[Thomas Dai]

Regrettably there are vested interests around every corner and the amount of $$££ involved makes alleviating matters harder.
Money talks I'm afraid, stock exchange and shareholder money too..........shame there isn't more more money to be made from wooden heads, steel shafts, wound-none-cut balls and smaller size courses amongst other things than there is from modern specification equipment and course sizes etc. Ah well, you can always dream.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

BRoss,


there is much to commend your line of thought but I would add the following. Yes, The Masters is the only tournament that could successfully introduce a shorter ball. I doubt however any single company would risk backing such a thing for fear of its' name would be trashed by complaining pros with no attachment to the brand. If each company had to develop its own ball pros would be less likely to complain about their own sponsor. On the other hand, if it were a neutral Masters ball pros would also be less likely to complain due to possible consequences.


However, I think it is really down to the USGA and R&A to introduce new rules to reduce the distance the ball flies. Maybe a 1.74 ball is the way forward


Jon

[Tom_Doak]

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.

I love playing Devil's Advocate, so ...



I will suggest that it would be somewhat risky for the Augusta National Golf Club to put this assumption to the acid test, in the manner suggested.  They have lots of power in golf now, because everyone assumes that they do.  But what if they held a Masters and only half the field came to play?  Do you remember the Rio Olympics?


Also, who really runs The Masters?  Would this be something decided by their very small Competition Committee, or would they have to put it to a vote of the membership?  And with most of the members being CEO types, do you think they want to take this kind of risk?  Entrepreneurs and CEO's have very differing views on risk.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

And to play Devils Advocate back, there were several limiting factors for Rio:

 -- Player limited event where a country could only send 4 golfers max.  So countries like the US, Australia, England are leaving dozens of players in the aggregate on the sidelines who could easily compete
-- It was in Rio and the Zika scare was in full panic mode
-- Golf hadn't been in the Olympics for over 100 years.
-- They're playing on a brand new course no one knew.

And you're comparing this to the Masters with its long stored history of the best of the best who have put on the green jacket and all the folklore that goes with it?

Sorry Tom, that's beyond apples and oranges.  No way these guys skip the masters cause the golf ball, especially given the Masters is field limited itself and the weakest of all the majors..

[Mike_Clayton]

Given there is no prize money in the Olympics, no ranking points and only three 'prizes' is it the ideal event to try a reduced ball?
Or do you risk players (Men only. The women are - and were in Rio -  much more reasoned about supporting events because they have to be) skipping it again because they couldn't be bothered adjusting?

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: The very fact of who the members are is why they might do it - why, you say, Because They Can!


Just a sidenote: a member at my club recently won the USGA Mid Am Championship and went down to AGNC this week and played 36 holes with his dad walking along with him and his caddy - he said it was so so special.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Because you played badly, we don't play under the same Rules and equipment standards?

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.

It's not illegal - you just don't choose to spend the money. But the rules and regulations for our equipment are pretty much the same as it is for them. We play to a hole that's the same size. Etc. We play under the same rules as they do.

"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.

Sure it does. If people don't buy something, they'll stop making it.

How many of the illegal Callaway driver (the ERC II) were sold? How many of those illegal "Bandit" golf balls are sold each year? Golfers don't buy what they think of as "cheater equipment." Bifurcate, and a lot of golfers will think that anything but what the pros are playing is "cheater equipment."

And, as Alan Shipnuck just wrote… he doesn't want to watch Cameron Champ drive it 275.

And Tom Doak, I'm not changing the frame of reference - I'm responding to different types of arguments.

[Thomas Dai]

How about a St Andrews spec ball and all who wish to play TOC must play it (ie are given some within the green fee)?
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

How about a St Andrews spec ball and all who wish to play TOC must play it (ie are given some within the green fee)?
Atb

I have played St. Andrews once. I had 135 yds to carry the burn on 1 to a front pin. Do you want me to hit that shot with a ball that I am not familiar? Remember this is an important shot that establishes the caddie/player relationship. The caddie was more relieved than I that I nailed it. I handed him back the 8 iron and saw in his eyes that he knew he got the "good" fat one.

[Thomas Dai]

Well, for starters you wouldn’t have hit your tee shot to 135 from a front pin with a St Andrews spec ball, you’d be a lot further back than that. And frankly, so what if you dunk it in the water coz you’re not familiar with the ball, although I’m sure if such a ball were introduced someone will sell some for folks to play or practice with beforehand.
Not many better places to start a general roll-back than one of the first courses around.

Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

Every ball that you dunk into the water raises the level an unperceived amount until that one day you are drowning in failure. That is why golfers quit. Our goal should be to lengthen that process not expedite it.

[Lou_Duran]

Erik,

We do play by the same rules and club and ball specs.  But it is an entirely different game.  Yep, I played badly on those two occasions, but probably 90%+ of golfers would have failed to complete their rounds under the rules.

And yes, I could spend $10k+ to have similar equipment as a 2nd or 3rd tier touring pro plays.  We would still be playing an entirely different game.

I am not a proponent of bifurcating the game and rolling the competitive ball back the ball to where Champ is driving it 275 yards.  I do believe that exploring a solution to the problem of elite players hitting 550 yard 5s with a driver/wedge is worthwhile. 

BTW, nothing that I am aware of stops a Little League batter from swinging a wooden bat.  I never heard a kid being concerned about cheating because he was using the newest Easton $200+ offering.
 

[Kevin_Reilly]

BTW, nothing that I am aware of stops a Little League batter from swing a wooden bat.  I never heard a kid being concerned about cheating because he was using the newest Easton $200+ offering.

Lou, I'm not sure if you are aware (I barely am, as my youngest son has been out of Little League for 4+ years now), but they changed the bat rules for the 2018 season and the new bats perform much more like wooden bats. 


In my local league, we went from 110+ HRs in 2017 (with a 210 foot fence) to 7 in 2018.  Here is an article reporting a similar decline in HRs in the LL World Series earlier this year:  https://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/08/new_bat_standards_have_greatly.html


The bats got out of control leading up to 2017...there were half swings that went over the fence.  As the father of pitchers, I was concerned about the ball velocity coming back toward the pitcher, all too often.


As far as I am aware, the change in bats has had no impact in participation statistics or general enjoyment of the game.  And Easton, Demarini and other bat companies did just fine.


PS, wooden bat tournaments are common for travel teams....my boys played in a few of those as 13 and 14 year olds.  They enjoyed playing them.  But wooden bats are just not durable enough for use....the new bats are durable and perform closer to wood.

[Thomas Dai]

Not knowing much about baseball Kevins comment about the durability of baseball bats is interesting.
Has there always been a durability issue or is this something that has developed as batsmen have got bigger and stronger or is it that lower spec wood is being used or something else?
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Kevin,

Didn't know that.  Thanks.

I last served as a LL umpire and a commissioner over 25 years ago.  It was an arms race back then, and due to the large variance in the size of some kids, I had concerns about our pitchers and corner infielders getting whacked by sharp line drives.  Glad that the changes were made.

David T,

BB was my first sport and bats have always broken or splintered.  Louisville Sluggers was the Titleist brand of my day, and the wood and manufacturing seemed to be of high quality.  Those of us who were economically sensitive would protect our favorite bats, often by wrapping the handle with electrical tape.   I liked skinny-handled bats, so I tended to wrap them immediately because they seemed easier to break.  I remember gluing and nailing splintered barrels, but they were never the same.

Like golf clubs, I always had a favorite bat.  When it would break, its identical replacement by model and size never felt the same.  If there was a lot of variability in the quality of the wood I did not notice it.  Metal bats were after my time, but for my son's, the shift had nothing to do with durability.  It was all about hitting the ball harder.



   

[Steve Lang]

   Lou,


Bats/batters were hot and dangerous when I played 3rd base... let's see, that was 1965.. made me decide to move to safer position! 

[JMEvensky]

BB was my first sport and bats have always broken or splintered.  Louisville Sluggers was the Titleist brand of my day, and the wood and manufacturing seemed to be of high quality.  Those of us who were economically sensitive would protect our favorite bats, often by wrapping the handle with electrical tape.   I liked skinny-handled bats, so I tended to wrap them immediately because they seemed easier to break.  I remember gluing and nailing splintered barrels, but they were never the same.
 

I hadn't thought of nailing back together a bat handle in years. Thanks for that.

[Kalen Braley]

I pitched baseball for 6 years as a youth and slow pitch softball my entire life up until a few years back.  After I dodged a bullet where a line drive hit me in the shoulder instead of the head...I decided to "retire" from that position.  I'd insist on a helmet before I did it again....even in the crappy D leagues that I'm only good for now.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We do play by the same rules and club and ball specs.

Which is all I ever say, and which bifurcation would eliminate. We play the same rules and the same equipment. They're better than most, so if you want to say it's a "different game," it isn't by definition… they're just better at it. But unlike other sports, it's literally the same rules and equipment.

BTW, nothing that I am aware of stops a Little League batter from swinging a wooden bat.

That's beside the point. They're playing different rules and have an entirely different ruling body.

[Peter Flory]

I was just poking around the pgatour website looking at driving stats.  This pattern stood out to me.


# of PGA tour players averaging at least 300 yards per drive in last 10 seasons (and I'll toss in this partial season)


Season: # of players
2009: 13
2010: 12
2011: 21
2012: 21
2013: 13
2014: 25
2015: 26
2016: 27
2017: 40
2018: 61
2019: 86 (this might be skewed)


What has caused the explosion from 2013 to 2018? 

[Mike_Clayton]

The exception in one generation becomes the norm in the next. It's always happened and Cameron Champ length will be the norm in 20 years.
Clubs,ball and someone proves how a clubhead speed and a ball speed is achieved.

[JESII]

Mike, my skepticism of rolling back the ball as a solution to the downstream problems seems to be supported by Cameron Champ finding 20 more yards with a creative club fitting session and Francisco Molinari finding 25 yards with some exercise and optimization work last off season.


I would suggest we focus on the people playing 99+% of the golf on our courses and try to build the game for them. When will the top clubs stop enabling the devolution of the game at the top level by spending millions of dollars to change their course in order to attract the Tours?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim: you've mentioned before how the top players can find yards with optimization & club fitting etc, and more and more I see what you mean -- and it makes this topic even more complicated for me.

In the meantime, though, and since I don't think anyone's noted it yet, Brandel Chamblee (who, btw, is not a proponent of bifurcation, or of trying to limit technology because of the .1%) posted this telling stat the other day:

Correlation of distance to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-13%
1990-14%
2000-31%
2017-44%

Correlation of accuracy to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-53%
1990-48%
2000-35%
2017-12%

Which is to say: those who feel/sense/say that the game has changed dramatically in the last 3 decades, and that longer hitters now have an exponentially greater scoring advantage than did the Nicklaus era greats, aren't wrong. 

[JESII]

Sure, but...that’s a course set up issue the Tour wants birdies so the rough is short and the greens are soft.  It’s also a maintenance issue because 8 footers are virtual gummies for the guy putting well. And lastly, I’m skeptical of the accuracy stats. If a pin is hard on the left corner (as many pins are within a few yards of an edge), the guy is likely aiming for the right edge of the fairway and misses by a few yards right. This is a better angle out of short rough than the left edge of the fairway. 

[Peter Pallotta]

You're a skeptic, you know that?
Did anyone ever tell you that - that your nature is essentially skeptical?
Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, except when you're skeptical about one of my important posts.
Anyway, just wanted to note that: i.e. after all these years I've finally realized that, basically, you're a skeptic.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()