How other sports contain equipment

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Faced with different conditions than other places, the Colorado Rockies have a method to control the ball a bit.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-0609-angels-notes-20120609,0,481604.story

Building one room seems a lot cheaper than spending millions to expand the stadium.  Shame on golf for not controlling its equipment and playing fields.
I remember looking at Bob Waterfield's punting records at UCLA.  In the late 40's he had some 80-90 yard punts.  Old timers tell me it was a much different ball.  Sports must adapt to keep the game and their playing fields relevant.

[noonan]

Bowling has let the cat out of the bag too

The lanes needs to be twice as wide with how much the balls hook

Unfortunately, the manufacturers in golf and bowling contribute to the sanctioning body...and they have filed suit before and are afraid of another

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

In my opinion, the reason golf does not control its equipment like other sports and never really has is it is one of the very rare ball (and perhaps the only stick and ball game) in the world in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents. That is so fundamentally different from all other ball and stick and ball games most people don't even realize it or remember it. In this way it is something akin to hunting or fishing in which the sportsman is somewhat expected to control his own equipment to maintain a balance between his skill and the object of the sport.

[DMoriarty]

Lynn:

In my opinion, the reason golf does not control its equipment like other sports and never really has is it is one of the very rare ball (and perhaps the only stick and ball game) in the world in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents. That is so fundamentally different from all other ball and stick and ball games most people don't even realize it or remember it. In this way it is something akin to hunting or fishing in which the sportsman is somewhat expected to control his own equipment to maintain a balance between his skill and the object of the sport.

Of all the lame apologies for the USGA's failure to protect the game, this one may have set a new standard.

[Bill Seitz]

Faced with different conditions than other places, the Colorado Rockies have a method to control the ball a bit.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-0609-angels-notes-20120609,0,481604.story

Building one room seems a lot cheaper than spending millions to expand the stadium.  Shame on golf for not controlling its equipment and playing fields.
I remember looking at Bob Waterfield's punting records at UCLA.  In the late 40's he had some 80-90 yard punts.  Old timers tell me it was a much different ball.  Sports must adapt to keep the game and their playing fields relevant.

Lynn, the short answer is, they don't.

The long answer:  Baseball is probably the exception, since they still use wooden bats, but even then the bats are much different today than they were 30-40 years ago. Beyond just the addition of maple (bats break in chunks these days when they used to splinter), the handles are smaller and the barrels are bigger. Heck of a lot more broken bats now than there used to be. College baseball has actually started to rein in the bats, and it has made for a better, and safer game.

The ball hasn't changed all that much in football, aside from the "kicking" ball that was introduced a few years ago. But in terms of equipment (pads and such), the emphasis on safety, while well intentioned, hasn't helped much. Lighter, stronger pads seem like a good idea, but they allow players to turn themselves into missiles. I'd venture to guess there were fewer concussions in the leather helmet days, when leading with your head was not a good idea. I remember as a kid thinking rugby players were crazy because it looked like football without pads. When I actually visited Australia, the kids I met thought American football players were nuts, since the game consisted of 300 lb. guys ramming into each other as hard as possible, thanks in large part to the body armor they wear.

In hockey, sticks these days break like toothpicks. They've evolved from one piece wood sticks to two piece aluminum/wood sticks to one piece composite sticks that are much lighter, much more powerful, and unfortunately break much more easily. I'd be surprised if the average was fewer than 8-10 broken sticks per game. The evolution in sticks has led to an arms race featuring bigger pads for goalies (made possible thanks to lighter materials) and while that's not the only scoring is down, it's certainly a component.

Don't even get me started on Tennis. Watch an old McEnroe-Borg match compared to the 1-2-3 shot rallies we see these days thanks to rackets that allow 140 mph serves. Today's tennis is unwatchable.

About the only sport that hasn't changed much because of technology is, intestingly enough, the one you're famous for. Basketball has evolved over the decades like almost all sports, but technologically, things havent changed much.  Though I'm curious what kind of numbers you would have put up with a three point line.  

As for the Rockies and the changes at Coors, the Rockies hit five solo home runs today. Of course, some of that is due to Dan Haren's recent propensity for offering up gopher balls.  Fortunately the Angels only needed one home run, and still put double digit runs to win the game.

[Pat Burke]

Basketball and hockey are pretty good examples of the athletes changing the field of play.
Hockey players are so much bigger and faster, that there are many who are upset that
in the fairly recent explosion of new buildings, that the league did not make surfaces larger
to accommodate the changes in the game.

Professional basketball dunkfests and the size of those guys really has changed

[Adam Clayman]

Just because modern vernacular equates a game with a sport, doesn't make it so. Comparing a game like Baseball, football, or hockey, to the greatest sport, golf, would be insulting to the sport. if it had feelings.

 

[Dan Herrmann]

The NFL went to a special "K" ball for the kicking game a few years ago.  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017189/2/index.htm

[David Kelly]

Faced with different conditions than other places, the Colorado Rockies have a method to control the ball a bit.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-0609-angels-notes-20120609,0,481604.story

While the offensive levels at Coors Field are still down compared to 2001 they have been steadily climbing since 2006 and are now at their highest levels since before the humidifier was instituted.  This despite the fact that scoring is down overall in the league.  It is also interesting to note the attendance levels before and after the humidifier.  Before the humidifier they routinely drew more than 3 million fans and were at the top of the NL in attendance since the humidifier they haven't reached 3 million and they are in the middle of the pack in attendance.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/attend.shtml

[Dan Herrmann]

And the Rockies aren't as good - I think that's the reason for the drop-off.

[David Kelly]

And the Rockies aren't as good - I think that's the reason for the drop-off.

That would be a good theory if it wasn't for the facts.  

The last time the Rockies led the league in attendance was 1999 when they lost 90 games and were last in their division.

In 2007 they went to the World Series and finished 11th in the league in attendance, the year after the WS appearance they finished 9th and the year after that they went to the playoffs and finished 8th in attendance.  

Last year Coors Field had its highest offensive level since 2001 and the Rockies had their best attendance since 2001 despite going 73-89.

[Carl Johnson]

Lynn:

In my opinion, the reason golf does not control its equipment like other sports and never really has is it is one of the very rare ball (and perhaps the only stick and ball game) in the world in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents. That is so fundamentally different from all other ball and stick and ball games most people don't even realize it or remember it. In this way it is something akin to hunting or fishing in which the sportsman is somewhat expected to control his own equipment to maintain a balance between his skill and the object of the sport.

Of all the lame apologies for the USGA's failure to protect the game, this one may have set a new standard.

Interesting.  I read Mr. Paul's post simply as an observation, with which one may agree or not, but not as excusing the USGA's "failure to protect the game."  In fact, for me it identifies a reason why outside (e.g., the USGA) intervention is called for.

[Rich Goodale]

Tennis has slowed down the ball and as a result, has turned the sport into a woman's game--with the same 3-4 men players reaching every major final and boringly endless (even if powerful) rallies from the baseline predominating the game.  Interestingly, the women's game has gone the other way with much more competition and more variety.  Shame, however, about the grunting.....

[A.G._Crockett]

Basketball equipment has changed, and a LOT.  Pick up a Wilson Wave basketball and compare it to the far, far slicker leather ball of Lynn Shackelford's day, and you'll understand a lot about how players are able to do some of the things that they do with the basketball today.  There is no comparison.

The other big change is shoes.  When you see an picture from 40 years ago, all 10 players on the court were wearing Chuck Taylors and many of them were low-cuts.  Those shoes are worn by kids as a fashion statement now; basketball shoes are so much better now in terms of traction, cushioning, and stability that there is no comparison.

Many on this site love to bash the USGA and the R&A over technology, but the reality is that you can't anticipate future technology, and it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle once the technology has been widely accepted.  No other sport has managed that, and there is IMO no reason to wring our hands over that in golf either.

[SL_Solow]

Teams have been trying to doctor baseballs and fields for years.  In the 50's and early 60's the Go Go White Sox were known to keep balls refrigerated overnight when the Yankees were coming to town.  Groundkeepers have varied grass height and baseline firmness to abet infielders' skills since preparation of fields commenced.  As for bats, thin handles and lighter bats have been in vogue since at least the early 60's.  Maple has become popular, at least in part, because the supply of good mountain ash is dwindling.  I agree their is more and different breakage but performance otherwise is comparable.  as for college, they had to try and slowdown aluminum bats.  they are simply dangerous.  The impact on pitching inside is the subject of a different post.

As for tennis, the larger racket heads with improved balance have changed the game by allowing the use of western grips which permit topspin forehands on low balls.  Before those rackets, the last outstanding player to use a predominantely western forehand was "Little Bill" Johnston circa 1920.  Thereafter, everyone used Eastern or Contintal grips.  The western, coupled with the 2 handed backhand, have created the ability to hit much harder from the backcourt.  As a result, except for Wimbledon, the serve and volley has all but disappeared replaced by powerful groundstrokes.  Raliies on hard courts (not clay) were generally much shorter in the late 50's through the mid 70's.  In fact, Jack Kramer and Don Budge played more of an all court game than the current players: Kramer being the bridge from a predominant backcourt game to the serve and volley of Gonzales and those who followed.  Even with the new rackets, nobody i serving much harder than Pancho, Bob Falkenberg, Roscoe Tanner etc.  The relatively obscure Mike Sangster was timed at over 150 mph.  But if the rackets allow the returns to come back fast with top spin, its tough to get to the net.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Bob Falkenburg?  Now there was a great golfer as well.  Never met or played with him, but there a lot of golf lore stories about him around the country club circuit in L.A.

My point in the post was to note how simple a change or solution can be reached in "containing" technology so that the playing field remains constant through the years.

A couple of other thoughts.  Yes, converse shoes don't compare to today's shoes, but it didn't seem to deter the David Thompsons or Johnny Greens.  They could still "place a quarter on the top of the backboard and leave change."

Tom Paul.  I see your comment on the USGA as a poor defense.  It would be like the NCAA conducting national championships and not attempting to enforce a code of conduct among the universities with its athletes.  They are proactive inspite of Pete Carroll and the SEC.

[Joe Bausch]

IMHO:  years ago basketball honchos were scratching their heads on how to deal with the dominance of the big man in the game.  And I think the route they chose of implementing a 3-point line was a decent idea, heck maybe even good, but I think it was partly driven by economics.  It was very cheap for each arena to put an arc of tape 20 feet-ish from each basket.

When I think the more expensive decision would have been the better one:  raise the basket say 6".

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Joe I agree that basketball has not addressed clearly the consequences of raising the basketball, probably due to the expense.  Unfortunately golf didn't concern itself with the expansion of its playing field.

To neutralize the big man, many changes have taken place in the "lane" "key" or "paint."  I believe those and the 3 pointer have reduced the big guys' advantage.

Coach Wooden used to say that raising the basket would only make the big man more important.  If shots are going to harder to make, or they will be missed more, who benefits?  The big man underneath of course because rebounding becomes a bigger factor and shorter shots are more important if they are harder to make.
However in his last few years he felt the size of the players dictated that the sport should give a thorough look to raising the basket.

[A.G._Crockett]

The shot clock in college basketball was added in the mid-80's because of pace of play, not to combat player size, and the three point shot was added one year later as a necessity to keep defenses from just packing in and waiting for the clock to expire.  Any reduction on the prominence of big men has been a side benefit, if it has happened at all.  The NBA adopted the shot clock decades earlier for exactly the same reason.

I always think of Al McGuire commenting on raising the basket.  He insisted that raising it would only make size MORE important; if the goal was to bring back the "little man" the basket should be put in a hole instead of up in the air.  I have thought of those comments often as golf courses have added yards to combat players hitting the ball farther.

[Dan Herrmann]

conversely, bowling's "leaders" (the ABC) have done nothing to restrain that game, and it's become a joke.  Those new balls will let anybody throw a hook like a pro.  I gave up the game 20 years ago, and it's only gotten worse and worse.

[Doug Siebert]

I always think of Al McGuire commenting on raising the basket.  He insisted that raising it would only make size MORE important; if the goal was to bring back the "little man" the basket should be put in a hole instead of up in the air.  I have thought of those comments often as golf courses have added yards to combat players hitting the ball farther.

Well, are they adding yards to "combat" longer hitting players, or are they doing it to keep the game similar to how it used to be played?  I think the fans believe they are doing the former, the guys doing the lengthening think they are doing the latter, but in fact neither is correct.  If we were all using clubs and balls that produced shots pretty much like they did 50 years ago, just longer, then today's 7700 yard course could be like yesterday's 7000 yard course.  But that's not the case, and you only need to look at what today's long hitters on tour do (in terms of trajectory, and percentage of total distance in carry and roll) compared to what the long hitters of 50 years ago were doing, to see this.

[TEPaul]

From David Moriarty's Reply #3"






Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 10:37:45 PM

"Lynn:

In my opinion, the reason golf does not control its equipment like other sports and never really has is it is one of the very rare ball (and perhaps the only stick and ball game) in the world in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents. That is so fundamentally different from all other ball and stick and ball games most people don't even realize it or remember it. In this way it is something akin to hunting or fishing in which the sportsman is somewhat expected to control his own equipment to maintain a balance between his skill and the object of the sport."


Moriarty's response to the above quote"


Of all the lame apologies for the USGA's failure to protect the game, this one may have set a new standard."





David Moriarty:

To my knowledge I am not even aware if the USGA even realizes what I said above that you quoted and I do not know if they have ever realized it at anytime. I am certainly not aware that they ever used it as an excuse for anything at any time.

[SL_Solow]

Lynn, I enjoyed the "Jumping Johnny" Green refernce as much as you enjoyed the Bob Falkenberg reference.  I suspect Bob's sister was better looking.

[Sean_A]

Bill

Hockey sticks didn't cause an explosion in goalie equipment - safety did.  The goalie mask is the single biggest equipment change in hockey history and it helps explain why as a group goalies today are miles better than previously - its safe to go down - before goalies were essentially satnding furniture.  This happened way before composite sticks.  Better goalie pads too were initially for safety reasons.  Those goalies of yesteryear were absolutely nuts to stand in front of the puck.  I tried using old equipment and it hurt when a good shot came through!  Just imagine what Bobby Hull could do to a goalie!  Of course these days things have gotten a bit out of control and pads are so big they actually block part of the net rather than merely protect a goalie - yet they still get stung sometimes - no question now that there is a bit of an arms race between the stick, guys being bigger and padding.  Its true of skaters as well, so many more guys are willing to hit the ice to block shots than previously because its safer than it used to be.  

Ciao

[David Kelly]

Its true of skaters as well, so many more guys are willing to hit the ice to block shots than previously because its safer than it used to be.  

I'd like to see the size of the goalie pads addressed.  With the advancement in materials they should be able to reduce the size of the pad and still allow it to protect the goalie as much as now.

As for going down on the ice to block shots I wonder if the NHL isn't ready to address that with some sort of rule where at least one of the player's blades must be in contact with the ice during a block.

A friend of mine also recommends that they increase the amount of area behind the goals by a few feet.

With scoring at an historic low something needs to be done.