Latest thought from Ian Andrew

[Philippe Binette]

to connect the ball with Tiger...

the media always said Tiger was dominant because of his length, selling the point that longer is better...

the truth is:

Tiger was dominant because he was the best putter from inside 10 feet in the world. Combined with his solid short game where he would put almost everything inside 10 feet... it was a lethal combinaison..

Basically, Tiger was saving at least 1,5 strokes a round on putting = 6 strokes minimum over 4 rounds
he was basically saving 2,5 strokes a round on the short game (including putting) = 10 shots over 4 rounds...
that's the difference between winning by 3 and a tie for 30th

Length was a secondary issue in Tiger success, but was marketed as his main advantage.

[Terry Lavin]

Terry

To be clear, what I was trying to say was that the ups AND downs of Tiger have little or no bearing on growth/decline of the game. Growth/decline is primarily a function of economics.

Niall

Thanks, that means that I misinterpreted what I called an "implication" in your post.  As Roberto DiVincenzo would undoubtedly say, "What a stupid I am!"

[Garland Bayley]

Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.

Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player.  There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion.  Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways.  The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters.  It's much more user friendly.  With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today.  The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls.  The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls.  Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend.  It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.

Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.

Terry,

You've got it all wrong. Are you equating yourself to be the average player? I suspect you are not an average player.

The average player, unless he was rich or accustomed to wasting money, did not buy balata balls that he would cut open at least a few times a round.

The equipment companies tell you the clubs are easier to use. The average player has learned otherwise and become disenfranchised with the game and its marketeers.

Double Bogey

[Jim Eder]

I think Ian is on to something as always. I love his stuff.

There are pros and cons of advancements in technology. For the poorer player technology seems to have helped a bit which should make it more fun and encourage more play. Mis-hit shots seem to go farther and straighter. The new balls spin less so less risk of a terrifically wayward shot. I am not sure there is a huge advantage on distance for a slower swing speed.

For the better player with a faster swing speed the ball goes way too far. It is tougher to move one quite a bit but it is easier to hit them straight on a slightly mis-hit shot (because of the spin).  Personally, I think the new ball goes way too far and it does hurt the interest in the game as long irons/hybrids are a thing of the past for most low handicappers.  I miss hitting a 3 iron into a par 4. Watching the PGA Tour and every approach being a short iron is pretty boring to me.

Golf has a lot of problems.  Time to play and cost (especially in this economy) are big ones. Because courses need to accomodate the better player they mostly need to have the distance to be interesting and draw play (tough to design more Crystal Downs).  More distance equals more cost to maintain equals more costly to the player.

Look at what is worshipped in TV Land.  Bubba, Dustin, go long, etc. Luke Donald is an exception but the long ball is the draw for many. Not many people enjoy watching Corey Pavin (though I love watching him).

[David Royer]

I'm in full agreement with the premise that man's ability to create technology generally outpaces our ability to understand the full implications (pro and con) of its uses.  I also agree that cost is a contributing reason to the lack of growth.  However, I remain convinced that time is the major factor.  As a guy who has raised his kids in the pre-take junior to practice for every organized event under the sun, I think the lack of available time is eroding the capacity.  The other factor is the availabilty of time to develop some ability to play the game in order to derive enjoyment.  When you combine all these time demands its an unrealistic opportunity cost to many parents.

[Tim Nugent]

Robert: You're asking a great question.


Should part of the architect fee be paid as a partnership action on the project to insure long term solutions ?It's a debate that is pertinent in more than golf course architecture. I should apply for a MBA I guess

Philippe, I do have one and have thought about this often.  It works in the music industry. Call it a Design Royalty.  It would only have to be a fraction of a percent of the greens fee minus a portion ofthe maintenance expenses (because the architect only has influence on part of what is spent) but his design will impact maintenance expenses.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Golf rounds in the United States fell 1.8 percent in 2008 compared to the previous year, according to the year-end National Golf Rounds Played report.  The decline is the largest since 2002 – the year following the 9-11 tragedy – when rounds plummeted 3.0 percent.
 Rounds played changes year-by-year
 Year                        Change
 2008                        -1.8 %
 2007                        -0.1%
 2006                        +0.8%
 2005                        -0.1%
 2004                        +0.7%
 2003                        -1.5%
 2002                        -3.0%
 2001                        -0.1%

There was also a recession in 2001, from March thru November.

As Rick Phelps wrote in this piece from the USGA:  
"There is no disputing the fact that public golf drives the national golf economy. According to the World Golf Foundation and The PGA of America, approximately 80 percent of the total rounds played in the U.S. are played on public courses. Another surprising statistic is that 70 percent of the total public rounds are played on golf courses with a median green fee of $28.  Yet in the decade from 1995 to 2005, how rare was it to hear about a public golf course that wasn’t being marketed as an upscale or high-end facility? Understandably, our competitive society was eager to plan, build, market and experience the next great golf adventure with each new project.

Perhaps we are now at a point where we need to start exploring options for building simpler, more efficient, less expensive golf facilities, whether these golf courses are smaller (i.e. less than 18 holes), shorter, more efficient (cheaper) to maintain, faster to play, less costly to build or some combination of these factors.  A relatively small percentage of these types of courses have been built over the past two decades.  However, a much greater volume of new development has been focused on the higher tier projects.

The majority of public golf courses built in the 1950’s and 1960’s were built very inexpensively. The focus was on machine maintenance as a priority over aesthetics, memorability and, in some cases, strategic interest. While there will always be some demand for the stunning, dramatic golf venues that we see on television or in magazines, we must balance the total volume of golf courses with a higher percentage of the inexpensive venues that drive the game. There has to be a willingness on the part of everyone involved – the owner/developer, the architect, the builder and the operator – to understand the purpose and market position of the less expensive golf facility. At the same time, from the standpoint of the user, the expectations in terms of course conditions need to be adjusted to allow the owners/operators of these facilities to function on at least a “break-even” basis.  The architectural challenge is to create strategic options while eliminating design excess."

The full article can be found here: http://www.usga.org/news/2011/May/Changing-Face-Of-Public-Course-Architecture/

Add it all up; a recession in early 2001, plus 9/11 (Yr. 2002 saw a 3% drop from 2001 in rounds played), another recession in 2008, no real wage increases over the past decade, a focus on the fabulous in the decade of the '90s instead of the functional, a changing landscape when it comes to families, other attractions luring players away, and golf's failure to attract more women, youths and minorities are the more salient reasons why golf is where it is today.

If 'golf' has 100 inches of issues, the ball itself is only 1.68 of the total.    

[Terry Lavin]

Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.

Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player.  There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion.  Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways.  The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters.  It's much more user friendly.  With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today.  The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls.  The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls.  Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend.  It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.

Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.

Terry,

You've got it all wrong. Are you equating yourself to be the average player? I suspect you are not an average player.

The average player, unless he was rich or accustomed to wasting money, did not buy balata balls that he would cut open at least a few times a round.

The equipment companies tell you the clubs are easier to use. The average player has learned otherwise and become disenfranchised with the game and its marketeers.

Double Bogey

I will NOT lose an argument to a guy with an Elmer Fudd icon!  

The average player may not want to update with every new style iron or driver, but he sure as heck isn't playing tour blades and persimmons anymore.  I consider my self an average player, which may not be all that accurate, since I play a lot of golf and have a 10 handicap, but I certainly don't consider myself some kind of above average player.  And I bought balata balls when I was a 20 handicap, like a lot of my friends, because we wanted to have some feel around the greens.  I seldom made it through a whole round with a wholly round ball, so maybe I'm a pig, but I was playing balatas when my average score was in the mid 90's.

Bottom line for me is that the average player (read: not a single digit handicapper) embraces technology because it has done good things for his game.

[Garland Bayley]

Terry,

The reason most average players (around 18-20 handicap) don't play tour blades is that no one will recommend them to them nor perhaps even sell them to them if they ask for them.

I just looked on ghin.com. My lowest handicap index over the past year is 19.3. I put blades in play about 8 months ago and my handicap index currently is 19.7. When I asked professional club fitters about scientific proof that their "game improvement clubs" result in high scores, they had none. They answer that studies show that the club gets a better result with a miss hit. That in my opinion has no correlation to game improvement. I call it game rescue.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
They're not called "swing improvement clubs". Better results from mis-hits can lead to lower scores, which is what the game is all about, whether it's one stroke less than an opponent or one stroke less than the field.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Well I have read some things on this site but this has to be one to be nominated for burying one’s head in the sand.

Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player. There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion. Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways. The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters. It's much more user friendly. With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today. The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls. The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls. Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend. It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.

Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.

Technology is great if it maintains consistency but without improving performance or assistance in reducing one’s score. Utilising any outside means to improve performance no matter what sport is generally defined as cheating, but not so with some of my fellow colleagues on GCA.com. It’s the very reason golf is in the state it is, trust is fast becoming a thing of the past as many are utilising aids to enhance their score, but few are honest enough to admit it’s just plain old fashion cheating.  Talk of the moral high ground, no let’s just talk about simple and plain honesty with one’s self. 

If we can’t be honest on this subject and cheats resort to calling the non-cheats names like perhaps Luddites or worse, then there is indeed something rotten in golf and in the membership of this site.

You may not agree with many of my posts but my opinions are open honest and there in open print. I hide behind no one or thing certainly not a flag, but convey my thoughts and opinion to those interested enough to read them.

Tell me if I am so wrong, but why are many now turning to playing Hickory. Why are courses like Askernish, Machrie, Machrihanish, Moray, Cullen, Bora etc.etc attracting so much attention? Could it be that technology has overplayed its hands and at heart many golfers know it blatantly cheating, not just the game but worst still cheating themselves.

The moment technology is used to improve scores it has stepped over the line, alas the R&A due to their lack of experience (and I mean that most sincerely) have compounded the problem by allowing the manufacturers a say when it should be all about the clubs and golfers in particular.

I am not against technology if it makes the game more reliable for the poor golfer, but I am against it if it’s there to lower scores and dulls the experience of playing the game.

If that makes me and others Luddites then we should wear that name with honour.

Melvyn 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
They're not called "swing improvement clubs". Better results from mis-hits can lead to lower scores, which is what the game is all about, whether it's one stroke less than an opponent or one stroke less than the field.

Would not swing improvement typically lead to a better game.
It just seems to me that artificially lowered scores through technology does not lead to a better game.

Since most people are not tour pros competing for the lowest scores in the world, artificially lowered scores go into the handicap calculation and make no difference in competitive results for the rest of the world. Artificially lowered scores simply support false egos.

[Wade Schueneman]

I could not agree more re the negative effects of the ball on golf but I think there is an argument that this started way before the Pro V
It was the ultimate manifestation of the technology but didn't it start with the 1985 Spalding Tour Edition?
I used that ball for a bit - it was horrible ball - and Greg Norman won the 86 Open with it and probably lost the 86 PGA because of it when he spun it off the 18th green at Inverness.
It was the first ball to spin but not cut and that was the key breakthrough.It allowed all players - hackers to pros- use the same ball for the first time ever. Before then the average player using a balata ball would have needed 6 a round because every time you thinned it you cut it.
From there it took 13 years about to get the spin rates down so the ball was ideal for pros - and it has only improved from there.
And, to the delight of the manufacturers, it cost less to make because it was just a glorified Pinnacle - no winding and no balata.

Mike,

THank you for this post.  I think you make a very good point.

[Terry Lavin]

Thanks Melvyn you've again confirmed your maniacal Luddite status. Now you can go back to your whining about how nobody wanted to talk about an article from 90 years ago. But come to think about it, your post did generate discussion about bowling. Nice contribution.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Thanks Terry, but far better to be a Luddite than known as a cheat. In fact a cheat knowing his game and score was not down to his ability but reliant on technology, yet not being man enough to be honest enough to admit it.

Your description of the average golfer portrays a weak and cheating individual who seems to be willing to fool himself and others. What a terrible picture you paint of Mr Average.

So in your book I can beat my father fairly because I have invested in the latest high tech equipment, seems a tab dishonest to me and why would I want to win that way. IMHO its despicable low life tactics totally unworthy of anyone calling themselves a golfer. Sorry to see you support such activities.

Melvyn

[Kalen Braley]

Of course the main problem with Ludditism is....

...where does one draw the line in the sand!! 

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course the main problem with Ludditism is....

...where does one draw the line in the sand!!  

Yes, and also what to draw it with

[Melvyn Morrow]

There is no line, cheating is cheating, it’s a question of understanding that there is a difference between right & wrong.

Melvyn