[Garland Bayley]

I'm having trouble parsing your objection to my anecdote, Garland. No I am not in possession of a golf ball testing facility nor have I seen any published, comprehensive results from same. Not sure what is a copy of what but after trying the TP Red for a dozen rounds I told the pro at our club that it seemed to gain me some distance relative to other "Tour Quality" balls and he had heard the same from other players with my kind of swing speed. So it's all anecdotal but when my own experience comports with that of other players at my club and with the advice of the pro who sells all the different brands I consider that good enough evidence.

 

Stop Brent! Too funny! You're killing me!

 

Please let me know when your pro recommends the the TopFlite Gamer to you so I can go check if hell has frozen over.

[DMoriarty]

David

My experience of the USGA tells me they are not going to be the saviour of architecture.  Logically, this leads me to look in another direction and that has to be the consumer.  For a few reasons I know it isn't likely the consumer will be assertive on this issue. First, mist consumers don't accept there is a problem.  More accurately, most don't care.  Second, the urge change and keep up with the Jones' is overwhelmingly difficult to ignore for most.  Finally, its easier to sit back and blame someone else for the problem even though the real problem lies with the consumer.  So I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

Ciao

Sean, I agree with everything you say about why the consumer won't do it, and I agree that the USGA probably won't.   My hope was that a course like Augusta might finally draw the line,m but that seems just as unlikely.  My only hope is that at least some of these guys at the great clubs eventually realize that they are cutting off their own noses and that they do what is right.    I sense that it is a relatively small group in power and think it makes more sense to convince a small group with real power than the masses without.    These are educated men who care about golf, and if they ever realize that the interests of golf are not aligned with the short term interests of the equipment manufacturers there would be hope.

I am not holding my breath, but will keep railing on about the issue in the hopes that if there are enough squeeky wheels maybe eventually we will get oiled.    

_____________________________________

Brent, your last post to me is not worth a substantive response.  I don't unerstand why, but you have much too much vitriol to discuss this issue reasonably for anything more than a post or two. 

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

It is my considered opinion that the consumer is too ill informed to be actually be accused of making a choice.

It is my considered opinion that the consumer has been trained by marketeers to respond to buzzwords like championship, links, 7000, etc.

[Garland Bayley]

David and Sean,

I would just like to note that ANGC shortened the course before the Masters this year over last year's yardage.
 

[Sean_A]

David

Of course it would be easier if the USGA stepped up to the plate, but of course they feel they already have.  As a second best scenario, of course it would be grand if club members told the PGA Tour and USGA to piss off, but we know from over 50 years past experience that they don't have the will power.  The lure of being one of the big dogs is too much.  Besides, I think members use distance as a crutch to change courses they would anyway.  Everybody is an expert and that is we got tree lined, wet courses with shrunken greens.  That leaves the consumer.  Its a hard and unlikely road, but it is a road.  The first step down that road HAS to be the guys complaining the most about this issue discontinue buying the latest and greatest.  Until the day comes when the consumer realizes they are the part of the problem and much of the solution, real change won't happen.  I don't know about you, but I am betting on effective status quo.  That said, maybe a course or two can be saved the indignity of unnecessary change.  One can always hope - of course - its better to act and where better to start than with oneself?

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain.

How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Again, the silver lining to the current economic downturn.   While I don't expect the golf consumer to not want the best available LEGAL technology for posting a score for competition, handicap, etc...I do think that many will choose to play Lawsonia for $50 instead of a modern monstrosity for $200....

[DMoriarty]

Sean,
I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain.
How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.

I am allowed to complain no matter what kind of equipment I use.    Let's say I was  a college baseball coach who sincerely believed that the NCAA should require all players to use only wooden bats.   Should I not be allowed to express my opinion if I allowed the players on my team to play by the rules as they existed and use the bats of their choice?    One need not martyr oneself to qualify to express an opinion on the direction of the game.

Also, it is not as easy as hitting old clubs.  The major problem is the ball and they just don't make balls like they used to anymore.   I assume Sean plays with the modern ball, unless he has a stash of Balata's somewhere.  

That being said, I much prefer to play with equipment that is far from "state of the art" and often do.  Nothing like the feeling a well struck persimmon, except maybe a well hit brassey with a good hickory shaft.  (Not that I hit it well with anything all that often.)  I had a high school kid with a pretty good swing hit my Macgregor "Bobby Jones" 4 Wood (circa 1951) and watched as he smoothed it out there the distance of a decent drive.  He looked shocked and awed, like he had just seen a beautiful woman undressed for the first time.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain.
How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.

I am allowed to complain no matter what kind of equipment I use.    Let's say I was  a college baseball coach who sincerely believed that the NCAA should require all players to use only wooden bats.   Should I not be allowed to express my opinion if I allowed the players on my team to play by the rules as they existed and use the bats of their choice?    One need not martyr oneself to qualify to express an opinion on the direction of the game.

Also, it is not as easy as hitting old clubs.  The major problem is the ball and they just don't make balls like they used to anymore.   I assume Sean plays with the modern ball, unless he has a stash of Balata's somewhere.  

That being said, I much prefer to play with equipment that is far from "state of the art" and often do.  Nothing like the feeling a well struck persimmon, except maybe a well hit brassey with a good hickory shaft.  (Not that I hit it well with anything all that often.)  I had a high school kid with a pretty good swing hit my Macgregor "Bobby Jones" 4 Wood (circa 1951) and watched as he smoothed it out there the distance of a decent drive.  He looked shocked and awed, like he had just seen a beautiful woman undressed for the first time.

David

You can complain, but it won't get you anywhere and I don't want to hear it.  I am more interested in what you are doing about the "problem".  We have enough whingers, but are far short of folks with get up and go. 

Ciao

[Rick Wolffe]

[Rick Wolffe]

[Rick Wolffe]

[Rick Wolffe]

[DMoriarty]

Sean, if you think that martyring oneself to the old equipment is a prerequisit to qualify to have an opinion, then I probably qualify. But I'm not interested in playing the old stuff to bring about change. I just enjoy it more than the new stuff.   Today I played 20 or so holes on a pitch and putt with a Tom Stewart niblick, a TS putter, and a Titleist ProV1.  Does that change the meaning or consequence of anything I said above?

With all the knee jerk opinions and fallacious logic one reads regarding this issue, it seems that reasonably and logically explaining the problem  and what should be done about it is a more productive avenue than a "look at me, I'm using an old club" approach. (Not that I haven't had plenty of occassion to say "look at me I'm using an old club.")    After all, doesn't someone have to explain it to the masses so they can know what action to consider taking?

If trying to discuss the issue makes me a "whinger" then so be it.  What does placing irrelevant and irrational conditions on how others try to address the issue make you?    


____________________________________________________________

Rick Wolfe.  Thanks very much for posting that.   What a neat article.   Wouldn't it be great to see those guys actually compete with that equipment.   Those who think that Bobby Jones could hit it 300 yards at will should read it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps.   The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed.  The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide.  While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball. 

.....................

.............................

I seem to recall that we have previously debated this claim and the USGA Quintavalla study that says the claim is nonsense.  But, I thought I'd point out again that the study concluded:

"Actually, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds.  This is true for the new tour balls, and  all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase linearly (see below), but rather it starts to fall off slightly at higher swing speeds - just the opposite of the popular misconception  To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes longer; it's just that you don't get as much bang-for-the-buck at the highest speeds."


I am intrigued by your desire that the ball be rolled back in such a way as to enable a short hitter and a long hitter of equal handicap (3) to play equitably from the same tee.  By definition, if their handicaps are equal, they should be able to play from any set of tees and score equally.  Do you not feel that this is the case with the current ball?  Or are you really asserting that the the two players were formerly of the same handicap, but that the longer player is now a lower cap because of his longer distance?  Typically in players with large differences in length, but the same handicap, I think the shorter player has a better short game and putting than the longer hitter and that's how they level the playing field. 


I am also intrigued by your desire to roll the ball back in such a way that long hitters lose some length, but that short hitters do not. In other words, compressing the distance difference generated from an 85 mph swing (say) and a 125 mph swing (say).  Using the PGA Tour data it looks like the delta between their shortest and longest hitters has increased from 38 yards in the decade '85-'95 to to 53 yards in the 2000 decade (skewed a bit by that driving dog Pavin). 

Let's say that in your future world, the ball could be re-engineered so that the longest hitter (Garrigus) loses15 yards and the shortest hitter (Pavin) loses nothing (although this is patently unfair since Quintavalla has demonstrated that there is no turbo boost for high swing speeds).

Let's also say that the molasses swinger such as yourself would gain 15 yards with this re-engineered ball (although I'm not sure where the fairness would be in that relative to my almost Pavin-like swing speed  )

Let's further say that in your world the ball is further re-engineered so that all swing speeds lose 25 yards (the delta between the Tour average distance in the early 90's and the average in the late 2000's. 

So, there we have a ball that both rolls back to the 90's and compresses the delta between swing speeds.  So Garrigus rolls back from 312 to 272.  Pavin would be down around 235.  And, you would be down around 210 (what is your current driving distance - around 220?  It's been a while since I saw you play at Rustic.)

So, now the long hitters, instead of playing every hole driver, flip wedge will be playing it driver, 8 iron (at most).  Problem not solved in my opinion.

Your compression desire seems to me to be patently unfair, so would seem to me to be untenable to the USGA.  Rolling the ball back 25 yards is not going to make a significant difference to the long bombers.  At most that's two clubs.

And, please don't suggest going back to Balata or wound balls.  I refuse to play a ball that I can cut with one mishit shot.  I was throwing out an old golf bag tonight and found a bunch of old balls in it.  One Tour Balata, one Tour Prestige and two Professionals.  Three out of the four are out of round.  And, no doubt all of them have windings that are relaxed.  Others solid balls of the same vintage were at least round.  I think I'll try them all out tomorrow and see how bad those wound balata balls really were.   

[Sean_A]

Sean, if you think that martyring oneself to the old equipment is a prerequisit to qualify to have an opinion, then I probably qualify. But I'm not interested in playing the old stuff to bring about change. I just enjoy it more than the new stuff.   Today I played 20 or so holes on a pitch and putt with a Tom Stewart niblick, a TS putter, and a Titleist ProV1.  Does that change the meaning or consequence of anything I said above?

With all the knee jerk opinions and fallacious logic one reads regarding this issue, it seems that reasonably and logically explaining the problem  and what should be done about it is a more productive avenue than a "look at me, I'm using an old club" approach. (Not that I haven't had plenty of occassion to say "look at me I'm using an old club.")    After all, doesn't someone have to explain it to the masses so they can know what action to consider taking?

If trying to discuss the issue makes me a "whinger" then so be it.  What does placing irrelevant and irrational conditions on how others try to address the issue make you?    


____________________________________________________________

Rick Wolfe.  Thanks very much for posting that.   What a neat article.   Wouldn't it be great to see those guys actually compete with that equipment.   Those who think that Bobby Jones could hit it 300 yards at will should read it.

David

The topic has been discussed at length many times by many people over many years.  Either you are going to do something about it or not. If not, that continuing to hammer on about it is whinging in my book. 

So far as knee jerk reactions go, that is the crux of the entire problem; people's knee jerk reactions to a perceived distance problem for the very best players.  Those reactions which essentially boil down to narrowing fairways, lengthening rough, adding wing bunkers and increasing yardage have been going on for yonks.  These knee jerk reactions effect all of us much more than they do the best players and yet the so called problem persists.  Now we have guys who want to roll the ball back 10%.  Thats fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve any problems either.  Without drastic action from the USGA/R&A, and I mean seriously drastic action, the bottom line is that to solve the problem clubs and individuals must do something, or rather, do nothing to their courses.  Individuals can start boycotting courses which feed into the distance mantra.  They can stop buying the latest and greatest.  I know its easier said than done, but what other choice does a club or individual have if they are to take a stand?  It does no good to moan than buy the all singing/dancing equipment and play courses which label themselves as championship standard because they are 7000 plus yards long.  Its better to act then explain your actions than it is to pontificate. 

Ciao   

[Jud_T]

Sean,

as far as market forces are concerned-While I personally will play courses with reasonable length that are F/F because it suits my game better and is more fun, I will buy the best LEGAL equipment.  It's clearly up to the regulating bodies and not the consumer. Starting a boycott is silly, starting a serious appeal to the USGA and R & A is not....

[Sean_A]

Sean,

as far as market forces are concerned-While I personally will play courses with reasonable length that are F/F because it suits my game better and is more fun, I will buy the best LEGAL equipment.  It's clearly up to the regulating bodies and not the consumer. Starting a boycott is silly, starting a serious appeal to the USGA and R & A is not....

Jud

Well then, if you believe distance is a problem, then you are what is known as a hypocrite.  You can't have it both ways and say whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander. 

It is a constant wonder to me that people can't see how buying and using the equipment is a contributing factor to the "distance issue".  Its not all on the USGA - we do have a choice regardless of the what the blue suits say - in fact most golfers don't give a rats ass about the USGA anyway.  There are far and away more courses which never host anything of remote importance than those that do, but is the lengthening of courses limited to those that host important tournies?  Not on your life.  But then as I always say, its much, much easier to blame someone else rather than look in the mirror, accept responsibility for one's actions and try to make a change.  That actually requires doing something, even if its just a token "I don't watch the pros", but it seems even this is a step too far many golfers.  Why?  Because distance is a complete non-issue to them.  Its a storm in a tea cup that has been hangin about for 100 years.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

So, I should show up for the club championship played at scratch with a cloth bag full of hickories? 

[Sean_A]

So, I should show up for the club championship played at scratch with a cloth bag full of hickories? 

Jud

No, I am suggesting no such thing.  I am saying that if you really believe there is a distance problem and given that the USGA/R&A have been completely ineffectual in dealing with the matter, what other options do you have other than to shut up or put up?  There are more than enough mouth pieces out there - we don't need any others - what is needed is action.  To say there is a distance problem then go out and buy a canon launcher is akin to saying there is a problem with energy inefficiency and then going out and buying a 5 litre monster to run around town.  The behaviour suggests you don't really care about the issue and thus your opinion on the matter doesn't carry much weight.  When beahviour changes is when I take note.

Lets not mistake anything here.  I don't care how you or anybody else chooses to play the game.  I personally believe it has very little, if any effect on me in monetary or enjoyment terms - well not enough for me to devote time and energy to combat the problem.  Those that claim to really care about the issue should act rather than be passive.  It gets old hearing about the issue from guys who contribute to it - especially when they want to point the finger elsewhere.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Kind of a silly comparison.  A diesel car that gets 50 mpg (if we could buy one in the states) gets me to work in traffic just as well as a ferarri.  It's like saying that UK footballers should only work out on gym equipment made before 1970.  They don't use performance enhancing drugs (generally) because they are against the rules of their sport as laid down by the governing bodies.  They do use the latest technology that is approved for them by the powers that be (footwear, uniforms, balls, etc...).  To stick your head in the sand is not only silly, it's unikely to attract a bunch of others to stick theirs in the sand...so you end up having to chat with Melvyn with sand in your mouth....

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

Please specify the context of the result of the study you quote. Without context, it is meaningless.

I believe you left out the context of David's discussion of the short knocker vs. the bomber. Was not that context how can you make relevant the architecture for both players in such a match?

[Jud_T]

Bryan,

small point of contest.  people of varying handicaps do not play exactly equally from the same tee.  I believe, at least in the USGA version, that there is a small bias that favors lower handicaps so as to foster a desire to improve....

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.

It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.

It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.

Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?

If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

The context of the USGA study was to settle the question of whether there was a disproportionate gain in distance at higher swing speeds.  The answer was no.  You, and others, can read the whole article if you wish for context at http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/

Jud,

Not sure what your point is?  If you're suggesting that David wants a short hitter and a long hitter of equal handicaps to experience the architecture of the course the same way from the same tee, I'd suggest that that is not possible, now or in the past.  As I read it, David wants to compress the distance delta between slow swing speeds and high swing speed players.  He hasn't said by how much, but seems to suggest that it should be back to some perceived delta from the past.  Perhaps he could clarify or be specific about the intended goal.  How much of a delta in distance should there be between a 90 vs a 125 mph player.  Currently it's maybe 100 yards.  Should it be 50 yards; 25 yards; none?  Unless you get ridiculous about it, I doubt that you can get them close enough together to make a course architecture play the same for two players of such disparate swing speeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()