Common sense attack from the pros and governing bodies

[jeffwarne]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/3/8/more-pros-embracing-variable-distance-golf-ball-idea.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Geoff Shackelford reports Mike Davis and several prominent pros considering a variable length ball to avoid all the disfiguring of classic courses.


Stunned this is original or novel thinking but thrilled that MAYBE some common sense thinking has occurred amongst those whose opinions matter.


Must be a new bunker club(no doubt soon to deemed nonconforming) that helped them extract their heads from the sand

[Thomas Dai]

As Leonard Cohan sang, "Hallelujah, hallelujah".
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Now that they're talking it doesn't seem so surprising. They all knew what was going on for a long time.  They just had to keep their heads in the sand until they could figure out how to make money off any possible change, or at least not lose any.
Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

This is as much common sense as the tired old idea of raising the rim in basketball. We've played the same balls and clubs as the pros for hundreds of years and sucked at it, why the need to change things now?


The 50+ crowd is funding the came, specifically the courses that get modified, and you can not roll back our ball or try to turn us into your version of the golfing snowflake. We will not play equipment that does not conform to the game at the highest standards. Yea, standards, every heard of em?

[Joe Hancock]

JK,


I haven't had a regulation hdcp in years, so I've been looking into it. I played here in Michigan 3 days ago, but was told that score can't be used because it's not in-season here.....then all the other rules for even posting a score....maybe balls based on age is a simpler idea.

[jeffwarne]

Why this matters....


Very soon there will be multiple outcries that golf is hard enough, it only affects 1%, we need to grow the game. etc.....


I would argue that golf courses would get easier as governing bodies would feel less compelled to
"protect par" with
1.new tees,
2. deep rough,
3. crazy fast greens that can't eliminate good pins (at least)
4.other penal features which influence renovations and new construction


We all can agree that classic courses are more fun to play, more fun to find your ball, and more fun to walk 1000 yards less-so new tees and new penal modern influence inspired long courses affect nearly all-and suck.


If yu hit it 200 yards, these balls won't affect you as you can use your current ball and even if you use one you won't notice a difference.


The other BS line about "chicks dig the long ball"
I defy anyone to tell the difference between RORY hitting it it 330 in the air and 290 in the air when watching live.
I've been watching the Masters for 43 years and long is long-IF you brought back the circa 1995 tees and gave them a 10% shorter ball, the spectators would absolutely not notice the difference.And you'd have a LOT more room to spectate at the event. New lengthened tees have brought gridlock to many spectating areas and made it much more difficult to follow one group.


As an example, when you play in cold temperatures the ball goes Waaaayyy shorter, but the longest in the group is still the longest and everybody adjusts quickly.I'm always stunned to find out how short (when drives are measured) the ball's actually going-yet we simply adjust.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've got a 50+ buddy that even wears his pants like Dustin Johnson. Cocksure little bastard. This idea of taking away the marketing power of the PGA Tour just may be worth giving up a few yards. #pipedream


Sure Joe, let's lose all motivation to stay in shape as we get older. Ok, let's add weight and flexibility to the ball test, or better yet just place the ball on the green and then start arguing about hole size.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


I'm sure you've spent the last 40 years listening to amateurs exaggerate how far they hit the ball. How about penalizing people who over swing instead of changing the game so they have recovery options. Do you really believe you are going to keep changing the game until these people are happy? We need and crave discipline and golf as we have played it our entire lives is one of the few places we can still legally find it.

[jeffwarne]

JK,
Sorry for posting out of your prime time.
caffeine is clearly not the equal of alcohol for clever rebuttal
you can do better
see you around 8 tonight

[John Kavanaugh]

Who's honestly behind the new search for instant gratification in golf, the teacher or the player?

[John McCarthy]

Last week the pros played at 7000 feet.  This caused massive increases in distances.  Plus they had to translated yards, meters, altitude factor...And they managed to get 72 in and someone won. 


Now reducing the ball 10% on some courses would just be a little ciphering on the range for a few days to get your numbers.  Write them down in the yardage book.  It is not hard.

[Sean_A]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/3/8/more-pros-embracing-variable-distance-golf-ball-idea.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Geoff Shackelford reports Mike Davis and several prominent pros considering a variable length ball to avoid all the disfiguring of classic courses.


Stunned this is original or novel thinking but thrilled that MAYBE some common sense thinking has occurred amongst those whose opinions matter.


Must be a new bunker club(no doubt soon to deemed nonconforming) that helped them extract their heads from the sand

Okay...so how does this ball stop clubs mucking with their course even though these clubs never see a pro or top flight Am tourny? Mark my words, it doesn't matter what the equipment rules are...clubs will muck with their courses. Its human nature. 


Ciao

[BCowan]

Jeff,


I'm sure you've spent the last 40 years listening to amateurs exaggerate how far they hit the ball. How about penalizing people who over swing instead of changing the game so they have recovery options. Do you really believe you are going to keep changing the game until these people are happy? We need and crave discipline and golf as we have played it our entire lives is one of the few places we can still legally find it.

    Palmer drove the 346 yard first at Cherry Hills in 1960.  He brought folks into the game.  Everyone loves the long ball.  Thankfully in 1960 they didn't have discussion boards and people analyzing things to death.  Gretzky says that NHL players are much fitter, smarter, and skate so much faster then when he played, yet I don't hear people in the NHL asking for dull Ice skates.  Basically what they are trying to do is take away the fun at Christmas.   

   I'd rather focus on an Alternative product like mentioned in this thread...     

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63371.0.html

[jeffwarne]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/3/8/more-pros-embracing-variable-distance-golf-ball-idea.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Geoff Shackelford reports Mike Davis and several prominent pros considering a variable length ball to avoid all the disfiguring of classic courses.


Stunned this is original or novel thinking but thrilled that MAYBE some common sense thinking has occurred amongst those whose opinions matter.


Must be a new bunker club(no doubt soon to deemed nonconforming) that helped them extract their heads from the sand

Okay...so how does this ball stop clubs mucking with their course even though these clubs never see a pro or top flight Am tourny? Mark my words, it doesn't matter what the equipment rules are...clubs will muck with their courses. Its human nature. 


Ciao

agreed.


Hopeful though that the USGA,PGA, and ANGC seem less compelled to set poor examples.


It's a start-an aknowledgement by an organization that very recently has said the ball's not going farther.


We can't control what clubs do to their courses-heck some may be for the better.


But, it would be nice to see Majors held on reasonable sized venues-speeds pace of play, allows shotmaking, lessens perceived need for "par protecting", creates less bottlenecks from pushed back tees, creates less need for 5-6 sets of tees. Scratch members play "Open tees" with ProV1's, Pros play same tees with competition ball.
In short, I'd rather see a pro in a championship hit a 6 iron from a wider fairway, maybe even with some curve, to a contoured, well designed, healthy reasonably firm green than a SW from the rough to a green stimping at 15 that is suposed to be firm but isn't because of weather,the perceived need for speed,and  heat/humidity beyond their control.


Baseball major leagues play with woodedn bats.
Only a moron would attend more baseball games because a fancy composite bat makes the ball go farther.
Let's give golf fans the same credit, and stop giving "Chicks" so much power.




Ben,
Pros would hit hybrids to that hole now.
No ones' taking away the long ball-Rory will still be long

[BCowan]

Baseball major leagues play with woodedn bats.
Only a moron would attend more baseball games because a fancy composite bat makes the ball go farther.
Let's give golf fans the same credit, and stop giving "Chicks" so much power.

Steroids increased baseball attendance they say.  I quit watching because of it, but I'm in the very very small minority.  Football fans decide things now for golf fans, not chicks.   

[Tom_Doak]

It was nice to hear this acknowledgment of the situation from Mike Davis, but I think he has sort of "damned it with faint praise."  It's the top end of the field that needs a different ball, not everybody else, and he patently said he doesn't see switching the rules for major tournaments.


But he'll leave it up to "the market" to develop a shorter ball for everyone else?  There's no demand for that, and he knows it.  This is not really a change ... you can play with persimmon and balata today if you want to.  The only way it's going to change is to change the ball for the professionals and top amateurs, as the R & A did when they banned the 1.62-in ball, and let those players drag everybody else up to their standard, over time.


The timing is noteworthy, though.  We are three months away from playing a U.S. Open on an 8,000-yard course that Mike Davis was instrumental in designing.  He's getting ahead of the curve on responding to the complaints from many quarters over how slow the play will be and what an enormous walk it is.  Maybe he'll move the tees up and ask everyone to use a shorter ball?  Yeah, that'll happen the same day Donald Trump gives us Medicare for All.

[jeffwarne]

It was nice to hear this acknowledgment of the situation from Mike Davis, but I think he has sort of "damned it with faint praise."  It's the top end of the field that needs a different ball, not everybody else, and he patently said he doesn't see switching the rules for major tournaments.


But he'll leave it up to "the market" to develop a shorter ball for everyone else?  There's no demand for that, and he knows it.  This is not really a change ... you can play with persimmon and balata today if you want to.  The only way it's going to change is to change the ball for the professionals and top amateurs, as the R & A did when they banned the 1.62-in ball, and let those players drag everybody else up to their standard, over time.


The timing is noteworthy, though.  We are three months away from playing a U.S. Open on an 8,000-yard course that Mike Davis was instrumental in designing.  He's getting ahead of the curve on responding to the complaints from many quarters over how slow the play will be and what an enormous walk it is.  Maybe he'll move the tees up and ask everyone to use a shorter ball?  Yeah, that'll happen the same day Donald Trump gives us Medicare for All.

+1
I played Erin Hills with the USGA when the Mid -Am was there in 2008.
It was a death march.
While I appreciated the course(felt like big Shinny though Shinny's a big Shinny now-walk baaaaaack) as such courses are the ONLY way to match the scale to the ball.


To match the scale of ball and course, it's nice that they finally have momentarily pulled at least one eye out of the sand to aknowledge that maybe they can fit the EQUIPMENT to the course, but as you state, that would require them to admit they lost control of equipment.
Their folly was thinking they could out legislate the equipment companies, rather than simply having limits at the elite end.


I'm just always amazed how up in arms amateurs get about suggestions to rein in elite players(bifurcation-like other sports)) so we can continue to conduct legitimate championships that test traditional skills,rather than wedge games, and/or bastardize courses and setups.


As Tom says, reduced distance balls are only relevant if the USGA implements them for elite championships on classic courses-there's less of a point for the rest of us to use them otherwise-though I could see using them to restore scale on many great UK courses that are 4500-6000 yards long. Maybe Tom would upgrade a few interesting classic shorter UK/Irish Doak 3's and 4's to higher status!

[BCowan]

     It's a beautiful thing when Authoritarianism gets crushed by the Market!  Hopefully more public US Open tracks will be built and the private classic Major venues won't be as difficult to join and possibly lower down strokes and dues.  It would take tour pros 5+ hours to play a 6,000 yard track.   

[Niall C]

A few comments;


1 - ever since Bobby Jones was a nipper, there has been bitching and moaning about improvements in technology leading to greater distance.


2 - there has always been a significant discrepancy between the top players and the average players.


3 - it was Dr MacKenzie who said something along the the lines of designing courses for both the stronger and the weaker players.


So given that MacKenzie's designs were generally considered a success by pro and hacker alike, what is different now from back then ? Is it because we have lost faith in our architects and their designs ? Is it because modern architects have forgotten the lessons of long ago (cue the abuse on that one), or is it simply we pay too much heed to the false premis that par is the yardstick and that the best players must play to a certain number.


Niall 

[Tom_Doak]

     It's a beautiful thing when Authoritarianism gets crushed by the Market!  Hopefully more public US Open tracks will be built and the private classic Major venues won't be as difficult to join and possibly lower down strokes and dues.  It would take tour pros 5+ hours to play a 6,000 yard track.   

Ben:


Don't be an idiot.  The USGA would be no more Authoritarian for having different ball specs than for defending the ones they do now.  They've essentially been telling golf courses for years, "it's your problem."


Both of the "public US Open tracks" of recent years are $20 million boondoggles utilizing Other People's Money.  Maybe it will work out for Chambers Bay long-term, although I don't think they've paid off their bondholders yet.  Erin Hills is already on its second or third owner, so that's what you'd call a mixed success.  You should get to CommonGround, or any of the other less celebrated projects that's been built for a sustainable budget.

[BCowan]

     It's a beautiful thing when Authoritarianism gets crushed by the Market!  Hopefully more public US Open tracks will be built and the private classic Major venues won't be as difficult to join and possibly lower down strokes and dues.  It would take tour pros 5+ hours to play a 6,000 yard track.   

Ben:


Don't be an idiot.  The USGA would be no more Authoritarian for having different ball specs than for defending the ones they do now.  They've essentially been telling golf courses for years, "it's your problem."


Both of the "public US Open tracks" of recent years are $20 million boondoggles utilizing Other People's Money.  Maybe it will work out for Chambers Bay long-term, although I don't think they've paid off their bondholders yet.  Erin Hills is already on its second or third owner, so that's what you'd call a mixed success.  You should get to CommonGround, or any of the other less celebrated projects that's been built for a sustainable budget.

   Tom,

    The golfing public love the long ball.  They are the ones that determine it.  Viewership would go down if guys were hitting it 280-290.  I don't support Other People's money projects in my state.  I thought Erin was private money?  CommonGround is the Diamond Springs of Denver, I do need to get there and you need to get to Diamond Springs.  I believe people in local communities need to obtain investors and build CG type of courses and I think they are very profitable and sustainable. 

[jeffwarne]

A few comments;


1 - ever since Bobby Jones was a nipper, there has been bitching and moaning about improvements in technology leading to greater distance.


2 - there has always been a significant discrepancy between the top players and the average players.


3 - it was Dr MacKenzie who said something along the the lines of designing courses for both the stronger and the weaker players.


So given that MacKenzie's designs were generally considered a success by pro and hacker alike, what is different now from back then ? Is it because we have lost faith in our architects and their designs ? Is it because modern architects have forgotten the lessons of long ago (cue the abuse on that one), or is it simply we pay too much heed to the false premis that par is the yardstick and that the best players must play to a certain number.


Niall

all true, but the changes came in very small doses.
the equippment of the 1930's wasn't much different than that of the 1950's, and as late as the early 80's the best Tour players sought out persimmon woods from the 1950's. Tour players used irons sets for 20 years.


In an era where the buzzwords are sustainability in all walks of life, golf is going in the exact opposite direction with increased acreage and maintenance demands.
Such a simple solution-regulating the scale of the game-like duh-other sports do.


Would you really quit watching golf if a long Tour drive was 300 and an average Tour drive was 260?
and they hit 4 iron from 185 -Jack Nicklaus often did and he was the longest in the game for awhile
I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye.

[BCowan]

Would you really quit watching golf if a long Tour drive was 300 and an average Tour drive was 260?
and they hit 4 iron from 185 -Jack Nicklaus often did and he was the longest in the game for awhile
I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye.

Yes, folks are mesmerized to watch a pro hit it so much farther then their own potential.  Why did baseball popularity grow during Steroids era?  More homers.  Golf yields to the football viewer now, no more days of watching the Tour Championship the last weekend of October.  I remember when Norman used to put on a Halloween mask walking up the 18th hole.  Football viewer wants the long ball, 260 is relateable.  Increased acreage more so for viewing and environmental reasons.  The area from Tip tee to fairway beginning isn't or doesn't have to be maint, so that is a gross over exaggeration of one size fits all.  It's time to focus on None mainstream comps (PGA tour and Majors) and to create something off the grid. 

[Andrew Carr]

I couldn't agree more that this is welcome news that the governing bodies are at least acknowledging there might be a problem.

The baseball comparison is constantly made here and elsewhere about this course vs. equipment argument, but why don't we go all in?  Why don't we roll back to wooden woods and balata balls?  The longest player will still be the longest player.  I'm fairly certain when Jack Nicklaus was hitting 260 yard drives, all but the most elite golfer wasn't.


It's also been brought up in this discussion already, but I think the average golf would be disappointed to know that they don't carry and roll the ball 240 yards let alone carry the ball 240 yards.



I don't know baseball history well, but when was the last time there was a technological advance in the ball?


For those who argue that we shouldn't roll back the technology to make a great number of courses we all love relevant again, can one of you point to something other than a perceived loss of viewership to defend that position?  Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see anything that can overcome the reintroduction of classic courses, lower maintenance cost and the end of this never ending wack-a-mol that requires us to modify every course before a tournament.

[Joe Hancock]

What does viewership have to do with any of this? (He asked, not knowing himself whether it's a valid question, or not)