"The Problems of Excessive Ball Distance" - Letter to The Telegraph

[Tom_Doak]

Chris,

On your last point, I was responding to Tom, who suggested that as a competitive amateur I would play the tournament ball and by association, I would convince the guys I play casual golf with to play the same ball I do and by that association, the tournament ball will trickle down to all levels. I disagree with him, but that was his gist.

Jim:

You would play the tournament ball regularly if it was required for any of the events you play in, right?  And so would all of the other guys who might play in that, right?  I'm assuming you play a lot of your golf with those guys.  Eventually, you might also insist [nicely] that everyone in the club championship had to play with that ball, too.

Now, if you go out with your dad, you don't really care what ball he plays, do you?  Especially if he's got his handicap playing with the current ball?  The same would apply for playing with me, I would think.

[John Moore II]

...
What percentage of play(ers) have rendered even a single course obsolete?

A very small percentage. Only the professionals who are capable of playing on a major tour and amateurs capable of qualifying for one of the top level national amateur competitions.

...

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Sorry, but John is wrong and Jim mistakenly implies that making courses obsolete is a non-issue.

For every player capable of qualifying for one of the top level national amateur competitions, there are at least 100 that hits it just as far, but with far less accuracy (guess why they aren't capable of qualifying for top competition). When you know I can stand on the 10th green of my home course and almost be hit by a ball that has carried over 300 yards from the 13th tee, then you begin to understand the obsoletion issue and the safety issue. For lots of strong young players, there is no reason they need to buy 14 clubs. Driver, 3 wood, 8, 9, putter, and 4 wedges ought to do it, except for the fact that there may be a few par 3s out there that would make them need another club from time to time.

[Garland Bayley]

....

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Long, offline balls at my home course put people in danger all the time.

What does score have to do with making a course obsolete? If a course has no variety for a player (all he does is hit driver/half-wedge), that course is obsolete for that player, and he will look elsewhere to play.

[John Moore II]

....

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Long, offline balls at my home course put people in danger all the time.

What does score have to do with making a course obsolete? If a course has no variety for a player (all he does is hit driver/half-wedge), that course is obsolete for that player, and he will look elsewhere to play.

I hit the ball upwards of 315 yards off the tee. My current home course is around 6700 yards. I don't get bored. Why? Because it has enough variety and challenge that allow me to hit driver and sometimes take the driver out of my hands because of the shot presented. Just because a player hits it long doesn't automatically mean he will go elsewhere. Score absolutely makes a difference. If you feel the course provides you a decent challenge, causes you to think and hit different shots, you will not get bored. Basically what I am trying to say is that the good courses remain good and fun to play regardless or how far you can hit the ball.

[Garland Bayley]

....

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Long, offline balls at my home course put people in danger all the time.

What does score have to do with making a course obsolete? If a course has no variety for a player (all he does is hit driver/half-wedge), that course is obsolete for that player, and he will look elsewhere to play.

I hit the ball upwards of 315 yards off the tee. My current home course is around 6700 yards. I don't get bored. Why? Because it has enough variety and challenge that allow me to hit driver and sometimes take the driver out of my hands because of the shot presented. Just because a player hits it long doesn't automatically mean he will go elsewhere. Score absolutely makes a difference. If you feel the course provides you a decent challenge, causes you to think and hit different shots, you will not get bored. Basically what I am trying to say is that the good courses remain good and fun to play regardless or how far you can hit the ball.

So move to a home course over 75 years old and under 6000 yards and try your argument again!

[John Moore II]

....

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Long, offline balls at my home course put people in danger all the time.

What does score have to do with making a course obsolete? If a course has no variety for a player (all he does is hit driver/half-wedge), that course is obsolete for that player, and he will look elsewhere to play.

I hit the ball upwards of 315 yards off the tee. My current home course is around 6700 yards. I don't get bored. Why? Because it has enough variety and challenge that allow me to hit driver and sometimes take the driver out of my hands because of the shot presented. Just because a player hits it long doesn't automatically mean he will go elsewhere. Score absolutely makes a difference. If you feel the course provides you a decent challenge, causes you to think and hit different shots, you will not get bored. Basically what I am trying to say is that the good courses remain good and fun to play regardless or how far you can hit the ball.

So move to a home course over 75 years old and under 6000 yards and try your argument again!

That doesn't work on me either. The course in Raleigh where I was previously a member played right at 6000 yards, with 5 par 5's mind you. And that course didn't bore me any more than any other course. Fact of the matter is, design matters. If it is an interesting design, it will retain interest from even the longest and best players. After all, Ben Crenshaw (real bum of a player he was) said he loved Pinehurst #3, and that course clocks in at the enormous sum of 5682 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

....

How far off line is that ball from the 13th tee and how often does that happen? If it has only happened once, its hardly some kind of trend. Lots of guys hit the ball a long way. I hit he ball a long way. But I don't make courses play obsolete. My last four rounds have been 82-74-73-81. Hardly earth shattering. Its simple, all these changes are designed around the tour level players and shouldn't be

Long, offline balls at my home course put people in danger all the time.

What does score have to do with making a course obsolete? If a course has no variety for a player (all he does is hit driver/half-wedge), that course is obsolete for that player, and he will look elsewhere to play.

I hit the ball upwards of 315 yards off the tee. My current home course is around 6700 yards. I don't get bored. Why? Because it has enough variety and challenge that allow me to hit driver and sometimes take the driver out of my hands because of the shot presented. Just because a player hits it long doesn't automatically mean he will go elsewhere. Score absolutely makes a difference. If you feel the course provides you a decent challenge, causes you to think and hit different shots, you will not get bored. Basically what I am trying to say is that the good courses remain good and fun to play regardless or how far you can hit the ball.

So move to a home course over 75 years old and under 6000 yards and try your argument again!

That doesn't work on me either. The course in Raleigh where I was previously a member played right at 6000 yards, with 5 par 5's mind you. And that course didn't bore me any more than any other course. Fact of the matter is, design matters. If it is an interesting design, it will retain interest from even the longest and best players. After all, Ben Crenshaw (real bum of a player he was) said he loved Pinehurst #3, and that course clocks in at the enormous sum of 5682 yards.

Well, good John. So far we have a sample size of one (you) stipulating that a "good" design will not become obsolete for you as the ball gets longer. Given that you belong to this website, how representative of the general population do you think that sample is?

I'm saying that there are real people voting with their feet by going to play elsewhere, because the ball goes too far.

[John Moore II]

Garland,
It happens. Deal with it. Over time, courses will become too short given advances in technology. It has happened to every course that has ever been built. Its why places like Prestwick and Baltimore CC no longer host National Open championships. But they're not boring. We can just disagree here, I'm fine with it. But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
...But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

Wrong! The fact of the matter is that in the last half of the 20th century the ruling bodies kept the distance the ball traveled in check. So it hasn't happened continually since the beginning of golf.

The fact of the matter is that when the USGA tried to control grooves in club faces, they got sued. That may have some effect on their inaction on the most recent ball related distance advances. However, after patents expired and pressure from other issues they got control over grooves by reverting them to a previous state. We should hold their feet to the fire until they get control over and revert the latest distance gain from the ball.

[John Moore II]

Garland,
...But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

Wrong! The fact of the matter is that in the last half of the 20th century the ruling bodies kept the distance the ball traveled in check. So it hasn't happened continually since the beginning of golf.

The fact of the matter is that when the USGA tried to control grooves in club faces, they got sued. That may have some effect on their inaction on the most recent ball related distance advances. However, after patents expired and pressure from other issues they got control over grooves by reverting them to a previous state. We should hold their feet to the fire until they get control over and revert the latest distance gain from the ball.

Why don't we just revert back to the gutta-percha while we're at it? That will make all these old, short courses relevant again. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
...But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

Wrong! The fact of the matter is that in the last half of the 20th century the ruling bodies kept the distance the ball traveled in check. So it hasn't happened continually since the beginning of golf.

The fact of the matter is that when the USGA tried to control grooves in club faces, they got sued. That may have some effect on their inaction on the most recent ball related distance advances. However, after patents expired and pressure from other issues they got control over grooves by reverting them to a previous state. We should hold their feet to the fire until they get control over and revert the latest distance gain from the ball.

Why don't we just revert back to the gutta-percha while we're at it? That will make all these old, short courses relevant again. 

So you decided to throw in the towel, and revert to making absurd assertions instead of reasoned debate. I can understand that, given the position you were in.
 

[John Moore II]

Garland,
...But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

Wrong! The fact of the matter is that in the last half of the 20th century the ruling bodies kept the distance the ball traveled in check. So it hasn't happened continually since the beginning of golf.

The fact of the matter is that when the USGA tried to control grooves in club faces, they got sued. That may have some effect on their inaction on the most recent ball related distance advances. However, after patents expired and pressure from other issues they got control over grooves by reverting them to a previous state. We should hold their feet to the fire until they get control over and revert the latest distance gain from the ball.

Why don't we just revert back to the gutta-percha while we're at it? That will make all these old, short courses relevant again. 

So you decided to throw in the towel, and revert to making absurd assertions instead of reasoned debate. I can understand that, given the position you were in.
 

I was in a fine position, with my statements being sound. However, its as pointless to continue to argue with you as it was Pat Mucci in another thread on the front page. I'd just as soon go argue with a fence post.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
...But fact of the matter is that golf technology changes and courses become proportionately shorter over the years. It has happened since the beginning of golf.

Wrong! The fact of the matter is that in the last half of the 20th century the ruling bodies kept the distance the ball traveled in check. So it hasn't happened continually since the beginning of golf.

The fact of the matter is that when the USGA tried to control grooves in club faces, they got sued. That may have some effect on their inaction on the most recent ball related distance advances. However, after patents expired and pressure from other issues they got control over grooves by reverting them to a previous state. We should hold their feet to the fire until they get control over and revert the latest distance gain from the ball.

Why don't we just revert back to the gutta-percha while we're at it? That will make all these old, short courses relevant again. 

So you decided to throw in the towel, and revert to making absurd assertions instead of reasoned debate. I can understand that, given the position you were in.
 

I was in a fine position, with my statements being sound. However, its as pointless to continue to argue with you as it was Pat Mucci in another thread on the front page. I'd just as soon go argue with a fence post.

Yes, you would win against a fence post, because eventually it will rot out and fall over.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Chris,

I am an occassional competitive amateur...which ball would I play?

Jim:

You would play the tournament ball, and you'd insist the guys you play with do, too ... and that is how it would gradually roll back and become accepted by the better players and then the masses.

If the guy that will never play an organized tournament will play the tournament ball because I asked him to, why wouldn't we just go straight for the total roll-back as opposed to a tournament ball?

Because the authorities (who are in the pockets of the ball manufacturers) will never go for that unfortunately... It's about culture change and peer pressure to create a domino effect... Eventually everyone will want to play the tournament ball...

[Niall C]

Mark

They make money and sit on ideas - nothing new here, just look at their history of delayed decisions. The ball is still being debated 100 years late and still not resolved.

 Judge them on their performance please.

Melvyn

Melvyn

I would rather have a delayed decision that was based on full consideration of the facts rather than rush judgement which could produce bad legislation. I appreciate that you have issues with the R&A with regards to your family but I think overall they have done, and continue to do, a good job. Contrary to your thoughts, I really don't see them being 100% commercial and chasing the buck where ever it is and whatever it costs the game.

Niall 

[Melvyn Morrow]

The fact of the matter in hand is very clear in my mind, its has little to do with protecting Par but in maintaining the pleasure of playing golf. I include the hope that costs can be reduced thus reflected in sensible  Green Fees, plus faster and more pleasant rounds. To maintain the current status quo sends  a clear signal that the governing bodies do not understand the imminent problems facing the game of Golf. The clear reluctance to grasp the nettle and face the problems  head on are IMO a failure of duty and care by both the R&A and USGA . Their overwhelming  negativity portrays a head in the sand policy which is destroying the original concept of golf from within.

There are problems,  starting with how the game has been allowed to deviate from its core format through to the total lack of understanding let lone of taking control of technology for the good of the game. The result of this dereliction of duty by the Governing Bodies has resulted in the majority of old and traditional courses being regarded as too short. Thus added the requirement of producing longer more expensive courses because of their failure to understand or act quickly enough.

The simple fact is that we cannot continue this policy of extending our existing courses, of talking of long Par 3 or short Par 4. The only simple solution I believe would have been to use technology to control the clubs and bal,l to roll back but not just 10 or 20 years but back to the date of the  Haskell/gutty period. Long hitters will still be able to hit the long ball but of course not to the distance possible today.  Options are nearly endless.

I for one want to see Par 3, 4 and 5, with golfers only hitting the Green on Par 3’s. The long drives are killing the fairways minimising a designers input to defending the Green (unless its B52 fortress Green)thus leaving  GCA to become a glorified Pitch and Put game – is that the ultimate goal of out Professionals and our governing bodies as I fear we are fast approaching that scenario unless we first understand there is a problem and that we can fix it.

Just my opinion

Melvyn

Niall
I have issues yes but this is about the Game of Golf and the R&A doing their duty as the Governing Body. Perhaps they have remained too close to the Professionals missing out on the thoughts at club level

[JESII]

Eventually everyone will want to play the tournament ball...

This can tie in to Tom's last question for me about 15 posts ago.

I don't think it's reasonable for me to think the other 15 guys in our club championship would play the ball I want them to play because I play 3 events a year with that ball...I just don't see it...not if the longer ball is still conforming to USGA rules.

This also grants the asusmption that state amateur level events would be subject to the new ball, and I can tell you, those guys aren't making courses obsolete...

Ally,

What type of peer presure could I apply to make the guy I'm playing a $5 Nassau against use a shorter ball? I'm sure we could renegotiate strokes if the new ball cost me a shot or two per round, but I just keep falling back to...Why not blame the people building these courses? It seems like the gun laws with the exception of lives not being in the middle of the debate. 

[Tags:]

Tags: