USGA, please give us faster play and ditch the "while we're young" commercials

[Garland Bayley]

If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?

"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."

[Patrick_Mucci]

If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?

"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."

Garland,

And would each ball have it's own frequency or would you be looking for every lost ball in the universe on a given hole.

Think of the compression issue and cost of each ball.

Bad idea

Fast play is a cultural issue not a hi- tech issue

[Garland Bayley]

If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?

"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."

Garland,

And would each ball have it's own frequency or would you be looking for every lost ball in the universe on a given hole.

Think of the compression issue and cost of each ball.

Bad idea

Fast play is a cultural issue not a hi- tech issue

Shirley

Searching five minutes for a lost ball is not a cultural issue. It's in the rules.
This is one slow play issue that can be resolved by technology.

However, perhaps the issue for this web site is that it might give golf courses free reign to grow hay for rough.

[Tony_Muldoon]

This is one slow play issue that can be resolved by technology.

However, perhaps the issue for this web site is that it might give golf courses free reign to grow hay for rough.

I have wondered from time to time if the game would be improved if one could hitout  with total impunity (definition later from Niall C ) knowing you could always find your ball.

Yes the game would speed up but would clubs grow more hay?  Introduce more OOB?

Would  courses have to become more penal if the golfer's mind didn't have to worry about a possible lost ball?

Total beginners might find it encouraging but older straighter hitters (typical members who make up Greens committee's?) might be tempted to make the game 'fairer' to compensate for wild hitters now getting a free pass.


I do think it would change more than just the pace of play.

[Sean_A]

Spangles

Do you have Cleeve Coud in mind?

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

"if one could hitout  with total impunity"

My understanding is that at least some of the old dead guys were not worried about this. The farther off line the ball goes, the farther it leaves you from the hole compared to the on line ball. The extra distance on the approach was its own penalty.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean first time I played Pennard they still had the animals 'mowing' the areas between fairways. I have a memory of playing one recovery shot fro what felt like 2 fairways to the right, I've been trying to figure out where that was ever since.  At Cleeve Cloud you can be along way off the ideal line and not lose a ball.


No I thinking of all the other courses in the world which have rough, trees or water down each side of the fairway. Taking up Garlands idea of having a transmitter in the ball means that you could always walk straight to you ball after hitting no matter where it was hit or ricochet to.


At Deal you don't want to go e.g. left off the first tee, or right off the 11th.  Having that in your mind is part of the game of golf. Not having to worry about it would change things so I think greens committees would feel the need to 'maintain the challenge.'   Perhaps it would just be as Garland suggests make the rough tougher, after all it will take no longer to find a ball in 8" rough than it does in 2".   But a fundamental change like never losing a ball would definitely impact on the game we paly and I'm just trying to foresee how?

[Brent Hutto]

At Deal you don't want to go e.g. left off the first tee, or right off the 11th.  Having that in your mind is part of the game of golf. Not having to worry about it would change things so I think greens committees would feel the need to 'maintain the challenge.'   Perhaps it would just be as Garland suggests make the rough tougher, after all it will take no longer to find a ball in 8" rough than it does in 2".   But a fundamental change like never losing a ball would definitely impact on the game we paly and I'm just trying to foresee how?

That right side of the 11th at Deal is the damnedest place I've ever seen. It's like the Bermuda Triangle. You can watch your ball land and bounce and swear it's six inches off the fairway. But it's never found.

That hole can eat more balls with one inch of rough than most can with hay.

[Michael Felton]

At Deal you don't want to go e.g. left off the first tee, or right off the 11th.  Having that in your mind is part of the game of golf. Not having to worry about it would change things so I think greens committees would feel the need to 'maintain the challenge.'   Perhaps it would just be as Garland suggests make the rough tougher, after all it will take no longer to find a ball in 8" rough than it does in 2".   But a fundamental change like never losing a ball would definitely impact on the game we paly and I'm just trying to foresee how?

That right side of the 11th at Deal is the damnedest place I've ever seen. It's like the Bermuda Triangle. You can watch your ball land and bounce and swear it's six inches off the fairway. But it's never found.

That hole can eat more balls with one inch of rough than most can with hay.

I can tell you from bitter personal experience and long walks back up to that tee that the left side is no picnic either.

For what it's worth I agree with Patrick too. Slow play has little to do with this. The rules allow you 5 minutes to search, but that doesn't mean you have to take 5 minutes to search. The rules also say you should call the group behind through as soon as it becomes apparent that you can't find your ball easily. I wonder how many people stick to that one...

Slow play is about being ready to hit when it's your turn, putting your bag down on the right side of the green, paying attention to what's going on around you and moving reasonably quickly towards your ball when you hit it. In the UK they play by the same rules and manage to play in around 3-3.5 hours for a four ball.

[Brent Hutto]

Michael,

The left side of the 11th eats balls the old fashioned way. You see it disappear into various gunch-n-gullies and know it's gone. It's like the assassin who shoots you in the face instead of the one who stabs you in the back.

I played my second shot from the fairway on that hole, once. My goodness that was a fine day.

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland,
What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?

A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes,

[Brent Hutto]

Garland,
What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?

A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes,

Pete,

That's no fun. It addresses the actual issue rather than uses the issue as an excuse to further complicate and ultimately slow down the game (not to mention making it more expensive).

It's like the guy who says he has a drinking problem. So he's going to buy a really top-shelf bottle of single malt and once he's finished that he can quit drinking. Yeah, right.

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland,
What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?

A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes,

Pete,

That's no fun. It addresses the actual issue rather than uses the issue as an excuse to further complicate and ultimately slow down the game (not to mention making it more expensive).

It is less expensive than losing sleeves of Pro V1s in a single round

It's like the guy who says he has a drinking problem. So he's going to buy a really top-shelf bottle of single malt and once he's finished that he can quit drinking. Yeah, right.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?

A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes,

The way technology is going it is probably negligible cost. Better than having Titleist gouge you for multipiece balls.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me.


Would it change the nature of the game and therefore lead to course alterations?

You could make fairways 5 yards wide to reward the accurate player?

For most would it encourage more bomb 'n gouge?

[Garland Bayley]

I think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me.

...

But Tony, you are ignoring all the disparaging remarks on this web site about having to play behind high handicappers that hit it all over the place and slowing up the players behind them as they search for their balls.

Are there courses out there now that pride themselves with thick rough, and resulting lost balls? That's the kind of vibe that came across from the proshop at Elk Ridge in the Columbia River Gorge. If they lose this ploy, would they mow the rough and let people play away.

I happen to think Elk Ridge would be an amazingly fun golf course if they mowed everything fairway height or perhaps just a little longer.

[Pete_Pittock]

I think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me.

...

But Tony, you are ignoring all the disparaging remarks on this web site about having to play behind high handicappers that hit it all over the place and slowing up the players behind them as they search for their balls.

Are there courses out there now that pride themselves with thick rough, and resulting lost balls? That's the kind of vibe that came across from the proshop at Elk Ridge in the Columbia River Gorge. If they lose this ploy, would they mow the rough and let people play away.

I happen to think Elk Ridge would be an amazingly fun golf course if they mowed everything fairway height or perhaps just a little longer.

Garland,
You must have missed this article.  http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2014/01/elk_ridge_golf_course_the_best.html
It's already in the works

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not sure that story is accurate. When I was there last summer, they were bragging about their challenging conditions. The article ends with they want to attract people with challenge. I'm not sure that bit about mowing more area is going to hold, given they think people are attracted by challenging conditions.

[Sean_A]

I think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me.

...

Are there courses out there now that pride themselves with thick rough, and resulting lost balls?

Isn't this really part and parcel of championship golf and why TOC and Augusta are (less so it seems each year) so unusual?  Muirfield always comes to mind when thinking of year on steady rough which is pure brutality - as it is meant to be.  I know most clubs raise the issue of cost when it comes to rough, but at least for the big guns, I don't buy it. 

For the record, I do think the nature of design and maintenance would change if a ball could not be lost outside of water.  Maybe we would see more water on courses.  In any case, it would be smash mouth golf paradise.  I don't think it would be any more fun.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

The way technology is going it is probably negligible cost. Better than having Titleist gouge you for multipiece balls.

In 1914 one top of the line golf ball cost between $.50 and $1.00, equal to $11.70 and $23.39 in 2014.

Golf balls are the least expensive part of the game, and if you want to play a PROV1 you can find used ones in AAA condition for $22.00 per dozen, about the same price as one golf ball in 1914.

RF golf balls are about $32.00 per sleeve and the locator is around $270.00.

Speed of play won't improve, but there will be more time spent (and more treks ever farther into the woods) looking for the single golf ball that costs  $10.66.    

And you're upset with Acushnet.  

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

Nobody is buying that (after all it's against the rules) so the price is high. Besides, it is far to complicated. If my credit card can be read without it leaving my wallet in my pants, then it should be possible to do a much cheaper technology. If the USGA and R&A made it legal, someone would come up with a technology that would be cheap.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,

Nobody is buying that (after all it's against the rules) so the price is high. Besides, it is far to complicated. If my credit card can be read without it leaving my wallet in my pants, then it should be possible to do a much cheaper technology. If the USGA and R&A made it legal, someone would come up with a technology that would be cheap.

I don't care how inexpensive the technology becomes, no company will be selling a"NeverLose®" golf on the cheap, not in this day and age.
 

 



 

   

[Keith Grande]

If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?

"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."

Google probably working on something right now linked to Google Glass

[jeffwarne]

There's the assumption that the very player who hit it deep into the woods, or foot high hay, can actually play the shot, and that that will speed up play.

X's speed up play more than taking an unplayable deep in the woods, and attempting a play with no way out
Taking the retee (walkback) unplayable option would further slow play
At least the fear of a lost ball inspires a provisional, with way less chance of finding a ball in an unplayable place-even after taking an  an unplayable

and what if your opponent decide to use a transmitter to find your ball you don't want found

[Garland Bayley]

...
and what if your opponent decide to use a transmitter to find your ball you don't want found

A modern technology would have allow you to code your ball, so that no one else unwanted could find it other than by eyeball.