

In my opinion a golf course SHOULD be designed for the AVERAGE player not for the Professionals. If they are so good then they need to adapt to a NORMAL length course. The money for our industry ultimately comes from the average golfer, not Tiger, Faldo, Nicklaus etc they take money from the sport in return for entertainment and endorsements.

Golf is being corrupted from within. There seems to be no real guidance, certainly no leadership. Look at other sports that use technology for its very existence, Motor Racing – Formula 1.

Their ruling body The FIA has no problem taking the lead, they accept that technology needs to be controlled and have over the last decade band the use of driver’s aids i.e. ABS, Traction Control, Slick tyres to name but a few changes. One of the reasons is to make it more of an actual race and improve spectator pleasure. The Professional Racing Driver has to accept their decisions and race with the result.

If Formula 1 can do it why on earth can’t the R&A and USGA.  Relatively speaking there is no comparison between the technology used in Formula 1 and the ball and a few clubs we use in golf.

Perhaps we should consider the old Hickory shafted clubs and gutta ball for all competitions. Bring back a bit of honesty into golf, because it is certainly needed.

Who pays for your set of clubs, balls, golfing clothes, golfing shoes and green fees, it’s very simple you do not the Professionals, so it’s your sport and the courses should be designed for you (and us). 

[Chuck Brown]

Now, a question to you:  How is the game served by equipment that leads to golf course obsolescence, at the elite level if not the recreational level?

I'll answer your question, but first I am going to argue your assertion that any course has become "obsolete". The game is the game.

In every endeavor, the goal of those participating is to find a better way to play. Usually, "better" equates to easier. Are you hoping to change human nature?

 Equipment has been in a constant state of evolution. Courses in the 1800's were 5000 yards long.

Your issue is with the individual clubs that make poorly conceived renovations to their courses, not the equipment manufacturer's or the USGA.

Then why have any restrictions on clubs and balls?  Eliminate them altogether!  It might be thrilling to hit a 500-yard shot!  It could be fun for me to shoot a 59, or a 50!  And it would be hugely profitable if some company could figure out a way to make equipment to allow me to do that.

You say; "I do think the game of golf has grown around the world in part because of the influx of capital from major international corporations. That would not be as active if equipment had been capped at some prior date."  Anecdotal evidence doesn't do much for your case.  In the Pro V era, with rising equipment costs and longer rounds, the NGF is concerned about stagnant growth numbers for the game.  Why should anyone think that more expensive equipment, on bigger, longer, more expensive golf courses, would be good for the game?

Personally, in speaking to the USGA and the R&A, I'd ask them why they should be concerned with "growing" the game at all.  That's the province of the PGA's and the NGF.  The USGA and the R&A are the stewards, the trustees, of the game.  Their job is QUALITY of golf, not QUANTITY.

[Chuck Brown]

Now, a question to you:  How is the game served by equipment that leads to golf course obsolescence, at the elite level if not the recreational level?

I'll answer your question, but first I am going to argue your assertion that any course has become "obsolete". The game is the game.

In every endeavor, the goal of those participating is to find a better way to play. Usually, "better" equates to easier. Are you hoping to change human nature?

I do think the game of golf has grown around the world in part because of the influx of capital from major international corporations. That would not be as active if equipment had been capped at some prior date. Equipment has been in a constant state of evolution. Courses in the 1800's were 5000 yards long.

Your issue is with the individual clubs that make poorly conceived renovations to their courses, not the equipment manufacturer's or the USGA.

...Oh, and on the subject of courses becoming "obsolete"...

One of the oldest and most stale red herrings in the golf ball debate is that championship courses are not obsolete -- just look at the scoring that even elite tour players manage.

The argument studiously avoids all realilty.  No major championship and no tour event occurs without years of planning and preparation.  To say that tour pros don't obsolete golf courses is only true because every golf course that hosts elite-level play is pulled, stretched, buffed, recontoured and reconfigured to within an inch of its life before they ever get there.

The question could not be simpler -- put to the USGA; if golf ball distance is not a problem, why is it that each and every major championship venue is getting longer and tighter and harder, quite often in ways that are destructive of the architect's vision and the overall quality of the competition?

And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question "Why NOT roll back golf balls?  What is in it for recreational players to let technology go?"

[jeffwarne]

Roll back the ball.
Lose the engineers.

Does baseball, basketball, football employ engineers to improve the ball /bat every year?
IT has nothing to do with 18 year olds making courses obsolete by low scoring, but rather by how far they/we hit it and the CHANGE in the game and subsequent change in courses.

We've got courses struggling left and right, costs rising, etc.
Granted most changes don't have to be made, but it does make sense for a course to want to retain the same playing characteristics it had 10-20 years ago (at least for a player 10-20 years older)

It's actually simple

[Brent Hutto]

The question could not be simpler -- put to the USGA; if golf ball distance is not a problem, why is it that each and every major championship venue is getting longer and tighter and harder, quite often in ways that are destructive of the architect's vision and the overall quality of the competition?

As I always feel obliged to point out at this stage of this recurring argument...

The design of the golf ball is not the only factor that allows players to hit the ball farther. Are you going to keep rolling it back every decade or so into the indefinite future as more and more players are able to hit the ball harder and harder? Or will one rollback right now satisfy you enough to STFU when the next generation of golfers hit it as much harder than Tiger as Tiger was to Jack?

Because if you doctor the ball to make Tiger hit mid-iron approaches at Merion today, you'll be seeing someone in 20 years hitting wedge approaches with that same ball. Guaranteed.

[JESII]

What does NGF stand for?

Regardless, I think contraction will be a good thing for golf in America.

I'll repeat an earlier, unanswered question to each of you arguing in favor of a roll-back...what sort of scores are regularly shot on the course(s) you play most of your golf?

[JESII]

Let's divert this all too annoying argument to something actually actionable by many on here...

What would you do, architecturally, and maintenance wise, to challenge top level players on a 6900 yard course?

[Chuck Brown]

The question could not be simpler -- put to the USGA; if golf ball distance is not a problem, why is it that each and every major championship venue is getting longer and tighter and harder, quite often in ways that are destructive of the architect's vision and the overall quality of the competition?

As I always feel obliged to point out at this stage of this recurring argument...

The design of the golf ball is not the only factor that allows players to hit the ball farther. Are you going to keep rolling it back every decade or so into the indefinite future as more and more players are able to hit the ball harder and harder? Or will one rollback right now satisfy you enough to STFU when the next generation of golfers hit it as much harder than Tiger as Tiger was to Jack?

Because if you doctor the ball to make Tiger hit mid-iron approaches at Merion today, you'll be seeing someone in 20 years hitting wedge approaches with that same ball. Guaranteed.

Oh, this is such an easy question!  YES!  Roll back now.  And if circumstances warrant (a new super-race of humans, global warming, global cooling, sunspots, etc.) then change it again later.  Roll it back again if needed.  Roll it forward if needed.  Why not?

Any other questions?

[JESII]

Yep...

Roll it back to when you think the sky started falling? Or back to when one of the other waves of crying took place? I think it would be great for golf if we all played with petrified sheep sh*t and a bent stick but that might put too many greens crews out of work...

[Chuck Brown]

What does NGF stand for?

The National Golf Foundation.  A somewhat loose conglomeration of commercial golf interests.  Mostly course operators, some manufacturers, I think.

Regardless, I think contraction will be a good thing for golf in America.

Careful with your sarcasm.  Because "growth," and the past efforts to grow the game, do not seem to be working too well.  And it may just be that expensive equipment advances are part of the problem for golf courses, not the solution.  If you want me to be concerned for the shareholders and executives of Acushnet/Fortune Brands, sorry.

I'll repeat an earlier, unanswered question to each of you arguing in favor of a roll-back...what sort of scores are regularly shot on the course(s) you play most of your golf?

Scoring is unremarkable, and not too much changed in the Pro V era as far as I know.  Some concerns about holes that need tees pushed back, but there is no room to do it.
Again, why do you ask?  For me it is a non-issue.  The reason it is a non-issue is that I am looking at the elite game (where the problem is acute, and courses are getting radcially altered and the game substantially changed, by all reasonable accoutns), and the reason that I look at the elite game is because I adhere to the principle that golf can and must be played under one set of rules.

[Chuck Brown]

Yep...

Roll it back to when you think the sky started falling? Or back to when one of the other waves of crying took place? I think it would be great for golf if we all played with petrified sheep sh*t and a bent stick but that might put too many greens crews out of work...

Roll it back to a place that best fits the golf courses.  If you think that that sounds like a flexible, inexact concept that might be subject to differeing aeshtetic concerns, guess what?  YOU'RE RIGHT!  That is exactly what it is .  Golf, like all games, is an entirely artificial, abstract conception.  It is not a science.  Why have a short left field at Fenway Park?  Why 100 yards for a footbal field with goalposts on the end line instead of the goal line?  Why 64 teams in the NCAA mens basketball playoffs?  Why no football playoffs at all?  Why 18 holes for golf?  Why St. Andrews Old Course or Cypress Point?  The answers are all the same; tradition, aesthetics, charm, history, challenge...

[Melvyn Morrow]

There are days when I am saddened by what I read on GCA.com

Perhaps golf should have stayed on the Links of Scotland

Played by golfers who loved, cherished and respected the game for
what it was and  played  by the rules with a honest club and ball.

[Brent Hutto]

Golfers on the Scottish links a century ago most likely bought whatever kind of ball was offered that they could afford and played it until it was either lost or damaged. Pretty much what I do every weekend myself. And when better balls came along (Haskell?) they dropped the older types right quickly as soon as the advantage was manifest.

Also, in the days before the 14-club rule they carried all sorts of unsavory-looking implements. I think anyone who ever paid good money for one of those ventilated clubs for hitting out of water would appreciate the ProV1 just fine.

BTW, I would have no problem whatsoever with the USGA/R&A tightening up the ODS and testing protocol to result in golf balls that fly a little less or spin a little more or whatever they see fit. For my poor game it could hardly matter any less. I just don't believe that such a ball will be the salvation of the game or that the lack of it mean the game's doom. In the global scheme of things the exact specifications of the golf ball are a tiny matter.

In fact I predict that if/when such a rollback takes place it will have absolutely no discernable effect on the impulse to lengthen classic golf courses. As JES and others always point out, the lengthening of courses arises more from perceptions, grandiosity and wanting to be the biggest kid on the block than with any actual effect on the way the game is played.

[JESII]

There are days when I am saddened by what I read on GCA.com

Perhaps golf should have stayed on the Links of Scotland

Played by golfers who loved, cherished and respected the game for
what it was and  played  by the rules with a honest club and ball.

Please elaborate.

I my comment about the game benefitting from a period of reduced numbers upsets you I'd be happy to discuss that thought in greater detail. If it was something else I said, please tell me and I'd be happy to discuss that as well. But simply saying this conversation saddens you is tough to put in context because two very different positions are being volleyed back and forth.

[Garland Bayley]

The question could not be simpler -- put to the USGA; if golf ball distance is not a problem, why is it that each and every major championship venue is getting longer and tighter and harder, quite often in ways that are destructive of the architect's vision and the overall quality of the competition?

As I always feel obliged to point out at this stage of this recurring argument...

The design of the golf ball is not the only factor that allows players to hit the ball farther. Are you going to keep rolling it back every decade or so into the indefinite future as more and more players are able to hit the ball harder and harder? Or will one rollback right now satisfy you enough to STFU when the next generation of golfers hit it as much harder than Tiger as Tiger was to Jack?

Because if you doctor the ball to make Tiger hit mid-iron approaches at Merion today, you'll be seeing someone in 20 years hitting wedge approaches with that same ball. Guaranteed.

Purely speculative. No concrete evidence!
 


 

[Garland Bayley]

What does NGF stand for?

Regardless, I think contraction will be a good thing for golf in America.

I'll repeat an earlier, unanswered question to each of you arguing in favor of a roll-back...what sort of scores are regularly shot on the course(s) you play most of your golf?

If the courses we play cannot attract young players, they will become NLE.

[Garland Bayley]

Golfers on the Scottish links a century ago most likely bought whatever kind of ball was offered that they could afford and played it until it was either lost or damaged. Pretty much what I do every weekend myself. And when better balls came along (Haskell?) they dropped the older types right quickly as soon as the advantage was manifest.
...

You make this sound a bit like revisionist history here.

The primary reason the adopted the "better balls" was because they were cheaper! Did anyone adopt the ProV because it was cheaper?
 


 

[JESII]

Chuck,

I'm enjoying the conversation because you're the first guy I've discussed this with that identified both of the two very important facets:  "one set of rules" and "the powerful influence of the elite players" as support for the need to cut off distance at all costs.

I knew what NGF stood for. I asked with tongue in cheek because when I referenced worldwide growth of the game...you referenced NGF concerns about golf in America.

Of course scoring is unremarkable at your course...because the game is damned hard. Scoring is unremarkable at all clubs and courses. There is a 46 week moving circus which throws the perception of golf into total confusion. Next time the tour is nearby, go out on Friday and find the threesome with the highest cumulative score on Thursday and watch them. You will be underwhelmed...and those three guys woke up the day before with a chance to win a million dollars on the golf course.

[Brent Hutto]

I never played a Balata ball and I don't play ProV1's but I'd bet a nickel the cost per round for playing the latter is far lower. I'm pretty sure good players tossed those Balatas every few holes when they got cut or out of round. A ball that costs twice as much and last 9-18 holes or more is a great deal.

[Garland Bayley]

...In the global scheme of things the exact specifications of the golf ball are a tiny matter.

I am glad you think the money spent on ANGC is a tiny matter. Most are not financially well off enough to come to that conclusion.

In fact I predict that if/when such a rollback takes place it will have absolutely no discernable effect on the impulse to lengthen classic golf courses. ...

Specluation and pretty poor speculation at that IMHO.

[Chuck Brown]

Brent, while much of what you say makes sense, I know that there is an IMPERATIVE to make course longer, or to avoid older courses altogether, for the elites.

I don't presume that courses will never change, or that there will be no more egomaniacs on greens committees.  But a ball rollback will avoid much of the imperative that leads to bad mistakes in altering golf courses.  There can always be changes to golf courses that might improve them.  ANGC has been in a more or less constant state of renovation since it opened.  But 'better' and 'better in defending against technology are two very different things.

And let's not become luddites and oppose all technology either.  Let's support sensible changes that make the game more democratic and more affordable.  Balls that replaced the old featheries were good, because featheries were horribly expensive.  As were hickory shafts.  And persimmon heads were hard to work with, and were impossible to manufacture with much consistency.  These were good technological developments.  And don't forget Bobby Jones' nominee for the biggest technological advance in his lifetime -- the modern greens mower.  Modern agronomy is great new technology in action.

All of those things are major changes in golf technology, and most all for the good.  What is the intrinsic good of the Pro V if it helps Ernie Els hit it 35 yards farther but only helps you 5 yards' worth?  What is the benefit to the game of $600 drivers and $250 laser rangefinders?  Is that like a tax that all competitive recreational players must now pay?

I'm not against all technology, and certainly not opposed to any technological advance that serves the interest of the game and it best traditions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()