Rollin’ back the ODS, then what?

[Dan King]

Lots of talk about the equipment issue again. There are eight or nine recent topics I could probably reply, but what would be the fun in that. Why not just create yet another equipment topic (YAET.)

I’ve run the gamut on the ball issue.  Originally I was in favor of the 10% rollback of the Overall Distance Standard (ODS.) Then I changed my mind and favored a tournament ball.  Now I’m for doing nothing (well I do have a solution, but you got to get to the bottom of this post to find out what it is.)

Lets say we do manage to convince the USGA and R&A to roll back the ODS 10% from it’s current 280 yards to 252. The best players in the world would then be averaging around 280. There are a lot of reasons the ball goes further today than it did 10-20 years ago, with the ball just being part of the equation. Face it, the players today are better than the previous generation. They are better trained, better equipped and better conditioned and therefore, swing speeds are much faster than before.

Does anyone believe we have hit a pinnacle of golfing ability? As the money improves in golf the pool of players to get the best from will grow. The game is also growing internationally, also giving golf a bigger pool to select the best. Training and teaching will improve and you’ll see some of the best athletes in the world becoming golfers and using that training and teaching to reach even higher swing speeds.

So in another 10-15 years (probably around the time the lawsuits are finally being resolved) you will be right back to the same spot, with the best pros in the world averaging around 310 yard drives with a ball that has an ODS of 252. So then we’ll be asking the USGA and R&A to roll back another 10% to 227.

This will mean the gap between the best golfers and the average will get even more pronounced, with average golfers trying to play courses when they can only average 227 or less yards off the tee. Not a pretty site.

Even the tournament ball will have to be constantly calibrated to handle the better players that will come with each proceeding generation.

My solution requires minimal, inexpensive changes, won’t make any lawyers rich and could be accomplished tomorrow on any course where the best players play.

Modify par. Create a pro-par, that doesn’t have par-5s. Most par-72 courses will then be pro-par-68 courses. No need to change anything about the course, it will just be made up of par-3s and par-4s. Players will be challenged by short pro-par-4s and long pro-par-4s.

If changes need to be made in another generation or two for pros, change the short par-3s to pro-par-2s or the short par-4s to pro-par-3s.

Since nobody gets rich from this solution is doesn’t stand a chance of ever happening. It sure would be a lot simpler than changing any of the balls and implements or the courses.

“A brand of golf ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards (256 metres) plus a tolerance of 6%.
“Note: The 6% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved.”
 --Appendix III in the Rules of Golf prior to 2000

[BillV]

Dan

One thing I think most forget is that because the ball aerodynamically is more stable and goes straighter, players swing with more velocity than they once did.

Misses are much straighter due to ball aerodynamics than ever before.  I honestly don't know what is correct to do about this rarely discussed topic.  It is much harder to hit the ball crooked than in the past.

[Ken_Cotner]

BillV said:  "It is much harder to hit the ball crooked than in the past."

Bill, I actually played a week ago.  You're wrong.

Fondly,
K

[TEPaul]

Dan;

Instead of just recommending a rollback of 10% of the ODS (overall distance standard) it might very well be worthwhile to sort of "peek behind the curtain", so to speak, and first find out how the ODS is determined by either the USGA or the R&A!

It might be helpful to consider this wording which is part of the USGA's text on ODS; "....shall not exceed the distance specified under the conditions set forth in the overall distance standard....."

And then it might be helpful to further consider this wording inside that last quote; ".....the conditions set forth...."

In other words what are those "conditions set forth"?

It would be interesting to know what those conditions are, don't you think? It appears as if "those conditions" may not be much like what we're seeing from the swings of some of the tour pros!! What, for instance, are the swing speeds  tested as part of those conditions? Are they anything like the swing speeds of some of these touring pros? And are those speeds part of the data they've been collecting for over twenty years for comparative purposes?

If the swings speeds they are using (and have used) as part of those "conditions set forth" are not reliable to the realities of swings speeds today you can just imagine what a mess it would be in determining and also enforcing an "accurate world" of distance evaluation for what's happening today.

In other words the ODS limit is 280yds but these tour pros are likely miles past that! Why is that if these balls are "conforming"?

Logically wouldn't it make more sense to calibrate ODS from a swing speed of say 150mph and then just back the testing and the stats down from that to get a reasonable maximum distance from the longest hitter of about 280yds?

I'm not very mathematical, technical or particularly smart but doesn't that seem to be a more intelligent and also futuristic way to go about controlling things now and in the future.

Last year at a meeting of the Golf Association of Philadelphia (all the member clubs) with Dick Rugge and Trey Hollin, a man got up and asked point blank what swing speeds they were testing--in other words were they testing the speeds of a Tiger, for instance, and did they have those swing speeds in their data banks used for comparative evaluations? Well he answered this man but there was no answer in his answer, if you know what I mean--the guy asked again and got what seemed to be the same non-answer answer!

It really got me wondering---that's for sure!

[BillV]

Ken

Fondly, you're playing old balls?    I have no where  near the ability to hit full shots than I used to have.
Certainly it is easier for the (said very delicately, casting no aspersions) (remove foot from mouth here!) very skilled player.


Actually I think that there is little arguement that the "game improvement equipment changes" have helped the most skilled players the most.

[TomSteenstrup]

Ken, I agree on that one...

Dan, isn't your solution already in effect? At least at the US Opens? To me though, this doesn't help. The problem with the pros is that the holes aren't playing as they were designed to be.

Also, knowing the average golfer, what you'll get is a demand by 18+ handicap golfers to play the pro-par set-ups... now that'll be ugly.

There is no good solution to the problem of technology. Every solution will have a negative side.

Tom

[Robert_Walker]

At the 1994 Amateur at the TPC at Sawgrass, Tiger hit a 2 iron off the tee on the 18th hole. He was using a 90 compression wound balata ball, and a forged MIZUNO blade. The ball flew 270 yards. No wind either. Where did this distance come from?

Huh?

It came from Tiger, not technology.

pre pro vee one

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tiger also hit 3-wood, 9-iron into the 470-yard, par 5 14th at Pumpkin Ridge's Witch Hollow course in the '96 Amateur.  I don't know about the wind.

[JohnV]

Scott,  I was there, there wasn't much wind but he did cut the corner of the dogleg a bit so it probably was only playing 450.

Dan, I was thinking a similar thing to what you are saying, but not quite as radical.  I'm make par 5s start at 550 or some such.  Par 4s could start at 300 yards.  After all, didn't they have a 270 yard par 3 back when Bobby Jones was winning majors (I've forgotten the course.)

Actually, I have a more "radical" solution.  Just get rid of par for the professional tournaments.  The only ones who would hate that would be TV as it would make it harder to say who was ahead during the round.

Maybe it is time to change the yardages for par for everyone.  It has been done before, why not now?

As I recall, the ODS merely states that the ball has to be tested when the temperature is within a certain range, the wind velocity below a certain speed and that the balls be hit by the Iron Byron using a persimmon driver with a swing speed of around 108 mph.

[TEPaul]

OK, I agree, it's just the athletes; nothing to do with B&I! It must be, because with all this fancy high tech equipment I'm not any longer--maybe I'm even getting shorter!

But there has to be a reasonable conspiracy theory around here somewhere and if it's not the USGA or the equipment manufacturers it must be the Marlboro Cigarette Co. that's trying to cloak this distance explosion problem when it comes to me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellas,

Tiger is a gifted athlete.

But, klutzes you never heard of are hitting the ball much farther than they ever did in their lives, do you think they found the fountain of youth, or a golfing viagra ?

Amateurs in their forties are hitting the ball farther than Nicklaus ever did, and they're retaining accuracy.

Let's not resurrect the flat earth society again, let's accept that the earth is round, though sometimes out of shape, and that length today is a technological by-product.  
Frank Stranahan was no wimp, but he'd be a short hitter by amateur standards today.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Time to whistle the Colonel Bogey Lament.  I thought "par is meaningless"?

I say we make golf balls without dimples.  Bring the ground into the game.  Drain the water.  Free golf for the prolatariat!   Viva Las Vegas!   Two 'Reverend Horton Heat' CDs for the price of one!!   Soy milk and tofu for everyone!  Cap'n Crunch WITH Crunchberries!  Buy stock in Flubber!!!  

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

Instead of messing around with all the holes to create par 4s out of par 5s or even par 2s as you said, how about just calling a par 72 hole course a par 68 for the pros and forget about the holes! If anything needs to be calculated for handicap purposes of comparision it really doesn't matter anyway since handicap posting or any kind of score posting is as a single gross score for the round anyway! So no need to even consider the individual holes!

[Dan King]

BillV writes:
One thing I think most forget is that because the ball aerodynamically is more stable and goes straighter, players swing with more velocity than they once did.

Agree 100%.  More on that later.

TEPaul writes:
Logically wouldn't it make more sense to calibrate ODS from a swing speed of say 150mph and then just back the testing and the stats down from that to get a reasonable maximum distance from the longest hitter of about 280yds?

If it is currently tested at 108, and with my <100 swing speed, the new ball that goes 280yds at 150mph will probably not even crack 200 yards for me. You are going to make the game awfully tough for the millions of poor shmoes who don’t swing more than 100 mph, all so the top thousand golfers or so will be challenged?  Seems like an extreme answer to a non-problem.

Well he answered this man but there was no answer in his answer, if you know what I mean--the guy asked again and got what seemed to be the same non-answer answer!

I have no idea why Rugge and Holland wouldn’t answer.  Iron Byron’s specs were no big secret:

10 degrees launch angle; 42 revolutions/second backspin; and 235 feet per second ball velocity

These are the same parameters that will be used for the new test:

Click here for USGA press release regarding new ball test

Tom Streenstrup writes:
The problem with the pros is that the holes aren't playing as they were designed to be.

Personally I prefer the courses remain the way they were designed when I play rather than when the pros play. I care very little about the pro game and only hope they stop screwing up our game. I don’t much care if they play putt, putt and shoot 86-under as long as it doesn’t force me to hit a marshmallow on monster courses.

Also, knowing the average golfer, what you'll get is a demand by 18+ handicap golfers to play the pro-par set-ups... now that'll be ugly.

A little secret: Par is meaningless.

JohnV writes:
Actually, I have a more "radical" solution.  Just get rid of par for the professional tournaments.  The only ones who would hate that would be TV as it would make it harder to say who was ahead during the round.

Relationship to level fours.  For the pros we could even make it relationship to level threes so it doesn’t look like they are going too low.

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Amateurs in their forties are hitting the ball farther than Nicklaus ever did, and they're retaining accuracy.

And you believe there has been no advancement in swing theory? I agree with BillV above, it isn’t so much the ball goes further. The ODS has been set at 280 for a long time. The ball goes straighter, and therefore golfers can swing differently than they did a few years ago. Golfers swing all out now, knowing the ball isn’t going to go as far off line on off-center hits like it did in the past.

I believe there are a lot of reasons the best players are hitting the ball significantly further. Technology is one of the things. But if you believe that if we stop technology we are also stopping increases in distance then you should look into membership in the Flat Earth Society. Athletes will continue to get bigger, stronger, faster and more limber. Think of what could happen if someone similar to Shaq O’Neill was raised to play golf rather than basketball. As more money enters professional golf you will see more athletic types who work hard to make it on the tours.

"If someone wants to compare the distractions and the pressure on golfers with what goes on for other athletes, that's fine by me. A baseball player strikes out four times in a game, and he still gets paid. A golfer gets nothing if he plays poorly. We get nothing if we are out with an injury. Nobody puts us on a train or plane and gives us a ticket to get to the next stop. Do you understand what I'm saying? Can you imagine what would happen if Barry Switzer told the Dallas Cowboys, "Okay guys, I want you to be in San Francisco next Friday. Get there on your own." How many of them do you think would make it."
 --Lee Trevino

[Robert_Walker]

Changing par will not put long irons in the pros' hands, and that is the goal. Most pros do not even carry 2 irons anymore.
Everyone is frustated that tiger hit 3 wood, 9 iron on a par 5 at Pumpkin Ridge. Rolling back the ODS would make it a 7 iron.

[Dan King]

Taking a break from homework.

TEPaul writes:
Instead of messing around with all the holes to create par 4s out of par 5s or even par 2s as you said, how about just calling a par 72 hole course a par 68 for the pros and forget about the holes!

Fine by me.

Whenever I hear people talk about rolling back the ODS, all I hear is the best players aren’t sufficiently challenged on today’s courses and therefore we need a shorter ball. But I hear pros always talking about the challenge of par. Since they aren’t the sharpest tacks in the drawer, we could challenge them just by messin’ with par. I have no problem if we call all the courses par-18. Then we can say how far they are over perfection.

Wouldn’t that be cool:  “John Daly wins the 2002 Masters with a score of 200-over perfection.” Granted it won’t give us enough information when John is 196-over perfection on the 17th, while Bo Weekly is 190-over perfection on the 15th, but still, I do like the sound of it.

Just save me from your proposed marshmallow. Given a choice of letting the pros hit the ball too far, or me hitting the ball to short, I’d much rather see the pro's game hosed. I know that sounds selfish, but there are many millions more of my type than theirs.

Such an obvious choice of quote here I almost feel like not using it:

"I dreamed one night that I had 17 holes-in-one and one two, and when I woke up I was so goddam mad."
 --Ben Hogan

[Dan King]

Robert Walker writes:

Changing par will not put long irons in the pros' hands, and that is the goal. Most pros do not even carry 2 irons anymore.

Go with my other suggestion and limit them to seven clubs and even fewer of them will carry a 2 iron. But better chance they will use every club in their bag. Still a better, cheaper answer than rolling' back the ODS.

Everyone is frustated that tiger hit 3 wood, 9 iron on a par 5 at Pumpkin Ridge.

The above statement is false. I'm someone and I'm not in the least bit frustrated.

"Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love all year round, madam: that is all there is to distinguish us from other animals."
 --Beaumarchais (French playwrite, Le Mariage de Figaro)

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Seriously, what do you think about the idea of an 18 hole "par" for the pros and just forget about hole pars for them? They don't ever have a need to use handicapping anyway. It would make much more sense to have par set at say 66 for them and just leave it at that! It might even be interesting for them strategically to look at the thing in more of an whole round context. I wonder if that would have any effect on their strategic thinking?

[Robert_Walker]

Hero ain't nothing but a sandwich, par ain't nothing but a number.

[Paul Turner]

Dan and Bill are dead right about players swinging at the ball more aggressively because drivers are more forgiving.  

I've looked pretty thoroughly into studies of the physics of golf equipment, and factors such as shaft weight/length only give small to moderate gains in swing speed.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Robert Walker:

Your story about Tiger in 1994 supports the case for rolling back the ODS.

Are you saying we need to adjust our thinking and roll back 15-20% rather than a mere 10%?

[Robert_Walker]

Tim,
How does my story (not my story, just facts) support the case for rolling back the ODS? Remember this happened in 1994.

[Dan King]

Par does have value for TV, showing who is leading for players at various stages of the round. Anything that gets away from giving a specific value to each hole gets less meaningful for the TV viewer. But as par gets more meaningless, so does where the pro stand in relation to par at any time during their round.

So we need a new number. First, why restrict our selves to integers? This is the digital age and we need something more precise.  Not all holes of similar par are equal so why pretend they are. Base the course par number of each hole on the last 1,000 rounds played by the pros.  Then give each hole a number based on how it was played over those rounds.

Say pro-par at Augusta in 69.5.  The last five holes play: 4.3. 3.7, 4.5, 3.2, 4.1, and 3.8. (All made up numbers, but it wouldn’t be difficult to get real numbers.)

John Daly has played 66 holes and has made 247 shots. Boo Weekly has played 68 holes and made 256 shots.  

Who is ahead? Using the current  par system it would show them as tied. But are they?

Pro-par through 68 holes is 262.4. Pro-par through 66 holes is 254.4.  Daly is 7.4 shots under par and Boo Weekly is only 6.4 shots under par. You could even say that Daly is 2.91% under par while Weekly is only 2.44% under par.

Maybe we can go from there to style points.

Tiger Woods and John Daly are fighting for the lead going into the final hole at Augusta. Woods has 266.4 shots to that point and Daly has 267.5.  Daly needs to make a move. Woods hits driver, wedge to 10 feet, but Daly hits second off the tee and hits 8 iron, followed by 2 iron to 14 feet. They both make their putts, but the judges give Daly a 2.3 for his much more challenging play while Woods is awarded only a 3.5 for his conservative play.

Daly wins by .1 and all of you bemoaning the loss of the 2-iron approach are rewarded. It also required nobody going to court and no lawyers got rich off the change.

Par
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Par
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Par
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
Par
Friend only to Stableford
Par is the enemy to all the golfing hoard
The thought of par blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Architecture destruction
Who wants some pie
 --Apologies to Edwin Star

[Tim_Weiman]

Robert Walker:

I'm surprised you would ask.  There seems to be little question that the distance problem is a function of both better athletes and technology.  Evidence that athletes are getting better strengthens the argument that adjustments should be made in technology.  It just means that we probably have to make a larger adjustment (say 15-20%) than the more modest numbers (10%) people have been talking about.

When it comes to the length factor we want to reward the man who can hit the ball further.  All else being equal, we want to reward the player who can reach par fives in two when others can't.  We want to reward the man who can carry hazards when other can't.

What amazes me is how few people seem to understand that.

Could it be that clever golf industry advertising, e.g., all that talk about "the longest ball", has created nothing but confusion?  Isn't it true that the golf industry has done nothing but promote the mindless pursuit of "absolute length" when the essence of the game is "relative length"?

Technology should be used to lower costs rather than increase costs.  That's the whole point of it.

Don't you get a kick out of Callawy's ads "enjoy the game"?  Don't people want to play more not pay more?

The industry needs more people like Tom Doak and Mike Keiser, people who understand the game well enough to recognize we don't need to build 7,000 yard courses.  99% of the people can't play them.

So what are we doing?

We are building 7,500 yard courses that 99.9% of the golfers don't need!

The debate on this issue has become overly complicated.  When it comes to length, we need to remind people about the difference between "relative length" and "absolute length".  We need to be far more vocal that emphasizing "absolute length" accomplishes nothing but make the game more expensive.

The cost of making and buying balls should be lower.  The cost of making and buying clubs should be lower.  The cost of building and playing golf courses should be lower.

And, by the way, there is also no need to fiddle around making changes to our classic courses.  I've never seen anyone not enjoy Prestwick.

I'm no fan of James Carville, but he was right: it's about the economics.  Maybe you can help people see that.

[Dan Kelly]

Personally, I can't recall ever having read, at GolfClubAtlas (or anywhere else), any comment on this issue more pointed (and more demanding of consideration) than this one -- from Dan King: "Personally I prefer the courses remain the way they were designed when I play rather than when the pros play…. I don’t much care if they play putt, putt and shoot 86-under as long as it doesn’t force me to hit a marshmallow on monster courses."

Isn't that exactly, precisely, perfectly right?

Are there any players out there, other than the very top amateurs and the pros, who are EVER (1) finding the game too easy, or (2) making a mockery of fine old course designs?

I don't know of any.

Aren't all of the courses you guys love so much -- the NGLAs and Cypresses and Augustas and Pinehursts (etc., etc.) -- still (even with all of the equipment advances) every bit as much fun and as challenging as they always were? Wouldn't they retain their charm -- FOR US MORTALS -- even with further advances in technology?

I submit that they would (though, of course, that's merely my opinion -- having played very few of the GCA darlings).

I don't have the scientific proof, but these things I believe: The modern ball goes straighter and farther, for the pros and for the rest of us. The modern clubs hit straighter and farther, for the pros and for the rest of us.

Are these bad things? No. They are not. They are good things -- at least for "the rest of us." They make the game at least potentially more fun for potentially more people potentially more of the time -- and they don't threaten to ruin that part of the fun of the game that depends on the game's being HARD. Golf will stay hard, no matter what Callaway and Ping and Little Wally Uihlein have up their sleeves.

Why should we care what astonishing feats the pros can perform? I can think of only two reasons:

(1) Technological (and playing-skill) advances will make more and more of the classic courses unfit venues for top-level competition. These classic courses will be too short to host top-level competition, unless the greens and rough are so tricked-up as to make them as preposterous as Carnoustie was a couple years ago.
     This, I think, is a serious concern, and should be taken seriously. It IS a bad thing that Merion could no longer host an Open, even if it had room for all the corporate tents. It WILL be a bad thing when a course such as Interlachen is not long enough even for a top-level women's or seniors' event.
      
(2) Equipment advances make professional golf less interesting as a spectator sport.
     I agree with this statement. The average PGA Tour tournament -- with the players in top form that week firing short-iron darts at pin after pin, and almost never facing a hole where disaster is possible -- becomes little more than a putting contest. Dull. Really dull. (If I didn't have my fantasy teams, I don't think I'd ever watch -- except to maybe learn something about how to play the game better.) The lower the score, in my view, the less interesting to watch -- the Bob Hope tournament being the unchallenged nadir of the entire PGA Tour year.
     Is this a problem worth caring about, in a serious way? I don't think so -- unless you're in charge of the PGA Tour and it turns out that I'm in the majority (and I NEVER am). I love to watch the professionals grind for pars -- though that is almost certainly a minority view. It seems as if most people are perfectly happy watching the pros go low. And more power to 'em!
     So the PGA Tour doesn't care if the game gets easier for the top players -- and I see no reason why we should require them to care.

Who does care? Or should? The USGA. The R&A. Augusta National. The PGA of America. The proprietors of the classic layouts.

Here's the simple, albeit not-original-to-me solution -- and I'd like to hear, from those of you will find fault with this, why this solution is no solution: a competition ball, regularly updated so as to prudently limit the longest players' distance and thereby keep the classic courses in play, and required for use in the US Open (and the Amateur, and the rest of the USGA events), the British Open (and Amateur, and the rest of the R&A events), the Masters, and the PGA Championship.  

Make the competition ball widely available publicly, so that any club wishing to use it for club championships (and any player who finds the highest-tech balls too pepped-up for the course at hand) could easily do so.

Let the PGA Tour events use the latest, longest, straightest balls. Let 'em go low, lower, lowest. Sooner or later, even the golf-fan public may tire of seeing wedge shots and birdie putts -- and at that point, the Tour will act. But until then: Why should those who care about golf course architecture care what the professionals do in the Greater Greensboro Classic?    

Let mere mortals play whatever ball they like.