[Ally Mcintosh]

I am surprised Mr. Otto did not use the better conditioned athlete as an excuse for moving the tee, which is about the only excuse available for golfers hitting farther if it is not the ball or the clubs. I am perplexed as to why the R&A is charged with growing the game. It seems as if the desire or need to grow the game is to meet the insatiable needs of the golf industry including all the tour bodies. But is that good reason to grow the game. It seemed like the game was doing well in the 60’s when I was taking up the game and the implements and balls would seem like quaint museum pieces compared to today’s gargantuan drivers and irons that are impossible not to hit well. Is it really necessary to have these equipment advances to grow the game, is it really necessary to grow the game, isn’t the nature of the game sufficient to attract enough interest without compromising its great courses. I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. It seems like any limit on clubs should be at that end of the club range. Fewer wedges means more skill required to create shots around the greens. But, I guess that disscussion is going on another thread. Growing the game is a crutch. R&A, NGF, PGA, please stop trying to grow the game. Let it be.

Kelly,

I agree.

What I've always wondered is:  "grow the game for whom ?"   The manufacturers ?

I sure hope that they keep on trying to grow the game so I have the chance to practice some of the millions of ideas floating around my head and on paper...

And don't you think some of the countries with very immature golfing markets deserve a chance to fall in love with the game also?... The R&A do some great work you know, even if some of their decisions are misguided...

[Anthony Butler]

I'm all for free market capitalism, but at exactly what point did the game's ruling bodies become the b*tches of the equipment makers? I assume it was sometime prior to the introduction of the Pro-V1...

Right after the USGA lost the court case to Ping at great expense.

BTW-Has anyone else noticed that the mean driving distance (for sake of argument, the 100th ranked professional in terms of distance on the PGA Tour) which bobbled around the 287-288yd mark ever since the intro of the Pro V1 is down to 279 this year? Obviously lots of factors go into this number, including the fact it has been reasonably cold at most Tour stops, but could the prospect of playing from the rough with the new grooves be inspiring a measure of caution in PGA Members?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance.  I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.

This is an interesting point, Jeff. But, what happened to improving by working on your swing and technique? I honestly can't believe there are people out there who think they can "buy a game"; even though I know there are in fact.

[Garland Bayley]

...I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. ...

Unfortunately, with vanishing loft disease the set you speak of has 4 wedges. That is
4 - 9, PW, GW1 for your 2-9. and GW2, SW for your two wedges, which I assumed you meant the old PW, SW

[Anthony Butler]

Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance.  I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.

So what you're saying is: If you buy the wife a box of Pro V1s she won't look like Natalie Gulbis or play like her?

[Richard Choi]

I think this is much ado about nothing. The barn door has been wide open for years. Trying to close them now would be pointless and it would just annoy golfers, pros and duffers alike.

The golf ball technology has not had the quantum leap in performance we saw with the advent of the multilayer ball (i.e. Pro V1). The ball technology has stayed pretty stagnant since then. Most of the gains we have seen since the introduction of multilayer balls has been from the fine tuning of the driver performance to go along with the ball technology. And the stats show correctly that even that has reached its peak.

Of course, that does not preclude from manufacturers to come up with a brand new quantum leap in technology to push the distance even further, but that will be easier to block than trying to roll back the rules. In my opinion, R&A and USGA are approaching this in a proper way.

If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.

I doubt that there is much R&A and USGA can stop them from playing though...

[Peter Pallotta]

OT - It's interesting to me that Dr. Otto chose a public and (relatively) high profile forum to address an issue that seems to hold so little interest to a large majority of the golfing public (if the lack of a broadly-based outcry against distance gains is any indication).  To put too fine a point on it, it strikes me as either an indication that the R&A is out of touch with the concerns of the average golfer; and/or that it is an issue of much greater importance to that governing body than their actions/inactions of the past decade would suggest. If the latter, it seems that Dr. Otto/the R&A wanted to let those whose opinions they respect know it.

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I don't know, can they?  That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?

I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards.  And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots.  That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour.  Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.

I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.

"Fear with no facts?"  Take a look at the thread about the new 17th tee at St Andrews.  Do you think they are building tees on the neighboring courses because there are no facts?  Did Augusta make the short par 4 7th hole 455 yards long because there are no facts?

We're not talking about what the new ball and equipment do for my game, I was happy playing the whites at the Wilderness!  It's what the I&B are doing to our classic golf courses that is the issue.

[TEPaul]

Jason and Garland:

Thanks for those lists of what you call rollbacks in other sports and in golf. Since the list for golf seems longer and more comprehensive than the other sports perhaps the regulatory entites of I&B in golf (R&A and USGA) really are doing their job.

However, I'm not so sure I would necessarily call some of those items on the golf list rollbacks; to me some of them seem more like itemized standardizations at particular times. I say that because very often in their past things slip by them on the manufacturer R&D and production pipeline and it takes then time to react to it with conformance testing and consequent I&B rules and regs.

[Garland Bayley]

...If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.
...

Hate to break it to you buddy, but "true" athletes have been failing at golf for eons. Don't put your money on this flight of fantasy happening.
Ever see Tiger Woods play basketball? Pretty ugly sight.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

That's a good point.

Advances with the I&B have disconnected the interfacing between the architectural features and the golfer.

The "hotel" bunker complex on # 7 at NGLA is a perfect example, as is the centerline bunker complex at # 8..

[Garland Bayley]

Jason and Garland:

Thanks for those lists of what you call rollbacks in other sports and in golf. Since the list for golf seems longer and more comprehensive than the other sports perhaps the regulatory entites of I&B in golf (R&A and USGA) really are doing their job.

...

Really doing their job would be specifying the materials and construction techniques for the equipment, not adding a new reg after the horse gets out of the barn.

Major League baseball specifies the materials and the construction for the bats and balls. They are doing their job.
The reason the USGA and the R&A have the most rollbacks is because they are not doing their job.

[TEPaul]

"Ever see Tiger Woods play basketball? Pretty ugly sight."


That's what his buddy Charles Barkley says-----eg Tiger is the only "Brother" he's ever seen who just can't jump like all "Brothers" can. And Tiger's second love sport----skuba-diving---drives Charles nuts! He's said he's told Tiger endlessly that "The Brothers" just DO NOT skuba-dive, and that kind of dumb sport is more for effete white guys and French people and such.

[Richard Choi]

Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.

As to standardization, a good example is the baseball used at Coors Field. They built a ball field with fences too close in for a city that is a mile up in the air. The balls were flying out so frequently that they decided to keep the balls in humidors so that they would fly less. A specialization that only applies to this one stadium, no one else does it. Other sport is not as anal about uniformity as we are in golf.

[Tim Martin]

I think this is much ado about nothing. The barn door has been wide open for years. Trying to close them now would be pointless and it would just annoy golfers, pros and duffers alike.

The golf ball technology has not had the quantum leap in performance we saw with the advent of the multilayer ball (i.e. Pro V1). The ball technology has stayed pretty stagnant since then. Most of the gains we have seen since the introduction of multilayer balls has been from the fine tuning of the driver performance to go along with the ball technology. And the stats show correctly that even that has reached its peak.

Of course, that does not preclude from manufacturers to come up with a brand new quantum leap in technology to push the distance even further, but that will be easier to block than trying to roll back the rules. In my opinion, R&A and USGA are approaching this in a proper way.


If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.

I doubt that there is much R&A and USGA can stop them from playing though...

Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.

[Richard Choi]

Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.

I am not talking about crossover athletes. I think the Michael Jordan experiment showed that even the best athlete on earth cannot switch sports in mid-stream. I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school. I would love to see the average height of PGA tour players over the years. I would bet a lot of money that average height will go up dramatically over the next decade or two.

[Tim Martin]

Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.

I am not talking about crossover athletes. I think the Michael Jordan experiment showed that even the best athlete on earth cannot switch sports in mid-stream. I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school. I would love to see the average height of PGA tour players over the years. I would bet a lot of money that average height will go up dramatically over the next decade or two.

Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!

[Garland Bayley]

Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.
...

It seems your thesis is that top athlete's don't mind being beaten. Of course they care enough! A long time ago I played on a small town HS golf team in a mostly rural state. When the state golf championships would roll around, a lot of the top athletes with conference and state titles to their name would be there. And, they were still getting beat by nerdy guys with paunches and wearing coke bottle bottom thick glasses. It hasn't really changed that much. As Tim wrote, you still have to get the ball in the hole.

[Richard Choi]

Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!

The tournament prizes have exploded since Tiger came to the scene. What an average golfer makes in a year is now comparable to the average yearly salary from other top pro sports. This wasn't the case 15 years ago. You figure golf became a legit alternative to other pro sports about 10 years ago, you are going to just start to see a new wave of athletes. The real change won't come for another 10 years or so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard Choi,

Years ago or rather decades ago, before 46 inch shafts with oversized tennis rackets affixed, they conducted that study.

I believe the ideal height was in the 5' 10" range.

There's something to be said for a compact swing.

Being 6' 8" isn't an advantage if you can't control and produce a precise swing.

And, you can't swing at tremendous speed if the increased speed produces mis-hits.

To illustrate the point, put today's 3-wood in the hands of the biggest strongest athlete you know and see how he fares as he tries to drive the ball six miles.  He'll run out of ammo before he hits the back nine.

The huge club head, coupled with lighter, stronger shafts has allowed golfers to "swing away" without fear.

When the USGA caved in and allowed the larger size club head it advanced the emphasis on distance.

I used to play with Evan "big cat" Williams, a very nice fellow and one of the first "long" drivers of the golf ball.
With the "olde" equipment, it was one thing to hit the ball long, it was quite another to control it.
Today's equipment has solved the latter problem to a great degree.

[Richard Choi]

It seems your thesis is that top athlete's don't mind being beaten. Of course they care enough! A long time ago I played on a small town HS golf team in a mostly rural state. When the state golf championships would roll around, a lot of the top athletes with conference and state titles to their name would be there. And, they were still getting beat by nerdy guys with paunches and wearing coke bottle bottom thick glasses. It hasn't really changed that much. As Tim wrote, you still have to get the ball in the hole.

Hate to break it to you, Garland. Those "top athletes" long time ago, were not the "top athletes" in the state. They just seemed like it just because rest of you were so scrawny...

[Tim Martin]

Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!

The tournament prizes have exploded since Tiger came to the scene. What an average golfer makes in a year is now comparable to the average yearly salary from other top pro sports. This wasn't the case 15 years ago. You figure golf became a legit alternative to other pro sports about 10 years ago, you are going to just start to see a new wave of athletes. The real change won't come for another 10 years or so.

 Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong

[Thomas McQuillan]

I agree with Patrick. The further away from the ball you are, the further it will go, but it is also way harder to control. A 3 iron is way herder to get a consistent strike out of than a 6 iron. Did anyone else also realise that the smaller the player is, the better his short game seems to be.

[Richard Choi]

Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong

So, your response to my general trend is to put up a single anecdote? Seriously?

So, by following your logic, white men need not apply come next presidential election.

I agree that it is more difficult for tall players to control their swing. But there will be those "special" athletes with freakish hand-eye control who will be able to control their power, and more and more of them are going to try golf instead of other sports. Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.

[Garland Bayley]

... Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.

Bubba Watson an athlete. Now I have heard everything. At 60, I could probably take that scrawny dude at basketball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()