News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2018, 06:35:54 PM »
Eric,


If in 30 years Cameron Champ type distance became the norm (and I have no doubt it will because the longest hitters of every generation became the norm in the next) - as the unimaginable 1991 distance of John Daly has become the norm now - would you agree something would need to be done to 'protect' the golf courses?
At what point does the game at the top level cease to be the test it was?
Many would argue that happened a while ago - highlighted by DJ having to wait until September to hit more than a 7 iron to a par 4 in 2017.


And the argument about top amateurs having to adjust is a poor one in my opinion. As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions we all did the same during the transition to the big ball. The whole of the European Tour had to do it for the 1974 British Open.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #76 on: October 18, 2018, 06:51:33 PM »
Agreed on this last post, and I think the only thing the PGA Tour need govern is the ball to accomplish this. (thru dimpling/distance limiting)

Several years ago, my rec team was having softball batting practice.  One of the guys on our team, was an accomplished ex-baseball player who spent several years playing Triple A for the Phillies before recently retiring. Our field was about 290-300 in center, and this guy was hitting moon shot after moon shot way, way over the fence with the normal regulation softballs.   Just a sweet effortless swing and the ball was just gone, (easily 350+ on many of them). 

Then we rotated in a handful of blue dot limited flight balls (about 7 or 8) .  He was still hitting these bombs, but only managed to hit one out, (several to the track).  But nothing changed, same bat, same pitcher, same conditions....just a limited flight ball that knocks off 15-20%, no questions asked.

This was over 20 years ago, and they had it all figured out back then.  The Tour could easily create a limited flight ball and restore "Traditional shot values" overnight.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 06:56:02 PM by Kalen Braley »

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #77 on: October 18, 2018, 07:12:41 PM »

the problem with the limited ball and modern clubs is that there is very little potential to mis hit the ball.  I'd rather have high tech everything, but with a cc limit on the club heads to something similar to a persimmon size.  Then if guys want to swing 120+, a great driver is a risky thing and is more impressive when pulled off.  Under that scenario, the chicks could still dig the long ball, and the control players could compete with their accuracy. 


It would make either style valid.  It seems like the non power hitters have little to no chance on many courses right now. 






Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #78 on: October 19, 2018, 02:11:52 AM »

Erik,


Part of the charm of golf has been that we all play the same game with pretty much the same equipment.  One reason I think that golf is losing its charm for a lot of people is that the game they see on TV is miles away from the game most of us play.  As has been said on this thread, the gap between the pros and a club golfer has never been greater.  As the game becomes more high tech and more about power and speed it leaves the grass roots further and further behind.  You break that charm you are talking about.


I was playing the other day with very storied amateur who plays off plus numbers.  His best drive of the day left him 80m into a par 4.  Three groups later a young amateur who is about to turn pro drove the green.  Pro golf used to be great to watch because of the variety of player types.  Pavin beat Norman in a US Open because the game had balance between power and finesse.  It's just all power now.  It's a shame that the best courses are being made obsolete but it's just as sad that pro golf has become one dimensional and boring and Tiger aside the ratings reflect that.




Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #79 on: October 19, 2018, 11:21:07 AM »
Brian,


Excellent post.  Its interesting, if charm is being at least partially defined as amateurs relating to the pros, and at least thinking they could hang with them for a few holes....rolling them back distance-wise would actually accomplish this goal far more effectively than playing with someone who consistently hits it 70-80 yards past you.


« Last Edit: October 19, 2018, 11:24:16 AM by Kalen Braley »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #80 on: October 21, 2018, 12:24:48 AM »
Eric,
Mike, please have the respect of spelling my name properly.

If in 30 years Cameron Champ type distance became the norm (and I have no doubt it will because the longest hitters of every generation became the norm in the next) - as the unimaginable 1991 distance of John Daly has become the norm now - would you agree something would need to be done to 'protect' the golf courses?
I don't agree that Cameron Champ will become the norm (Web.com Tour players often drive the ball farther than PGA Tour players, and many don't keep their PGA Tour cards. Hank Kuehne?), and I'm not terribly interested in hypotheticals 30 years out.

I do not care much about the tiny fraction of golfers that play professionally as far as these rules go.

And the argument about top amateurs having to adjust is a poor one in my opinion. As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions we all did the same during the transition to the big ball. The whole of the European Tour had to do it for the 1974 British Open.
Yes, and on each occasion you've seemingly ignored the fact that the world is quite different than it was 40 years ago.


As has been said on this thread, the gap between the pros and a club golfer has never been greater.

If that's true - and nobody can prove that it is - it's only because the pros are much better than they were 40 years ago.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #81 on: October 21, 2018, 01:09:42 AM »

The one difference in golf would be that I have played in events in the same season, even the same month, that would require me to change equipment in your scenario. That's not true in all those sports you mentioned. You play a whole season with the same equipment and then get an adjustment period.

However, it seems to me that the only people this really makes a difference for are high level amateurs that no longer have plans to play professionally. That's a pretty small group of people. Although it seems to have grown.


Steve:


The key to the switch-over in the U.K. back in the 1970's was actually that they made the small ball illegal for the Amateur Championship, as well as The Open.  This required the best amateurs to switch to playing the big ball full-time.


Naturally, they didn't want to give up 25 yards to their opponents when playing at other levels.  So, slowly but surely, pressure from good players was what caused weaker players to make the switch if they wanted to play in big regional events, and then county tournaments, and eventually for the club championship.  The R & A didn't set a time limit where every player had to switch ... they just let peer pressure work its magic until most players had switched of their own volition.  The same process could work for another change, if the powers that be wanted it to work.


NOTE:  I saw an old friend this past week, a former USGA insider, who told me he thinks they are close to doing something after all these years.  He said they are pretty much all agreed a change in specs is warranted, but they are divided on whether to bifurcate the equipment rules, or to make everyone switch.  So they are bifurcated on bifurcation ?  I'll believe it when I see it, but I'd love to see it, if only to see Erik's reaction   :D

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #82 on: October 21, 2018, 02:40:57 AM »
Tom


I believe that the 1.62 did not become illegal in the UK until 1982, and then only for elite tournaments (Open, Amateur Championship).  I was there then, and I confirmed my recollection by Googling!


What did happen in the 70's was the allowance for elite players to play the 1.68 ball if they wanted to (it went shorter than the 1.62 but putted better)  IIRC.


BTW I had my first hole in one in the USA in 1979 (at Spyglass #12, with a Dunlop 65).  I'm not sure if it counts..... :-\


Rich
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #83 on: October 21, 2018, 11:05:49 AM »
Erik


Apologies.


I'm not sure why the world is different than it was 40 years ago. It's just golf. Players adapt - they always have and the generation who started playing with wood and balata and finished up with today's equipment have had to adapt as much as generation since the second war.


And the exception has always become the norm one of two generations on - going all the way back to Ted Ray.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #84 on: October 21, 2018, 02:03:42 PM »
I'll believe it when I see it, but I'd love to see it, if only to see Erik's reaction   :D
It's not my reaction I'm worried about. It's the reaction of those I've talked to who like that they are playing under the same rules and with the same equipment as everyone else. I'm one of those people, but I'm just one. I already choose to play with blades, because I like how they perform, and not a game-improvement club. I grew up playing persimmon and balata, even though I came to golf at about 14. I like the challenge. I'll be fine. But I will also feel that the game has lost something, and that if you're not playing with the "real" equipment, you're not "really" playing golf. The same way I feel about those who roll it every time they don't happen to get a perfect lie now - they're not playing "real" golf. They're playing some variant. The game is defined by the rules, after all, and if you're not playing under those rules you're not playing golf.

You see… I'm a traditionalist. I like the old stuff. I know a good bit of golf's history. I read everything I could get my hands on when I was a kid, and still do as time allows. I appreciate the difficulty of golf. I just don't think we've lost much of anything like many of you seem to think we have. I think the game's still pretty much as it has always been. I think the lack of an additional penalty for failing to include an "unknown penalty" is a bigger affront to the game than players hitting the ball farther because they're swinging faster and the solid core ball, which adheres to the ODS, flies a little bit farther. I also don't really care much about the tiny fraction of players that make their living playing professional golf.

I'm curious, too, after you related the tale about peer pressure and the top amateurs switching, why so many people seem to think that wouldn't just happen again. If enough of the people who buy golf equipment play the "pro level" stuff, companies won't manufacture the "amateur level" stuff.

Also, I'm curious too what the USGA/R&A do, but don't think it'll be very much. Look at how they just backed off almost completely on the green reading books. The rules now for that are almost entirely for show. They limit the size of the paper, as if PGA Tour players were carrying around legal pads with green maps on them.

I'm not sure why the world is different than it was 40 years ago.
Yet it has. The role and influence of manufacturers has changed. The role and influence of PGA Tour players has changed. The number of golfers has changed. How widespread the game is globally has changed. The average golfer has changed, as generations have changed - Millennials do things differently, buy differently, feel differently than Baby Boomers, both now and when they were similar ages.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 02:09:22 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #85 on: October 21, 2018, 06:03:57 PM »

Erik,


everything changes yet the more they do the more they stay the same  ;)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2018, 06:48:24 PM »

Erik,


Part of the charm of golf has been that we all play the same game with pretty much the same equipment.  One reason I think that golf is losing its charm for a lot of people is that the game they see on TV is miles away from the game most of us play.  As has been said on this thread, the gap between the pros and a club golfer has never been greater.  As the game becomes more high tech and more about power and speed it leaves the grass roots further and further behind.  You break that charm you are talking about.


I was playing the other day with very storied amateur who plays off plus numbers.  His best drive of the day left him 80m into a par 4.  Three groups later a young amateur who is about to turn pro drove the green.  Pro golf used to be great to watch because of the variety of player types.  Pavin beat Norman in a US Open because the game had balance between power and finesse.  It's just all power now.  It's a shame that the best courses are being made obsolete but it's just as sad that pro golf has become one dimensional and boring and Tiger aside the ratings reflect that.

Brian, please don't take anything I write as picking on you.  About the only good thing I can think of about being old is that it gives those with inquisitive minds and decent memories better perspective.

First of all, the vast, vast majority of golfers don't think of golf in terms of "charm".  Such quaint affectations are limited to relatively few people, even in this Discussion Group.

Second, the assertion that we all play the same game with pretty much the same equipment is but a fantasy.  I played the Scarlet course at Ohio State the day after the NCAA final round circa 1975 with the same set up and as a 2 or so handicap, I didn't break 90.  I was a better player during the 1978 Columbus District GA Open at Muirfield Village and I only pared the par 3s (didn't break 90).  The avg. golfer played a vastly different game than the top players then as well as today.

As to equipment, I have several friends who have spent $hundreds for club fitting and $4-5k+ plus for equipment.  I read somewhere that when Tiger played Nike clubs, that the irons were actually Japanese forgings stamped with the Swoosh, each costing upwards $5k.  I can replace every club in my bag for $500.  One of my +handicap friends has a shaft in his driver costing $700+  I doubt that there is a single pro in the top 10 tours who plays anything similar to what is my bag.

I agree that the gap between the club golfer and the elite is increasing.   I play a lot of golf with many different people and have yet to hear, "Man, I am losing my interest in the game because DJ, JT, Bruce, or Rosie are so much better than I can ever be".   I remember when big JohnD was knocking it out of the world how everyone was captivated.  Nothing has changed.

I have lost some good golf friends over the years and the cause of quitting the game permanently has nearly always been economics after lost jobs, divorces, higher costs of living, family commitments, and for physical reasons (theirs or their golfing companions).  Again, outside of this DG, has anyone heard just one person say, "well, Jordan has such a superior short game/Justin just hits the ball too far, that golf has lost all of its charm for me".?

I officiate 5-10 state and national qualifiers of various age groups each year.  There is a humongous range of abilities and strength at all levels.  Not surprisingly, some of the US Junior Am aspirants hit the ball as far or farther than the US Open competitors who have toned their swings down.  There are always handfuls of college players who hit the ball a country mile.

The number of entries and the level of competition at every level has never been higher.  If top level golf is declining, I don't see where that's reflected.  TV ratings?  How's Tiger's return and the unprecedented reaction play into this?  Golf has become too one-dimensional in favor of distance, but we'll set that aside to watch a guy who hits it longer than ever.  This makes sense?

If we want to understand the decline in golf participation in the Western World, first study economics and the impact of declining discretionary income in the cohorts that tend to play the game.  Look at the Baby Boomers whose fixed-income investments have been decimated by political priorities favoring debtors.  Uncertainty is poison to golf, a game which has extraordinarily high fixed expenses and requires considerable optimism from its various constituencies.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2018, 09:16:27 PM »

I'm curious, too, after you related the tale about peer pressure and the top amateurs switching, why so many people seem to think that wouldn't just happen again. If enough of the people who buy golf equipment play the "pro level" stuff, companies won't manufacture the "amateur level" stuff.


I'm curious why you think that would be a bad thing.  Honestly, I can't begin to follow your logic through this thread.  Every time anyone makes a serious point, you change the frame of reference.


In the example I cited, where UK and worldwide golfers eventually gave up the small ball, did that cause a decline in participation?  A rout of the manufacturers?  The end of the game?  Most people didn't even notice the change, because it happened due to golfer demand.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #88 on: October 21, 2018, 10:57:17 PM »
"If enough of the people who buy golf equipment play the "pro level" stuff, companies won't manufacture the "amateur level" stuff."

Erik B. -

Sorry, but that statement makes no sense at all. What do you figure the current sales ratio of "pro level" vs. "amateur level" stuff is currently? 5% vs. 95%? 10% vs. 90%? 20% vs. 80%?

Do you seriously think there could ever be circumstances where more of the former vs. the latter is sold? I sure don't.

DT 

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #89 on: October 22, 2018, 09:37:32 AM »
As to golf balls, I believe manufacturers have dispensations for prototype balls to be played in pro events. Prototypes that is, that have been okayed by the authorities (ie on the conforming list). Also that some tour pro's play previous versions of currently manufactured balls.
atb

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #90 on: October 22, 2018, 09:52:25 AM »
Thomas, yes and no. The manufacturer's go through the same testing process every conforming ball must go through to allow a Tour player (or anyone subject to USGA/R&A rules) to use it. Titleist may have 20 different Tour level balls on the approved list. As a business decision, they only actively manufacture a few. They do one-off runs of the others to make sure the Tour guys that don't like the current version have enough for the season but don't distribute them.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #91 on: October 22, 2018, 02:20:33 PM »
Lou,

I really like your last comment.  In all my years I've only seen people quit the game for three reasons:

1) Financial as you mentioned, the big one.
2) Something health related, (injury or age otherwise)
3) Time issues, other things in life take priority.

I'm still waiting to meet this mythical person in real life who says they gotta quit cause Bubba can paste it 100 yards past them.


P.S.  Erik, I'm sure if we could resurrect a whole bunch of dudes, they would be aghast with your progressive Traditional viewpoints and insist on thier own.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 02:22:17 PM by Kalen Braley »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #92 on: October 22, 2018, 09:43:55 PM »
"Look at the Baby Boomers whose fixed-income investments have been decimated by political priorities favoring debtors."

Lou D. -

"Decimated?" Seriously?

The U.S. Barclays Aggregate Bond Index has averaged annual returns of 2.16% & 3.77% over the past 5 and 10 years.

The Barclays National Municipal Bond Index has averaged annual returns of 3.54% & 4.75% over the past 5 and 10 years.

The Barclays High Yield Bond Index has averaged annual returns of 5.54% & 9.46% over the past 5 and 10 years.

Granted, anyone who made the mistake of being over-invested in CDs, savings accounts and money market funds saw their interest income fall sharply, but that hardly amounts to decimation.

On the other hand, U.S. equities, by almost any measure, have provided average annual returns in excess of 10% over both the past 5 and 10 years.

DT

P.S. Over the past 10 years, the worst year of annual returns for the Barclays Agg. Bond Index (and the only year it had a negative return) was 2013, when it declined 2.02%.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 10:15:56 PM by David_Tepper »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #93 on: October 22, 2018, 11:16:15 PM »
David T,

As a financial services professional you know better than most about asset allocation across age groups.   You probably also know that as people approach retirement- say the Baby Boomers I referenced- they tend to become more conservative about their money, fearing that it will run out before they do.

You probably also have good data regarding which income brackets actually invest in bonds- quality, high-yield, and/or through mutual funds.   The older folks who support second and third tier clubs and daily-fee courses are not typically the type who have large managed portfolios with expert asset allocation across various classes of investments to support their lifestyles through the end of life.

There are enough wealthy folks, young and old, to populate the top exclusive clubs in most large cities.  These are people who are not income sensitive and don't rely on low yielding fixed-income investments to support their upscale preferences.  Incidentally, these folks must not be too terribly concerned about how far the elite hit the ball as many of the clubs they belong to have historically long waiting lists and high initiation fees (and no, I don't want to get into an egalitarian concentration of wealth argument).

But let's look at the averages you provided, and to be fair, let's go with an intermediate "safe" return, say 3.5%.  What is inflation running? The Fed is targeting 2% and is raising interest rates- maybe it has data that actual (not fake CPI) inflation is higher?  So, let's say 2.5%.  Consider income taxes on top of that, say in NY, CA, IL, after paying 35% on inflated income, the investor is "earning" a negative return (3.5%*.65-2.5%= -.155%).

To flesh it out- a guy who might live in an affordable retirement community in CA or NY with $1Million in bonds-some would say he is pretty well off- earning 3.5% from his portfolio has $35,000 income to supplement his Social Security.  He pays his federal, state and local income taxes, probably 35%, so now he has $22,750 left to spend.  Unfortunately, what he could buy the year before with his after-tax bond income now costs $23,318.  What is he to do?  If he was prudent , as he did the year before and the year before that, he more than likely cut his discretionary spending- so maybe the club membership he gave up after 2008 is not enough and he now has to play fewer rounds at the local muni.  Maybe frustrated with his declining play, the game loses its "charm" and he takes up cycling.  Or maybe he becomes disgruntled about things he doesn't understand and lashes out on a public website about the unfairness of all the First World problems he perceives.

Of course, many Boomers who were frequent golfers while still working are not the type who have bond portfolios.  Some had savings bonds they bought at work as part of a campaign (I got stuck before chairing a bond drive for a large department), but what most had during their financially formative years were CDs and money market accounts.   Laddering CDs was about as sophisticated as they got.  Yep, these folks have been decimated and some who are relatively financially savvy have been frozen for the past 10 years in this manipulated, fake interest rate environment.  At least they can go to bed at night thinking that they are only losing 2-3% of their principle.  Do you really think that they give a rat's ass about how far Dustin Johnson hits the ball?   
   

 

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2018, 12:13:01 AM »
Lou D. -

You are welcome to rationalize people's poor investment choices and decisions in any way you see fit.

As a baby boomer who has worked in the investment business for 39 years, I thank my lucky stars I have lived through this lengthy period of extraordinary returns of financial assets.

In addition, there has never been a period where so much investment advice and information (much of it free, some of it worthwhile and some of it useless) is so readily available. There has also never been a period when the cost and expenses of investing has ever been so low.

DT

P.S. I would be happy to see the pro tour adopt a reduced flight ball. ;)   

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2018, 04:44:20 PM »
David T,

I am good with the Tours adopting a reduced-distance ball.  I am also good with the USGA and other organizations which conduct high-level tournaments doing the same.  In fact, circa 2004, Tony Ristola and I separately attempted to persuade the USGA to do just that with very little success.

Understanding the realities of this endeavor relative to the demand for it, I don't hold my breath.  Perhaps some day the PGA Tour will put a size and strength limit on its members, or maybe apply a stroke penalty for tee shots exceeding a certain distance (we used to play sandlot baseball on a field where the left field fence was <200' and anything hit left of dead centerfield over the fence was an automatic out).  They could set limits on the clubs that can be used from certain distances, say from 140-150 yards an 8 iron or more.  Or maybe the point of diminishing returns has already been approached with the current ball and clubs specs and it is best to leave well enough alone.

We should all be blessed to be directed in our investment decisions by someone of your abilities.  I am not rationalizing poor investment decisions, though I doubt that I know anyone who has had the Midas touch over the past 10-15 years. 

The time horizon of this discussion is not 39 years.  I was looking at feasibility studies and golf market reports all through the early to mid-2000s and the projections were a bit optimistic, but certainly within the realm of possibility.  The housing crisis of 2008 might be a better starting point, and my comments were focused on the Boomers who actually followed conventional asset allocation advice which has not changed to this day.

Selling into a bear market was not a good thing, but is that a poor decision when one sees his nest egg dwindling rapidly with no idea where it will bottom out?  Is it a poor decision to move into low-risk, low yield fixed investments?  Who do you know that forecasted near zero interest rates for close to a decade?  And who anticipated that much of the rest of the world was in worse shape and would park their money in U.S. investments, often chasing yields, incurring greater risk and creating bubbles in most asset classes?

Perhaps you are the rare advisor who guided your clients through this financial maze unscathed.  Some very smart people who enjoyed great success are no longer in the business because they could not.  And if you can explain to me how the Fed can come out of the mess it helped greatly to create without putting the economy into a recession, I am all ears (offline).

But back on the subject, if someone can show me the datasets which link the decline in golf rounds played to increases in driving distance, by all means, provide them.  Better yet, If someone has access to NGF's rounds played by year by age cohorts, I would love to see the data.

Jay Mickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2018, 06:48:29 PM »
I recall reading that in the 20's elite players would have some balls wound tighter to create greater distance off the tee. When not required they would revert to something more standard.
Most of the hickory players that I play with prefer the softer balls Supersofts, Duos, etc. The players with higher swing speeds prefer Pro Vs as they can compress them for greater distance.     
@MickleStix on Instagram
MickleStix.com

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #97 on: October 23, 2018, 08:22:23 PM »
.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 12:21:56 AM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

B.Ross

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #98 on: November 01, 2018, 02:32:37 PM »
the tour appears uninterested in doing anything and has no problem finding new track's that are just longer and longer, even if architecturally weaker, to play on.


the power to curb the ball lies not in the hands of the tour, usga or r&a, but in the hands of fred ridley & ANGC's board/membership/tourney committee.  let me explain...


the masters has the power and place in golf to tell its invited players they are using a masters ball and that's that. i've read places that the masters should submit specs to all the OEMs to create their own masters ball. i don't like that line of thinking.


Augusta should let the OEMs bid against one another to gain the right to become the "official ball of the masters," which will be the best advertisement a ball company could ever get. ideally, it's a ball brand used by only a handful of players already on tour (bridgestone, srixon) or none at all (wilson, VICE, volvik). you get a 4 day window as the sole ball manufacturer with presence at the most watched golf tournament of the year. you create a ball that can be sold in stores, to be purchased by purists and elite amateurs who want to go play the Yale's of the world without overpowering it.


it's a ball that can be mandated for use at say a northeast invitational or any other elite amateur tournament played on a course that's less than 6500 yards. other governing golf bodies could follow suit and demand its use for any tournament that's an invitational. to me, that is the key. you cannot force 1 ball upon a field in a tournament that's qualified for or is an open, but you certainly could during an invitational. if i'm not mistaken, the at&T pro am's an invitational. a reduced flight ball could bring cypress point back into play


and by the way, if augusta did this, no need to cut the fairways in a way to kill all the roll. they wouldn't even need to re-shorten the course that much. somewhere, a perfect distance for ANGC sits between what it was like back in 86, where it was when tiger slayed it in 97, and what they've done to it in attempts to "tiger proof it."


if not obvious, the reason why ANGC can do this for the masters is because it's the only event where the tournament in itself is more powerful and significant than those who compete in it. there's no way the world's best players decline their invitation to augusta merely because they have to use 1 specific ball. i understand that there are qualification rules about making the masters field, but it's still an invitational at the end of the day and the only one with the power to enact change before courses that are even 7k yards are instinct.

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #99 on: November 01, 2018, 03:04:10 PM »
Erik


Apologies.


I'm not sure why the world is different than it was 40 years ago. It's just golf. Players adapt - they always have and the generation who started playing with wood and balata and finished up with today's equipment have had to adapt as much as generation since the second war.


And the exception has always become the norm one of two generations on - going all the way back to Ted Ray.


Sadly Mike, our two countries are a striking example of how different the world is from 40 years ago.  More and more, people care ONLY about how things feel or affect themselves. 
Even in this debate, there are a number who want professional golf to change while keeping their own advantages.  Bring up a game wide adjustment of scale and a lot of murmuring and hand wringing begins. 


Gonna be tough to find any successful adjustment that doesn’t cause greater divides

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back