[Ronald Montesano]

There is a nifty interview with Wally Uihlein on Golfobserver.com (http://www.golfobserver.com/blog/blognews/buzz/2009/09/29/wallypart1)

Two things are interesting to me...the first is that the stock photo of Uihlein is either ten years old or air-brushed beyond compare.  He's not the same guy you see in the casual photos.

The second was this exchange between John Huggan, interviewer, and Uihlein:

JH: But leading players can’t go to a 6,500-yard course and play it like it is supposed to be played.  

WU: That’s a combination of him, the ball, and having a 460cc head on a 45-inch driver. With all that you can swing much faster.
Think of the times when you used to play with a small, persimmon-headed driver. If you hit four or five on the screws you thought you had driven the ball well. But now, you can hit it all over the face and still be in play.  


Here's my question:  Why not?  How does/did/will one play a 6500 yard course?  You put the ball in the fairway, on the green, in the hole.  Simple as that.  No scorecard says "you must hit mid-iron to this par three"; nor "it is required that the big dog be unleashed on this par five"; nor "three wood off the tee is prohibited here, wimp."  You pick the tool of your trade and ply it.

We have a tournament in western New York called the International Junior Masters.  It is played on a short (for junior golfers) course at about the aforementioned length.  I here some kids complain that they can't hit driver and I will eternally respond, hit your 3-wood or long hybrid better, then.

You need the shot and club for other situations, right?  Why can't you go to it when other guys hit driver?  Seems to me that the shorter shaft will give you more control if you practice it enough.

[Andy Gray]

He was certainly avoiding the question: "how will this affect your bottom line?".

I also find it interesting that Peter Dawson from the R & A only asks Tiger for feedback a majority of the time. 

[Ronald Montesano]

I thought it was the only bad question Huggan asked...that's why I started the thread.  I ask again, Why can't they?  Throttle back off the driver, bust a 3-metal or long hybrid and voila, position A.

[Niall C]

Excellent interview, and one which answers some of the questions on recent threads about why the R&A/USGA don't do something about technology. Uihlein basically issued a veiled threat on more than one question that he would sue if the authorities did anything that they didn't go along with.

Basically Titliest presently has a competitive advantage that it doesn't want to lose. Change the rules on spec and suddenly they are in big danger of losing that advantage.

Niall

[Tony Ristola]

What can Wally say?

Yes the ball is too long when combined with other modern implements. OK, let's roll back the ball and make it a commodity.

No... Wally has a brand to protect, and retailing balls for a buck isn't appealing... which is what would happen if the ball were rolled back.
Ball prices would plummet.
Titliest would lose a ton in sales.

.

[Jason Topp]

Although I am a rollback guy I do believe we are seeing a commoditization of drivers due to a combination of the economy and the inability of any one model to deliver additional distance over other models.  The result is that driver prices are going down and I do not think we will see them spike again unless some company comes up with a true technological advantage under the rules.

Titleist's brand advantage for balls is pretty interesting.  I think it is based on image than performance but I always feel like I am giving away an advantage of some sort if I use a different ball. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Why would prices plummet if the ball were rolled back?

Ulrich

[Ronald Montesano]

More importantly, why are all you bozos hijacking this thread?

It is NOT about golf balls and technology, but rather, how to play a 6500 yard course if you are a bomber?

You want a Wally Uihlein thread?  Start one up.  I'm interested in any thoughts on my initial observation...unless you all agree with my brilliant and complex interpretation.

[Tony Ristola]

More importantly, why are all you bozos hijacking this thread?

It is NOT about golf balls and technology, but rather, how to play a 6500 yard course if you are a bomber?

You want a Wally Uihlein thread?  Start one up.  I'm interested in any thoughts on my initial observation...unless you all agree with my brilliant and complex interpretation.

How to play a 6500 yards course as a bomber?
Depends on the set up, conditions, and the general character of the course.
Stroke or match play?
Tournament or casual?
Stableford?
This bozo didn't realize there was a generic 6500 yarder.

Ulrich,
Once the ball is rolled back, you're looking at, I would expect 20-year old technology.
All balls would be distance balls.

The Chinese would roll these pellets out at a fraction and drive the prices into the basement.
Profits from Titliest ball division would suffer a serious blow.

.

[Ronald Montesano]

There we go!  I agree...I felt the question was a cop-out deal.  Not that we're speaking of a tell-all interview here, a revelatory piece in which some great secret is outed.  It seemed quite condescending of Huggan to suggest that any competitor with the prowess to pound the pellet would not be able to adapt her/his game to a shorter, narrower golf course.  If you can't leave the driver in the bag, stick to the practice range.

[Ken Moum]

How to play a 6500 yards course as a bomber?
Depends on the set up, conditions, and the general character of the course.
Stroke or match play?
Tournament or casual?
Stableford?
This bozo didn't realize there was a generic 6500 yarder.

While your points are all true, I have personally witnessed tour-length bombers play courses from 6,000 to 6,600 yards in serious tournament competition, and it was pretty clear that the way to play short courses is to attempt to drive almost every green.

If Uihlien or anyone else thinks it's easier to post a low score on a short course by laying back on hole after hole they aren't paying attention.

The Kansas 6A State high School Championship was held at my home course last spring--Ross, 6,600, par 71. I scored for a group that included one of the longest hitters in the event. He just pounded it on hole after hole, with no thought of laying up. And if I were him , I'd have done the same thing. On the 376-yard fourth, he drove it within 10 yards of green and chipped and putted for his three.

A couple of years ago, we hosted a qualifier for the State Am., and Gary Woodland (currently 5th on the PGA Tour in driving distance) who played the course until he was in high school just took it apart by going after every hole. I think the only hole he didn't use driver on was the 300-yard 18th, where a well-hit driver would have put him over the green.

Those aren't the only experiences I have with such players on short courses but they are typical.

Ulrich,
Once the ball is rolled back, you're looking at, I would expect 20-year old technology.
All balls would be distance balls.

The Chinese would roll these pellets out at a fraction and drive the prices into the basement.
Profits from Titliest ball division would suffer a serious blow.

I suspect that's not the case. The current ball is regulated by the Overall Distance Standard, and that hasn't limited innovation in any sense.  If the USGA  used my preference and simply lowered the maximum weight to 1.55 - 1.58 ounces, it could open up a whole new level of innovation and development.

Among other things, there'd be balls with much lower spin to help counteract the tendency of a lighter ball to curve at high ball speeds, and balls with more spin to accomodate players who wanted to "work" the ball like the old days.

None of this would mean that balls would get cheaper.

[Tony Ristola]

If Uihlien or anyone else thinks it's easier to post a low score on a short course by laying back on hole after hole they aren't paying attention.

Wally has a brand to protect. I'm sure he knows the real deal, just can't cut his own throat.

I suspect that's not the case. The current ball is regulated by the Overall Distance Standard, and that hasn't limited innovation in any sense.  

Yes they are, but these rules are gotten around.
Rolling the ball back 10 to 15% will place an absolute cap on distance.
I don't expect a weight change for the ball.

The average guy is looking for a ball that plays well and doesn't a fortune.
Pro V1's with 1980 distance could be made with ease by a Asian companies. Old dimple patterns could be brought back.  Titliest and other brands would lose a lot of business with time. A ton.
It would be like GE with appliances, or the apparel and shoe industry.

I'd even venture a few of the new brands would come as floaters too!

.

[Ronald Montesano]

Kmoum,

In both instances, how well protected were the green areas?  Were these courses completely devoid of hazards farther down fairways?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ronald
It's the name brand, and Acushnet makes golf balls so cheaply right now that I don't think they'll be moving their operations to Taiwan or the mainland anytime in the near (or far) future.

Something you're forgetting is that almost all equipment is Chinese made right now, therefore if it was going to be sold cheaply in this country it would already be happening, and it isn't. If that were the case Nike sneakers would be $25.00, not $125.00.

[Ronald Montesano]

I think that was kmoum or tony that addressed those points...I'm all about the course...I don't care about the out-sourcing and the overseas impact...I care about how to strategize.

[Rick Shefchik]

I agree with kmoum...a few years ago I played in a qualifying round for a tournament on my 6500-yard course with a guy my age who would later make a little money on the senior tour. I was hitting two-irons and three-woods off the tee on the tight holes, thinking I was playing it smart. This guy never left the driver in the bag, and wasn't exactly the straightest hitter I've ever played with, but he broke par easily by simply getting up and down from close to the greens. And they're essentially small, push-up greens, pretty well bunkered and sloped. Bombing is the way to play the 6500-yarders...if you can bomb.

[Drew Standley]

I played Wichita CC earlier this year in US Open Qualifer conditions and thought it was one of the hardest ~6500 yarders I've ever played.  The wind howled and the rough was hack it out at best.  I really had to worry about ball positioning (which I never really do here in Houston) and finding the short grass.  My 45+ inch driver and TaylorMade TP Red helped me none that day.  What made the day fun were the smooth greens and good company.  So, in this world of longer, straighter hitting clubs/balls, how about growing the rough up a little bit?  I think that's how they are going to have to "protect" older courses such as Wichita. 

-Drew

[Ronald Montesano]

David...you gave us exactly what we needed...why is that the widest part of the fairway?

I coach high school boys and girls...The girls game is about strategy while the guys game is about power.  The funny part is seeing the freshies trying to cut the same corners as the seniors...too funny.

Here's the thing...today's driver is yesterday's 3 iron or 4 wood.  The kids have no confidence in their hybrids off the tee and none of them carry long irons beyond 4 iron.  The driver gives them a driving, powerful trajectory, in spite of its long shaft.  Perhaps the new lay-up club is a choked-up driver.

That being said, doffing my coach's cap and placing on one of tournament set-up man, I set a pin on that hole right behind a bunker,  tempting the kid who bombs it into going for the stick on his half-pitch.

1.  The easier the drive, the tougher the pin;
2.  The tougher the approach, the easier the pin;
3.  The easier the approach, the tougher the rough around the green;
4.  When all else fails, grow some rough up both sides of the fairway!

[Rob Rigg]

I agree that there is currently little or no incentive for a bomber not to blast away with the driver. Even if you grow out the rough these guys are left with 50 yard pitches - it has to be some pretty long stuff to truly punish and then the super/organizers will get complaints for creating "unfair" set ups.

This is why Elite Tournament golf, in many cases, is not good for the game. If you make a 6500 yard course a mine field or nightmare for the best players then they will just bitch and moan. In the meantime, the higher handicappers will spend 6 hours out there getting their asses handed to them.

Tiger golfers are not going to play a 6,500 course like it was supposed to be played unless they have no choice.

When you are playing for score, that is all that matters.

Ron - I think that is why it is so difficult to separate your initial question from a tech discussion - there is no other way to turn back the clock and eliminate 325 yard high flat ball flights that hang in the air forever.

[Ronald Montesano]

If they want the 325 yard ball flights, let them have them!

Control the ball and place it in the narrowest portion of the hole (although not unattainable, as we saw at Valderrama with Tiger) and you get a tiny pitch to a tough pin; as we all know, it is usually easier to come in to a tight pin with a full {rather than partial} swing.  If you generate more spin with a full 9 iron than a 1/2 wedge (scientists...confirmation or denial?), make the greens firmer and the partial wedge players will really have to work at it.

If a golfer depends on bomb and gouge, make the bomb area a little narrower and the gouge a little tougher.  Strategy might just re-enter the game...I believe it was The Onceler who said that, after dropping the seeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()