On and Off-Topic: Bifurcate the Game

[V_Halyard]

The rim is still 10 feet high in all those formats.

That is valid although, just about everything else is different. Length of periods, Time outs, 3 Point Line, Inbound rules, jump balls, shot clocks, periods vs. halfs. Point is that are significant adjustments and differences in the overall game at various levels.  Not making a judgement but there is precedent in just about  every other sport

[Dave Doxey]

  I don't understand the call to bifurcate.  It appears in response to top golfers, who represent a very small percentage of players.  Keep courses as they are and let the pros shoot whatever that can.  It's just a number. The majority of golfers will still enjoy the game and those that appreciate architecture will continue to do so.  I judge architecture on how it impacts the way I play a hole, not how Dustin Johnson might play it.

 
Consider this - One can view skill levels as a bell curve, with equipment rollback/bifurcation aimed at the top tail of the curve.  Where are the calls for change to accommodate the other extreme of the curve - the choppers who are really bad?  Do we need even more technical assistance for these poor folks?  Of course not - design for the majority in the center of the curve.

 
Seems to me that rollback is just a way to cater to the vanity of clubs that want today's pros to score the same as pros 50 years ago on a given course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not talking about reverting to an old ball, I'm proposing to design a new ball that is flight limited via its properties, core, dimpling, etc. And it doesn't have to happen overnight.. .they could spend a couple of years designing, testing, and tweaking in several iterations to come up with the best version before implementing.

Pie in the sky, even if you think there is a "problem" in need of solving. Equipment companies will not stand by having a standard ball with dimple design, etc. mandated to them. No sport that I can think of really does that with non-shared equipment (a baseball is "shared" by the teams, and thus, uniform. A bowling ball is not.)

I will certainly agree that the pros will whine, cry, and otherwise throw a tantrum, but in the end they will still play.  Do you think they will quit the tour and forgo all that money because they don't like the ball?

I don't think that was a reply to me…?

P.S.  I don't buy the "favor certain type of players" argument because that already exists.

You've misunderstood what I mean by that, then: currently players can choose a ball to fit their needs. Mandating a single type of ball removes those options; it stands to reason that the mandated ball will be a better fit for some players over others.

I don't understand the call to bifurcate.  It appears in response to top golfers, who represent a very small percentage of players.  Keep courses as they are and let the pros shoot whatever that can.  It's just a number. The majority of golfers will still enjoy the game and those that appreciate architecture will continue to do so.  I judge architecture on how it impacts the way I play a hole, not how Dustin Johnson might play it.

Well said.

[V_Halyard]

The uncomfortable reality is that every NFL, MLB, NBA, Premier League/MLS Soccer "classic" stadium has been equivalently "lengthened beyond 7,000 yards”.  The NFL can no longer hold the Super Bowl,… sorry, “The Big Game” in a local stadium, F1 isn’t run on a county race track, the World Cup Ski Race can’t be held at Wilmot. (Chicago, Vertical Drop - 220 feet.)

The majority of courses we love and play can’t handle a web.com, LPGA, Latin PGA event let alone a PGA or US open.  What do we care about?  “Defending Par” Defending par from whom?  The person in our foursome who rolls every ball as if we don’t see them? Defending par from the current/post Tiger era pro golfer/athletes on TV? 

 Its a good thing organizers continue to want to hold pro events at a variety of new and classic venues because the look good on TV. Plus, most of us are programmed for variety.  We don’t want to see a tournament held on a made for TV stadium course every week.

The primary defensive tools are golf architecture and technology with golf architecture carrying the majority of the burden at the pro level. We would all probably agree that architecture is actually under attack.  So, would a dialed-back limited-distance ball make that much of a difference without it looking ridiculous? High School and college kids hit the ball 350 plus yards. Maybe they can’t score like the pros but they still straighten out doglegs and fly hazards like they are protected by puddles, sand boxes, and geraniums. (Apologies to Sentry World)


It’s a complicated question. At this point, dialing back just the ball probably does little to herd the current athletically powered professional thunder-cat stampede.

[Peter Pallotta]

From the past, how things have changed: in an old book by Sam Snead on driving, in the 'pick the right equipment' section, he suggests that if you drive it 200 yards you should use a club with a regular flex staff and a swing-weight of C-4 to D-1, with about 10 degrees loft; and if you drive it 225+ yards, you can go with a stiff shaft and a swing-weight of D-1 to D-5, and as low at 8 degrees loft. That's it: that was the line of demarcation/the distinction back then between a good amateur and the only other category that Sam mentions, the pro.

Okay, from today: good article with Tiger Woods discussing his old and current equipment and equipment testing etc. Here's his most recent views on this topic: “I am of the opinion that we should bifurcate. The line of demarcation, in my opinion, should be professional and amateur. That's it. ...If you're an amateur, you can play the most juiced up golf ball, just go hit and go find it. I think that amateur golf, we can actually push the limits with everything if not get rid of the limits, right. Let them go have fun. Let them enjoy it. Let them — we're trying to bring more people into the game of golf. Let them go ahead and enjoy hitting it further and straighter. But professional ranks, it's like a different deal. It's like going from aluminum in little league and college to when you turn pro and go into A, AA and AAA and obviously the bigs, it's all wood. That's just the way it is. The rules are bifurcated for them. There's no reason why we can't do it for us. Now, then that goes back to do you standardize the golf ball at the pro level, and this is where it's kind of tricky because each manufacturer is going to say, no, you can't, because they want to produce their own golf ball. But you can probably change dimple patterns to make them a little bit deeper, a little bit smaller. You can soften up the cover, obviously soften of the core, make it slower, and you can bring the ball back.”


Interesting aside, re Tiger's irons/specs: "I'm stock spec from say the 60s. The only thing that would be weird is I have a 60‑degree sand wedge....But yeah, my pitching wedge is 50 degrees, my 9‑iron is 45 and a half. I see some of these guys with pitching wedges that are 45 or 44. This whole four‑wedge system I don't understand; just why don't you take something off? I just don't understand that part. In the Bahamas I had 89 yards out and 95 yards out and pulled out pitching wedge. To me that's what I've been able to do. Let's also don't forget I play a softer, spinnier ball, so those little shots are easier for me to hit.”
 

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


Once again, i'm not talking about every manufacturer.  I'm talking about the PGA tour going to one manufacturer, with thier own specs, and saying we want a PGA Tour ball.  Just like they do with Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.  This doesn't preclude other manufacturers from continuing to make their own stuff.  The other 99.99% of golfers can still use Titleist, Callaway, Pinnacle, Top Flight, etc.


I totally understand what you said, and I'll say it again...the Tour provides an approved ball that everyone uses. Full Stop.


And this is where the players will whine, fuss, and complain, but as I said I don't see any of them walking away from the millions of dollars to be made in pro golf....


P.S. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, there is no specific rule in golf that mandates the players get to pick whatever ball they want.  If the rules can be structured such that long pants are required and T shirts are banned, i'm pretty sure they can figure this one out...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Once again, i'm not talking about every manufacturer.  I'm talking about the PGA tour going to one manufacturer, with thier own specs, and saying we want a PGA Tour ball.  Just like they do with Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.  This doesn't preclude other manufacturers from continuing to make their own stuff.  The other 99.99% of golfers can still use Titleist, Callaway, Pinnacle, Top Flight, etc.

The PGA Tour players would not stand for that. A good portion of their paychecks come from manufacturers.

And this is where the players will whine, fuss, and complain, but as I said I don't see any of them walking away from the millions of dollars to be made in pro golf....

The PGA Tour is a player-run organization, still, basically. It's not going to happen.

P.S. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, there is no specific rule in golf that mandates the players get to pick whatever ball they want.  If the rules can be structured such that long pants are required and T shirts are banned, i'm pretty sure they can figure this one out...

Mandating that the players wear pants is not a condition of competition. Players can't be penalized strokes for wearing shorts. They can be penalized as a member of the PGA Tour, though. Very different things.

[Sean_A]

I don't understand the call to bifurcate.  It appears in response to top golfers, who represent a very small percentage of players. Keep courses as they are and let the pros shoot whatever that can.  It's just a number. The majority of golfers will still enjoy the game and those that appreciate architecture will continue to do so.  I judge architecture on how it impacts the way I play a hole, not how Dustin Johnson might play it.

I agree in principle, but in reality if we can give the powers that be one less reason to change classic courses it is worth a shot.  In the end though, I fear people will do what people will do...change stuff...it seems hard wired into our DNA.  In the long run I think the best we can hope for is clubs hire good archies who are sympathetic to classic courses.  Afterall, #2 is a huge improvement so it can be done.

Ciao

[Dave Doxey]

I don't understand the call to bifurcate.  It appears in response to top golfers, who represent a very small percentage of players. Keep courses as they are and let the pros shoot whatever that can.  It's just a number. The majority of golfers will still enjoy the game and those that appreciate architecture will continue to do so.  I judge architecture on how it impacts the way I play a hole, not how Dustin Johnson might play it.

I agree in principle, but in reality if we can give the powers that be one less reason to change classic courses it is worth a shot.  In the end though, I fear people will do what people will do...change stuff...it seems hard wired into our DNA.  In the long run I think the best we can hope for is clubs hire good archies who are sympathetic to clasic courses.  Afterall, #2 is a huge improvement so it can be done.

Ciao

What is the need to change courses?  Let the pros score whatever they will.  It's just a number.  For the majority of golfers, classic courses will play fine, as they always did.  Perhaps better.

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
Ypur post suggested that increased distance by pros is purely a product of speed.Much of it is but..


Surely you're not suggesting that a balata ball hit at 110 mph clubhead speed by a wooden driver(optimized by trial and error) would go the same distance as a ProV1 hit by a face caving launch monitor optimized titanium driver at 110 mph.


There were balls that went similar distances to ProV1's 30 years ago, but they involved spin tradeoffs most elite players were unwilling to make(Jim Ferree who I played with a lot played a Pinnacle Gold and was quite long late in his career).
The modern ball is manufactured to optimize distance off a driver yet maintain spin characteristics off short irons and wedges. Thus manufacturers have outsmarted ruling bodies via unthought of innovation by ruling bodies.


Of course some clubhead speed is gained by lighter and longer shafts, as well as conditioning and better athletic natiural selection, as well as teaching speed techniques at an early age made more possible by equipment that fits younger players.


It's a combination of all of the above and IMHO the scale is too skewed toward length resulting in effectively dangerously narrow corridors, a shrinkage to great layouts by elite players neutering (or at least altering) classic courses' strategy, bastardizing courses-the most common reaction, and building new courses which consume too much real estate and take too long to walk to fit in all the extra tees.


I attribute distance gains to many, many things, but to simplify, my fix would be to limit/reduce the ball, and allow other modern equipment (whether bifurcation or rollback)




As newly named czar, that's where I'd go-and it would be disruptive.
But no more disruptive than the costly changes that have gone on to soooo many courses over the last 15 years.(and equipment companies go bust every year)
And the elite PGA Tour players can adjust or go away(as many did when the ProV1 era came in).
Most likely the pool of "elites" would shrink as there would be more involved than bombing 320 + and wedges. But the longest and most skilled would remain long and separate themselves.
Plenty of them out there to fill their spots.


Your arguments are well reasoned and you rightly point out how difficult and impractical my romantic notions are.
But so is anything worth doing.

[Tom_Doak]

Your arguments are well reasoned and you rightly point out how difficult and impractical my romantic notions are.
But so is anything worth doing.

Erik is downright Hillaryesque, in explaining why we can't have nice things.


Since you and Erik are the teaching pros here, I have a question for the two of you ... what % of amateur players hit the ball in such a way that they should not be playing with current equipment?  [impracticality aside]


Tiger Woods' division makes a lot of sense, except it ignores that any amateur who had his sights on playing professionally would have to change over early to get used to the new equipment.  It isn't exactly like baseball, because distance control has a direct effect on scoring.


When the game was bifurcated between the US and UK -- which only lasted for 60 years -- and eventually the UK was brought back to one ball, they made the tougher-spec US ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championships.  Nothing else was necessary ... it worked because they knew it would force the best players to switch, and market forces meant that eventually the best players would force changes onto the lower classes ... i.e. "You can't play the small ball in our club championship!"  But maybe that would work even if the amateurs weren't forced to change ... they might do it themselves.


The problem is that the TOUR doesn't want to change, and the USGA doesn't want to get into a fight with the TOUR, because they know they're outgunned in terms of money and voice.


As for golf architecture, I've gotten quite far by ignoring the TOUR player, and focusing on everyone on the other side of the equation.  The idea that courses should be built for the top 0.1% of players is ridiculous.  It doesn't really matter what they shoot.  Yes, they are turning the game into pitch and putt, and maybe someday the TOUR will come to understand that's not compelling to watch ... but that's entirely up to them, and I certainly don't have any control over it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What is the need to change courses?  Let the pros score whatever they will.  It's just a number.  For the majority of golfers, classic courses will play fine, as they always did.  Perhaps better.

Yep.

Erik,Ypur post suggested that increased distance by pros is purely a product of speed.Much of it is but..Surely you're not suggesting that a balata ball hit at 110 mph clubhead speed by a wooden driver(optimized by trial and error) would go the same distance as a ProV1 hit by a face caving launch monitor optimized titanium driver at 110 mph.

I don't think my post (quoting would be helpful?) suggested anything like that.

The golf balls players use now would have been legal in 1997. Ditto for the clubs. So "roll back" to those standards if you want… a Pro v1 would still be legal. It meeds the ODS then as it does now.

There were balls that went similar distances to ProV1's 30 years ago, but they involved spin tradeoffs most elite players were unwilling to make(Jim Ferree who I played with a lot played a Pinnacle Gold and was quite long late in his career).

Surely you have to realize, as someone who played during that era and has an IQ somewhere north of 70 (as we all do), that I realize that. C'mon, Jeff, a little credit where it's due to everyone?

The point I have made is that the modern ball is legal now and would have been legal in 1997, because the Pinnacle was legal in 1997. All the manufacturers have done is add spin to a distance ball for shorter irons. I feel like everyone is acting as if the manufacturers added distance to the ball. They didn't. The distance was there, in the Pinnacles and Top-Flites and whatnot. They added spin to the shorter clubs.

Could one say they "added distance to the spinny balls"? I guess, but that ignores the construction of the ball. The modern ball is a lot more like the old solid-core distance balls than they are like the wound balls with liquid centers. So… they added spin to a distance ball. A ball that was legal 20 years ago and is legal now.

Thus manufacturers have outsmarted ruling bodies via unthought of innovation by ruling bodies.

You're making quite the assumption there with the "outsmarted" bit!

[fonIf you asked a scientist in the 1990s they'd have told you they were constantly looking to improve the ball, and that improvement would mean two things: getting up to the ODS while retaining short game spin and control. I don't think there was any "outsmarting" going on. That'd be like saying "Tesla outsmarted the competition because they've delivered a very high MPG (equivalent) sports car with awesome acceleration." No, it's just the advance of technology - all things improve.

I don't think the USGA/R&A thought for one second "balata and surlyn and never any improvements on those. Always gonna be a tradeoff, nothing science can do about that." They'd have to be incredibly stupid to think that, and I don't think they were.

But no more disruptive than the costly changes that have gone on to soooo many courses over the last 15 years.

Again, I think people on your side overstate the "changes" made to courses. Almost none of the courses I've played here where I live since the balata/persimmon days have added any substantial length. I can almost count on one hand the number of HOLES that have been lengthened in that time.

90%+ of golfers are perfectly happy, I suspect on a 6500 yard course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik is downright Hillaryesque, in explaining why we can't have nice things.

Sure thing Tom.    I just played your course at Streamsong. Is that not a "nice thing"? I thought it was… 

My points are simple:

• I don't believe in rolling the ball back because I haven't been convinced that there's a "problem."
• I've yet to see actual data on how many courses are being lengthened, at what expenses, etc. I think that such claims are over-stated, and that plenty of people are content to play from 6500 yards. Or less!
• I don't think majors, speaking of the 0.001% or whatever, should only be played on courses that are 80+ years old, nor do I think that because a course hosted a major in 1939 that it should also be able to host one in 2019.
• If you did "roll the ball back," understand that you're actually not "rolling it back" at all, but inventing a new standard, as current balls would have been legal in 1997, too. So it's not a "roll-back" at all, but creating an entirely new standard/limit.
• If we were for some reason forced to roll back, I support a complete one, not a bifurcated one.

Since you and Erik are the teaching pros here, I have a question for the two of you ... what % of amateur players hit the ball in such a way that they should not be playing with current equipment?  [impracticality aside]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "should not be playing," so I could say "none of them" pending clarification from you on what criteria I'm using to judge whether they "should" or not.

Modern equipment has helped make golf a bit easier. Even my first Titleist PT metal driver had very little forgiveness; I had to hit the ball squarely.

Yet, Golf is Hard®, and that remains true even with the advances in equipment, because we've still gotta swing a goofy shaped stick 80 MPH or more to pick the ball off the ground and hit it into a whopping 4.25" hole that's 12,600+ inches away. And we have all of four strokes to do it "well." It's definitely not "easy," even with a 460cc driver, a "juiced" ball, SGI irons, and FlightScope, lasers for yardage, etc.

Tiger Woods' division makes a lot of sense, except it ignores that any amateur who had his sights on playing professionally would have to change over early to get used to the new equipment.  It isn't exactly like baseball, because distance control has a direct effect on scoring.

This is why I've said that IF we ever had to roll back, I'd prefer it to be wholesale, not by bifurcation. But I've yet to be convinced that there's a rampant "problem" in need of solving.

When the game was bifurcated between the US and UK -- which only lasted for 60 years -- and eventually the UK was brought back to one ball, they made the tougher-spec US ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championships.

Shorter, yes. Tougher? I've heard many say the U.S. ball was easier to hit because its larger size let it sit up a bit higher.

As for golf architecture, I've gotten quite far by ignoring the TOUR player, and focusing on everyone on the other side of the equation.  The idea that courses should be built for the top 0.1% of players is ridiculous.  It doesn't really matter what they shoot.  Yes, they are turning the game into pitch and putt, and maybe someday the TOUR will come to understand that's not compelling to watch ... but that's entirely up to them, and I certainly don't have any control over it.

I agree with a lot of that. I don't think it's a problem largely because it's, as you said, 0.1% (or less) of players. I just played Streaming Blue, and while the course may never host truly top-level players… who cares? I doubt you do. I doubt the resort does. I sure as heck did not.

Golf needs to accept the fact that it's not compelling to watch, period, and never really has been. It's not the courses or the shots they're hitting - it's the players. Arnold Palmer had charisma. Tiger Woods was arguably the greatest, and ran around throwing fist pumps in the air and twirling his club. Some level of golfers will always watch golf, though even there, I'd argue that showing 500 commercials per hour and showing far too many tap-ins and putts does more to detract than players averaging 160 yards for their approach shots instead of 180.

[Peter Pallotta]

If there was bifurcation, who would it hurt?

We've spent many threads and pages asking whether it's necessary and who it might help; but the other question is: what's the downside?

At the top level, there are currently restrictions/specs on golf balls, and many manufacturers make quality product within those parameters. If, as TW suggests, those restrictions/specs were modified 'downward' to decrease distance and increase spin, there'd still be many manufacturers making and branding quality product within those new parameters.

And of course, professional golfers themselves would simply adjust and continue to compete as best they could within this new context/environment.

At the amateur/recreational level, there'd by some golfers who'd want to continue to 'play what the pros play', and others who'd accept bifurcation and choose the equipment they think helps them play their best -- and both would be free to do so.

If there is even a small chance that, through bifurcation, classic old golf courses stay relevant as tournament venues and we get to enjoy them on television; or that, as the pros play more courses under 7,000 yards it begins to influence new course construction and/or potential old course renovations; or a chance that such changes might even in a small way reduce the game's 'foot print' and help a little with sustainability, why would anyone argue/fight against the idea?

Maybe there is no real need or upside to bifurcation. But since there is little downside to trying, why not find out for sure? Who does it hurt? What's the risk in trying?

     

[jeffwarne]

font problems....

[jeffwarne]

If there was bifurcation, who would it hurt?

We've spent many threads and pages asking whether it's necessary and who it might help; but the other question is: what's the downside?

At the top level, there are currently restrictions/specs on golf balls, and many manufacturers make quality product within those parameters. If, as TW suggests, those restrictions/specs were modified 'downward' to decrease distance and increase spin, there'd still be many manufacturers making and branding quality product within those new parameters.

And of course, professional golfers themselves would simply adjust and continue to compete as best they could within this new context/environment.

At the amateur/recreational level, there'd by some golfers who'd want to continue to 'play what the pros play', and others who'd accept bifurcation and choose the equipment they think helps them play their best -- and both would be free to do so.

If there is even a small chance that, through bifurcation, classic old golf courses stay relevant as tournament venues and we get to enjoy them on television; or that, as the pros play more courses under 7,000 yards it begins to influence new course construction and/or potential old course renovations; or a chance that such changes might even in a small way reduce the game's 'foot print' and help a little with sustainability, why would anyone argue/fight against the idea?

Maybe there is no real need or upside to bifurcation. But since there is little downside to trying, why not find out for sure? Who does it hurt? What's the risk in trying?

   

ask Hilary


Tom Doak has been massively successful by ignoring the "elite" players because as stated, they are the minority.
But few majors have been played on his events, eliminating potential history, and depriving the average fan the exposure to them.
Time will tell what effect that will have on his legacy and design in general in 50 years.


Where would golf and classic architecture, or what is considered classic architecture, be if Major Championships (and the attention they draw) had not been played on the great courses of the ODG's?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,


Agreed here as well.  I think it would have a massive ripple effect in many areas:


1)  Players would have to learn how to hold a green with a 4 iron again, instead of driver 8 iron.
2)  Courses could stop mangling themselves by adding tour tees.
3)  Other classic venues could begin to be re-introduced to the schedule.
4)  Majors like ANGC and Opens at TOC would be fascinating again to watch players have to really use thier brains as opposed to brawn....
5)  MMGA  - Make Majors Great Again!! 


The only losers I can see is equipment companies, but then again with all the endorsment money they wouldn't pay out, maybe they'd be better off in the long run...

[Jeff Schley]

Love this discussion, although somewhat surprised there aren't more purists that don't want to keep the great courses great via a rollback or ball/club limitation.

Golf is a prime example of the ruling bodies NOT acting soon enough to limit the engineering of the clubs/balls in time IMO.  They got there too late. Thus the gap between the amateur / pro is magnified and we are in the quandary we are in. Changing major championship courses to tiger proof or rory proof or johnson proof a course isn't sustainable in times of lower golf participation, thus less fans and members joining clubs.  Resources aren't unlimited and why should Augusta or other courses that host majors have to be in an arms race to keep up with technology and defend their historical scoring average?  They shouldn't IMO, and because the governing bodies didn't intercede sooner the cat was let out of the bag.

In swimming you remember the full body swimming suits that basically shattered every record and was finally banned in 2010 or thereabouts?  Fina not only successfully banned them quickly, only around for 2 years or so, but have put asterisks next to those records or keep a separate record one with and one without the suits.  Almost like what baseball needs to do with steriods, but that is another topic.  Swimming didn't even need to put the massive amount of cash outlay to change the pool distance etc., like golf courses have to do, forever changing a true gem.

Baseball allowed aluminum bats for amateur baseball, but then further limited the advancements on those bats.  The barrel thickness is limited as it the length to oz. ratio.  This was a safety issue for pitchers and 3rd basemen didn't have enough time to react to a shot off those technology doped bats.  Baseball rolled it back, although amateur baseball.

Major league baseball added height to the mound to make pitching more dominant, but then took 5-6 inches away after the epic 1968 season where Bob Gibson and Denny McClain dominated.  It has stayed at 10 inches since and MLB found a good compromise. 

There are many examples where professional sports has had to intercede to slow down innovation to balance their game back out, golf thinks they have limited it, but they didn't go far enough after stopping it too late IMO.  I'd love to see the ball limited and roll it back for professionals, that would cause championship venues to stop hiring bulldozers and buying land to expand to cherish what they have, as well as preserve the game history.

Just a humble hack's opinion.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


Terrific post.


I would only disagree on one thing, its not too late.  They can still create a PGATour ball to be used by all players for Tour Events...and say "If you wanna play on this tour, you got use our ball bitches".  And if not they can go to the Asian tour or European tour, or wherever.


Its as simple as that....

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Its as simple as that....

Yes, it's as simple as that… and it's not going to happen.

The PGA Tour is run by the PGA Tour players. They would not vote for such a thing. It's a complete non-starter/pie-in-the-sky/daydream.

And "what would the harm be in bifurcation?" Too long a list to (re)post here. Many things have been listed in many other discussions here. And "what's the risk in trying it out?" C'mon… You're going to massively change the way the game is played with the idea that you'll just say "oops, never mind" a few years later? And you don't see any downsides in that?

I don't even know what to say to that line of thought.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


Perhaps that's the real question.  I admittedly don't know the inner workings of the PGATour, but it was my impression that while the Tour Players have input and say, they don't have controlling power, aka a 51% stake in how things are decided at the end of the day.


I would be interested to know in how the mechanics work day to day in this respect.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik - sure, if you use phrases like "massively change the way the game is played" I can understand why you wouldn't want to explore that line of thought. But we're talking about a change in the specs of a golf ball -- mandated only at the professional level of the game, and with amateurs still free to make whatever choice they want. That's it; that's essentially all that's involved. 
It would entail manufacturers create their product under one (new) set of regs/restrictions instead of another (older) one; that doesn't seem like a massive change to me. You see the potential problems and think it's a pipe dream/non starter; others don't. As an outsider/recreational golfer, I remain intrigued that insiders like Tiger and Jack keep raising the topic.
Peter 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - sure, if you use phrases like "massively change the way the game is played" I can understand why you wouldn't want to explore that line of thought. But we're talking about a change in the specs of a golf ball -- mandated only at the professional level of the game, and with amateurs still free to make whatever choice they want. That's it; that's essentially all that's involved. 
It would entail manufacturers create their product under one (new) set of regs/restrictions instead of another (older) one; that doesn't seem like a massive change to me. You see the potential problems and think it's a pipe dream/non starter; others don't. As an outsider/recreational golfer, I remain intrigued that insiders like Tiger and Jack keep raising the topic.

Golf is a how many billions of dollars industry?

If you think that mandating a ball change for the PGA Tour would not ripple throughout golf and create a "massive" shift, I don't know what to tell you.

[Tom_Doak]

I remain intrigued that insiders like Tiger and Jack keep raising the topic.

I think it's telling that Tiger took this position not long after Nike stopped trying to make golf clubs.


And Jack was handicapped for years by playing the MacGregor ball ... at least off the first tee.

[Tom_Doak]

Erik,


Perhaps that's the real question.  I admittedly don't know the inner workings of the PGATour, but it was my impression that while the Tour Players have input and say, they don't have controlling power, aka a 51% stake in how things are decided at the end of the day.

I would be interested to know in how the mechanics work day to day in this respect.

Oh, the players run the Tour.  Sure, there are executives in charge, and sponsors, but none of them are willing to take the risk of running afoul of the players' will toward things, in particular the star players.  Because all the stars have to do is decide not to come to your event, and you're in dire straits.


Of course, the players are influenced by their endorsement money from the equipment companies, but not any more than most other parties in the game ... most of all the media, which 100% rely on ad revenue from the equipment companies.  The media are always the first to mock the need for any equipment regulation, so much so that their masters don't even have to place a call to get them to do it.


Do teaching pros get money from the equipment companies?  I don't know the answer to this.  Architects don't, but there are lots of architects who are happy to keep charging fees to update courses to deal with all the equipment changes.