Is there a good argument for competition ball?

[John_Conley]

I have read time and time again on this site about a "competition" ball.  I still don't get it.  Since I've never heard anyone else ask the question, and have also never heard anyone make an argument sound enough to convince me, could anyone please enlighten me as to why a "competition" ball makes sense to them?

Today's "tournament" players can carry the ball 275 +/- 10 yards (rough estimation based on observation, that band probably encompasses 75% of all top golfers).  I can see that distance like that compromises many great golf courses in existence today.  A number of factors contribute to this, but Nick Price recently put into words what I've been feeling for a while:  I used to swing 75%.  Today, kids are swinging 98%.

Because today's clubs are so forgiving that players can "bang away", and today's balls are harder than balls of yore, I don't see an easy way to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

The simplest solution, however unlikely, in my mind is to reign in the standards for golf balls.  Manufacturers will butt up against a new initial velocity and players will still be free to choose from a variety of balls with differing playability features.

Nothing else is standard in a players arsenal of equipment.
  * pegs of any height
  * golf glove of any size
  * grip of any circumference
  * irons of any loft & lie
  * clubs of any length

Why should a standardized competition ball be used?  If the dimple pattern favored one player over another, is that fair?  If the cover material was softer than people would prefer for soft greens, should everyone suffer?

There was a thread on the subject of long-driving six months ago where some of these questions were briefly addressed, but it never really made sense to me then.

Am I nuts to think that a dual-standard makes more sense than status quo PLUS a "competition ball"?

[Tim_Weiman]

John Conley:

The most important thing is to call a halt to the golf technology arms race, preferably sooner rather than later.
  
When it comes to length, all we need to reward is relative length - the ability of one player to hit the ball further than his competitor.  The pursuit of absolute length makes no sense.  We don't need to keep making the playing field bigger and the game ever more expensive to play.

As for the merits of a competion ball verses an overall distance rollback, I think you need to be careful about your Nice Price quote.  Presumably, when he refers to "today's kids" he means current professional level players.  It is in their hands that technology poses the greatest problem.

On the other hand, Joe Sixpack doesn't need more than about 6,200 yards to be adequately challenged.  So, why is it necessary to change the ball for him?

Personally, I could accept either approach to dealing with the technology problem, but a competition ball probably makes slightly more sense.

If you meant to suggest that a competition ball makes sense, but that a "standardized" one doesn't, that is an interesting twist.  As long as the distance is cut back 15% ish, I really don't care about different dimple patterns.

[Jeff Fortson]

This topic can be best described as to whether or not golf should become socialistic.  I say NO to a competition ball.  Once we have a "Competition Ball" then where do we stop?  Next will it be "Competition Drivers"?  Or maybe "Competition Irons"?  This is a road that is not only unfair but very dangerous for the game.  

I have no problem with putting certain limitations on technology but to make a uniform ball or anything of that nature is truly disturbing.  Part of the game is the individualism.  Some guys have high spin rates, other low ones, and others medium.  Where do we say, "OK this will be the ball everyone has to use."  Guys spend their whole lives grooving what they have and now you tell someone who spins the ball a lot, so they use a low spin ball, that they have to use a ball that will spin off every green on them?  This is a joke!  A uniform ball won't destroy golf but it will destroy many golfers, especially pros.

By the way, the last time I saw the members at my club tee it up they weren't pounding 300 yard drives and hitting flip wedge into every hole.  Not all golfers are tour caliber and I think too many people forget that.  Just because a guy has talent and has figured out how to hit the ball far with what is legal by the USGA doesn't mean we need a uniform ball.

Put some limitations on technology to stop courses from becoming 10,000 yards long not a unform or "Competition Ball".  Lets keep golf democratic and free choice available to EVERY player, good and bad.  I say NO to a socialized or communist world of golf!  

Jeff F.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Very quickly, as far as I know, a "competition ball" is not a standardized ball.

Players will be free to choose the ball that best suits their game, as they do today.  All manufacturers will be free to market their "competition ball" as well as their "recreational ball".  And all players will be free to choose their "competition ball" as well.  The only difference between a "competition ball" and today's golf ball is that the first will fly ___ % shorter than the latter.

(My feeling is that the "recreational ball" will go the way of the dinosaur when a "competition ball" appears, even for Joe Sixpack.  It's the macho factor, I suppose.  Everybody wants to be like so-and-so, using the same equipment, etc...)

As Tim put it, what matters is relative distance, not absolute distance.

[guest]

When it comes to length, all we need to reward is relative length - the ability of one player to hit the ball further than his competitor.  The pursuit of absolute length makes no sense.  We don't need to keep making the playing field bigger and the game ever more expensive to play.

Here's the key.  

But this question's answer depends on your perspective.  If you are a manufacturer and you want an ever increasiing shareof the market, this limits your options.

So which is more important, the game or the dollar?

[A_Clay_Man]

The best argument against the Comp Ball is that it will allow archies to go on with the status quo.

 Are you happy with the state of gca today?

Why not let the  A-types build their 8500 yd monsters just for the percieved prestige of having the pros come to thier hallowed ground.

IMO, It should be up to the designers to fix the percieved problem by building courses that defend themselves.

If they can't around the driver wedge phenomina they should just outlaw the driver, but then when they start hittting three woods 275+ take that too. Eventually there will be just a putter and a wedge and who needs a caddie for that?  

[John_McMillan]

In a nutshell, the argument for the competition ball is that distances have increased more in the last 10 to 20 years for the professional than for the average golfer - which is why distances need to be more reigned in for the professional (through the competition ball) than for the amateur.

If you accept the argument, the next step is to quibble over the specifics - and Tim Weiman's 15% seems too high to me.  That turns a 300 yard drive into a 255 yard drive, which makes a lot of the medium length par 5's quite difficult to reach in 2 shots for the top players.  It would bring the fairway woods back into play on the long par 4's, which is something that golf hasn't seen since the 70's.  With the renewed popularity of ABBA, and the musical Mamma Mia, maybe it's the perfect time for that, but I think that a rollback of 5 to 10% would be the better number to shoot for.

[John_Conley]

REIN

Bad homonym

[John_Conley]

Fortson feels exactly the way I do.  A change to the standards would still allow for different balls within the new tolerance.  Manufacturers would be free to optimize within the new rules.

BTW:  Played a scramble yesterday with a guy from the office and two guys he invited.  The "distance issue" doesn't affect much of the golfing population!  Two guys played with Red E.R.C. drivers, despite no chance of a center hit with enough clubhead speed to actually get the fact to cave in.  Used my teeshot on 13 of 14 driving holes.  Playing at under 6100 yards, I was unable to drive any par 4s.

Tim:  I've said 1000 times that the most significant increases occur for the top player who grew up with Titanium drivers.  Clearly Price was referring to "tournament players", which is where the dilemma is strongest.

Today's college player carries it over 260, and often 280.  This is a result of swinging VERY HARD because they aren't consumed with center contact as they would have been with 43" steel shafted Power Bilts.

[Mike Cirba]

Yes, I seem to recall that Arnie, Jack, Seve, and Tom Watson all swung at 80%.  

I bet their swings would be much different today if they were young college players again.  

[John_McMillan]

Seems like the guys arguing against the competition ball are making the strongest arguments for it - that the increases in driving distance are concentrated on the tour players.

Re the balls and "individualism" - wouldn't a competition ball INCREASE the benefits a particular player gets from specialized talents?  Using the example given by Fortson, if one player has a higher spin rate than a competitor, wouldn't he have even more of an advantage if the competitor couldn't "buy" more spin rate through a particular ball?

The better question is what is the argument against the competition ball, and to me it boils down to equipment companies not being able to generate sales through their canned endorsement ad, "I'm Joe Tourplayer, and I couldn't play a lick of golf until I switched to TitleFlite 2000, with its core made from a rare rubber tree found only on the Eastern coast of Bali, and a dimples patterned after Sarah Michelle Geller.  After I switched, I won the Masters Tournament, so you should play the TitleFlite 2000 too."  Exactly how much weight should the game give to marketing strategies of equipement manufacturers.  I think you have a tough time arguing that should be the main concern of a golf governing body.

[Tim_Weiman]

A Clayman:

I hope you weren't serious with your post.

What does the "status quo" mean?  Is Pacific Dunes at around 6,500 yards an example?

Would building 8,500 yard courses make golf architecture better?  Who is supposed to play such courses?  Who is supposed to pay to build and maintain such courses?

Why do designers have the responsibility to "fix" the golf technology arms race problem?  Isn't that the responsibility of the ruling bodies?

Why is eliminating the driver a better solution than changing the golf ball?

Guest:

You ask which is more important: the game or the dollar?

That is not a tough question.  Most golfers want to play more not pay more.  Unfortunately, the golf industry has been using technology to make the game more expensive.  The exact opposite should be done.  Technology should be used to reduce costs.


Jeremy Glenn:

Thanks for also pointing out that a "competition ball" does not need to be a standardized ball.  I don't know where this suggestion came from.

John McMillan:

I'm not hung up on 15% vs 10%.  But, 15% does have the advantage of allowing architects to build shorter courses (say 6,700 yards) that could even host professional events.

The key thing is to recognize that making the playing field bigger - the pursuit of absolute length - makes no sense.  To the contrary, we should be pursuing the economic benefits of making the playing field smaller.

[Robert_Walker]

I do not want to see 2 sets of rules. Therefore, I am against a competition ball. However, I can see a plan that would satisfy all parties....

1 That is to grandfather all approved balls for handicapping purposes.

2 Roll back the ODS for future years, and require that tournament play must occur with balls that are manufactured for that year.

This would be a winner for everyone.
  (smiley face)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim Weiman,

You have stated before that increasing length of courses increases costs, but I wondered how much?  Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second.....

Right now, a 7000 yard course typically sits on 180-200 acres.  Let's use 190 acres.  It costs from 3.5-5.5M to build, excluding those small percentage built by Fazio, et. al. or about 18-28K per acre.  We'll use the low figure, since presumably greens and tees would be the same in either case, and they are the bulk of construction.

Raising the distance to 7700 yards (the longest course I see these days, so I won't use 8500 yards) requires about 14 more acres.  (700 yards X 3 feet/yard X 300 feet wide corridor divided by 43,560 sf per acre).

If the cost of that land is $3000 per acre and construction cost is $18,000 per acre the total increase in cost is about $300K, shamelessy rounding for simplicity.  If debt on a 20 year note is at $9/1000, using typical interest rates, it cost the owner about $2700 per year more to build the longer course.

If maintenance budgets go up 10% (again, high because the high maintenance greens and tees remain the same) from $600K to $660, the total annual cost is about 63K.

Amortized over a typical 32,000 rounds, this means $2 per round. If a golfer plays the average 25 rounds per year the NGF reports as typical, the cost is $50 per golfer annually.  

In addition, I don't know of many architects who build courses much over 7000 from the tips, unless specifically instructed to do so, because of the possibility of a tournament.  The one I designed at that length didn't really increase turf acreage at all.  The way back tees had almost 200 yards of native between tee and fairway.  Cart path went up, but that cost was nominal.  

Looking at it that way, the cost issue doesn't really hold water.  And, I'm not sure there should be a czar of golf, dictating just exactly what and what not technology SHOULD do, as we would likely lose many good innovations (unless you think the sand wedge, or even the lob wedge should also come under scrutiny by someone who is smarter than us....well, at least me

The increasing cost of our higher end golf courses is a product of an arms race all its own - the desire for better ammenities than the next guy - rather than the technology wars.  Ultra long courses aren't being built in great numbers....and I foresee that they won't be, but that courses will probably be targeted at more specific golf audiences.

The issue is really more emotional for many, in that we don't want to see classic courses no longer used in competition by the best players.  But that horse has already left the barn, in that the PGA Tour will only place its events on TPC courses, if possible, designed specifically for players of Tour caliber.  The horse really left the barn when Prestwick was taken off the British Open Rota.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

I don't see this as an "emotional" issue.  To the contrary, I simply believe that technology should be used to lower rather than increase costs to consumers. That is what we expect of other major industries, so why not the golf industry?

Rather than building 7700 yard courses, wouldn't it be more efficient to build 6300 yard courses?

You are worried about a czar.  I'm not.  I believe most golfers want to play more not pay more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I couldn't agree more that most golfers want to play more and pay less.  Those of us who would travel almost anywhere and pay almost anything to experience the architecture of a certain course sometimes forget that more than 80% of all rounds are driven by cost and convenience, not architectural merits.

The point of my math was to demonstrate just what the additional "inefficiency" is, in lengthening courses.  Just the cold hard facts......Its not as much of a cost impact as many would believe.  And I was just using construction cost, not the annual cost of new drivers, balls, travel, etc. that a golfer has.......

I also pointed out that only a small % of courses are actually, or should be, built to 7700 yards, because so few golfers need that type of length.  If Tiger ain't showing up, why build it for him?  In my view, stating that future courses will be 8500 yards does emotionalize, or sensationalize the issue before us.

I especially don't understand why people get crazy over Augusta lengthing the course. ( I could side with those who say the design intent has changed significantly, at least in some areas)  If there is a course with a clearly defined, singular purpose of holding a prestigious golf tournament, its Augusta.  If you believe in form follows function, then the course should be lengthened.  Augusta can't control the manufacturers or the ruling bodies concerning a competition ball, but it changed the one thing it controls completely - the course.  Maybe, someday it will be different.

To answer your question about 6300 yard courses, even for every day courses, I wouldn't argue for shortening courses from " typical" overall lengths right now.  Since most golfers are used to 7000 yard back tees (even if they play 6300-6700 middle tees) I think they would expect that, and not favor rolling back, even if they favored measures to stop the increases in necessary length.  7000 yards adequately tests all but the top 0.1% (not 3%) of golfers.

Lastly, I enjoy getting a bit more distance from new technology.  I am still trying to hit it far enough to get a sense of how a course may have played when Arnie or Jack were in their primes!

FYI, there have been many technical advances that have reduced golf course constrution cost.  Among them are plastic drain and irrigation pipes, high volume earthmoving techniques and more efficient grass planting methods.  The trend has been to increase the quantities of each of these as costs came down, rather than lower the cost of the golf course construction.  Why?  As my foregoing math showed, the up front cost, when amortized over several years, is nominal and fixed.  Labor and maintenance are larger components of the golfers per round cost, and if an upfront expenditure can reduce those, the Owner and golfer are better off.  These can go up annually, so any spending to reduce these makes sense, IMHO.

Nonetheless, the unit prices for any particular construction item on a golf course has gone down, at least relative to inflation.  For instance, 12" drain pipe (plastic) has bid about $12 per lineal foot for as long as I can remember.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

Once again, I can see we are in disagreement on almost every point.

Have I done a study to detail exactly how much the golf technology arms race is costing consumers?  No, I haven't.  But, I don't agree with your suggestion that the pursuit of absolute length isn't costing very much.

The problem is that the cost is being obscured.  Looking forward to the possibility of 8,500 yard courses isn't an attempt to "emotionalize" or "sensationalize" the issues.  Rather, it is an attempt to get people to start thinking about the difference between relative length and absolute length.

The golf industry doesn't want people to think about these issues.  It wants people to slowly and mindlessly accept the "need" for an ever bigger playing field, what Ron Whitten foolishly calls "progress".

Why do people focus on Augusta?  Simply because no golf club in America has more influence on the game and is setting such a bad example by fueling the golf technology arms race.

Could Augusta have chosen the more progressive option of insisting on a competition ball?  Of course it could.  No person who follows golf can reasonably suggest otherwise.

You say people expect 7000 courses?  Of course they do when the entire golf industry is encouraging people to believe this makes sense.  Think about the Masters broadcast.  There was no Fox News "fair and balanced" reporting.  The entire thing was tightly controlled.  Nobody could question whether the Augusta approach makes sense.  All the CBS people did was say how great everything was.  There was no mention, no disclosure about the cost issue.

You say you want to enjoy new technology.  Be my guest!  Just join us in advocating a competition ball.  Join us in advocating ways to lower the cost of golf to consumers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I sure hope I sound as if I like a good discussion, rather than just being argumentative.  and I don't think I advocated either for or against a competition ball.  Regarding that, my only comments here have been that as long as we have lawyers, the whole concept will probably be difficult to implement. :-/  That is just an opinion, but even the most casual observer of US history could probably confirm that as FACT!

I do think I advocate lower costs in golf, both personally with my pocketbook by avoiding the tempation to buy $48 per dozen Pro V I's (yes I tried them, and I get about 5 more yards, which isn't worth the extra $2 per ball over the Laddie, Noodle, etc.) and as an architect.  The current remodel I am doing here in Dallas is being built for $3M, as opposed to other similar remodels by other firms going for $4.5-5.5M.  That will allow a lower green fee!

I guess my math was also an (apparently feeble) attempt to "unobsure" the cost of longer golf courses.  Of course, while the increased costs are small for us in the middle class, I would agree that strenuously holding down costs would allow the game to grow more, and be enjoyed by more people more often.  Perhaps $50 annually should not be classed as an insignificant cost adjustment.

We also agree that relative length is an important issue.  I believe that if technolgy existed to narrow the gap between the best and the worst (or even average) players, it would be good for golf.  Not only could we build courses w/o placing tees halfway down the fairway, but every single friendly golf match between friendly competitors would have a better chance of being a fair match.

I won't claim to be perfect, but I have tried to build my posts on facts, checkable math, etc.  Again, I hate to sound argumentative, Tim, but some of your statements are really opinion, (No one would argue otherwise..... for example) not supported by facts, or even arguments of logic.  (I may not have read all your posts, though)

As a result, to me, your posts do sound somewhat emotional on this issue.  That's not necessarily bad.  Any movement, like feminism, civil rights, environmental, etc. starts out by "calling attention" to their cause, but they often use fuzzy logic and sensationalism.  By the time it comes down to being put into law, some facts should be introduced to make sure we are going the right direction.  My take on John's original thread is that this was the point of this particular discussion.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim- Yes my post was tounge in cheek. I think those that benefit from the technology the most, the pros, or PGA tour could/would/should be the ones building and maintaining their own venues. I agree with you that the way to combat the technology is to shorten the field of play.

[Pete_Pittock]

Instead of a competition ball why not go to 'competition woods.' On the major tours, the professionals would use woods made of wood. This would rein in distance and allow players to shape shots like they used to. All us others would stilll be able to bang away with today's technology. Nobody really cares what scores or how long collegians or mini-tour players hot the ball. Manufacturers would still be able to take clubs and balls to the lmit. It seems to work in baseball, the major league parks are no bigger now than the days of Babe Ruth. But I'm not one for enthroning Bud Selig.

[Robert_Walker]

Pete,
That is not a bad idea, but I believe that the ball is the simplest place to start. The big difference between golf and baseball is that baseball segregates amateurs from professionals, and golf doesn't. For example, it is not unusual to see Juniors playing in the OPEN, but you will not see an amateur playing in the majors, and then returning to AAU, or high school. Additionally, it would be difficult to market metal woods while pros are using wood  woods.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Your mention of relative length vs absolute length is a good one, one I've been thinking about for about 3-4 years now and running the argument by various people with very little success.

But even with the manufacturers constantly advertizing absolute length (within the limits of ODS, of course) for many many years, the fact of relative length has always been a fact of golf too, no matter what distance the ball used to go or eventually goes.

Relative length vs absolute length is a good logic for slowing down or rolling back the length some people are able to hit the ball today. The argument of relative length can be presented to counteract the inevitable lure of golfers' fascination with how far they can hit a golf ball period, forget about relative to anyone else! Absolute length is possibly the biggest visceral allure in the game.

But a case of relative vs absolute length can be presented as: "Do we have any more fun hitting the ball further today than our fathers, or did our fathers have more fun hitting the ball further in their time than their fathers did in their time?

Probably not because we've all played under a single B&I ODS rule at any particular time in the relatively modern game and it then just became a matter of if anyone hit it further than their friends, opponents and fellow competitors.

Manufacturers have used absolute length as their primary marketing hook forever though, knowing full well that it's about 99% propaganda and always has been. But people still keep buying the propaganda and hope of more length--absolute length.

If you or anyone could figure out some way for the manufacturers to market relative length as successfully as they've been able to market the allure of absolute length, none of us, including the regulatory bodies would have any problem whatsoever getting the manufacturers to agree to a rollback of the ODS, in my opinion.

But trying to successfully market the concept of relative length instead of absolute length just has a transparent logic to it, in my opinon. Ultimately it's a bit of a "pyramid" logic.

I could see a golf instructor offering his services to a golfer or golfers knowing full well he can only help a limited number of people but for a major manufacturer to market "relative length" to the golfing public generally really doesn't make that much sense! Sort of transparent progaganda, if you know what I mean, and nowhere near as easy to sell as absolute length!

But anyway, I agree with you that relative length is ultimately more important no matter what distance people like Tiger Woods hits the ball (275 or 325!). I just wish you could figure out a way for the manufacturers to market relative length as successfully as they can absolute length!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

So now you want me to be a marketing guy!

For whom?  Those equipment companies have plenty of advertizing dollars and talent.  I'd rather focus on the consumer point of view.

But, seriously, I believe the ruling bodies just need to act with either a competition ball or an ODS rollback.  The best advertizing minds will take it from there.  If people like Micheal Dell and Bill Gates learned to concentrate on growing their markets, then certainly there must be people in the golf industry smart enough to do the same thing.

Jeff Brauer:

Sorry to apear "argumentative", but isn't the suggestion that lawyers will prevent the introduction of a competition ball being just a little bit too "emotional"?

I don't mean to suggest that equipment companies are beyond intimidation tactics, but the USGA, the R&A, the PGA and the ANGC have every right to set whatever standards they want for their championships.  Just give everyone fair opportunity to comment on proposed changes, adequate transition time and clear, consistent testing standards and things will be fine.

As for "opinions", I don't mind expressing them.  I can't prove with "facts" that people want to play more golf rather than pay more to play, but I do think the modest growth rate of people playing the game is pointing in that direction.

I haven't done a detailed study on the cost of equipment, but I recall that not long ago (circa 1984) I paid less for a full set of Powerbuilt persimmon woods than I observed this weekend for many Drivers at my local golf discount store.

Golf Balls?  How about the price of those Pro V1s?  I don't remember many balls priced nearly that high just five years ago.

Now, the golf courses.  In my opinion, people have as much fun playing Dooks at 6,000 yards as any golf course at 7,000 yards.  So, why do we need to build 7,700 yard courses?  What do we gain?  How does that improve the game?  How does that make it more fun?

Rather than move towards 7,700 yard courses, why not move towards 6,300 yard courses?  Is the spread of 1,400 yards not big enough to make a meaningful difference in the cost of building, maintaining and playing a course?

Is asking all these questions really "fuzzy logic"?

[Mike O'Neill]

Tim,

I know I must be missing something from your argument, because you have spent a great deal of time thinking this through. However, can you explain to me how modern technology forces a golfer to pay more to play golf? It can't be the equipment, because you can buy used clubs for next to nothing. Golf balls can be purchased for a reasonable price too. Is it the cost of green fees? Public golf in Omaha is less than $20.00 a round. Yes, there is more expensive golf too. But I haven't noticed anyone playing golf there with guns to their heads.

If a car shopper came to me and lamented that the suped-up luxury model of brand x car with it's bigger engine and leather interior and computerized features was $10,000 more than the non-luxury model, I would tell him/her to buy the cheaper one. If he/she did not take my advice, I would not take his/her lament seriously. The good thing about golf is that you can still play the game with found golf balls and 20 year-old clubs (my irons are from 1974 by the way) from whatever suitable forward or middle tees. If you want to pay for the better technology, more power to you. If not, don't. What am I missing?

[Tony Ristola]

To answer the original question: There should be no separation between the amateur and pro game involving equipment specs.  They should roll back the ball for everyone... 10%...back to the late 70's distances-early 80's.  

If you want to separate the games there is another solution rather than introducing a whole host of problems associated with two balls: R&D and manufacturing costs, real costs to the consumer and splitting the game.  If the USGA/R&A does nothing about the ball, and even if they did...wouldn't reducing the number of clubs in set for pro's...to 10 or 11 make more sense.  It would bring back shot making and place even a greater premium on management.  If the local kids wanted to play like the pro's they'd just chuck out a few clubs.