Joe Sponcia's IMO piece entitled Golf Equipment: A Case Study

[John Mayhugh]

Niall,
I think the big difference with golf is the idea of a person playing against par, where the opponent is clearly another person (or team) in other sports. The opponent means the playing field is not as important. Scores perceived as too low relative to par are what has driven length increases. 

Have there been technology issues in bowling? There's an example where scoring system and playing field haven't changed.

I was a little late to read this, but Joe's usage of holes at Holston makes this really easy to relate to. I have trouble enough with the existing course.

[Peter Flory]

Bowling is dying and has very similar problems as golf with the technology- i.e. tech advancements have lessened the importance of shot making and have turned it into a power game that is boring to watch due to the lack of variance. 

There is ongoing debate about a rollback... but resistence to that because of how it might turn off the recreational players who would see their averages drop. 

https://medium.com/tloveatl-codeworld/tech-no-bowl-how-technology-has-spurred-regulation-changes-in-10-pin-bowling-2deeeafccd0c

Similar to golf, in pro bowling, the only defense against the technology is to make the field of play more difficult.  They do it with oil patterns that recrecational players never have to face.  Recreational players get oil patterns that act more like bumpers (oily in the middle and dryer on the sides). 

[Sean_A]

Tucky

Nobody plays against par. Golfers may use par as a scoring guideline which may help with a strategy to play against golfers. Or maybe they practice with par in mind.

Ciao

[Niall C]

John


Sean beat me to it. Perhaps if we weren't so card and pencil obsessed we'd appreciate that more.


The whole rollback argument reminds me of the ideal course discussions that took place back in the early days of golf course design. Then it was ideal hole lengths to fit a notional idea of shot length, now it seems we seem to be wanting to reverse engineer things so that the equipment provides shots of a notional distance to fit existing hole lengths.


Back then the idea got kicked into touch and I suspect the same will apply this time. The likes of you and I will just keep plugging away with our Ping Eye 2's while the youngsters will try whatever new gadget comes on the market. Hasn't that always been the way ?


Niall

[Peter Flory]

If you're OK with technology evolving, then would you be OK with the restrictions just being eliminated altogether so that it can evolve naturally?  We could have 600cc drivers with no CT limits or COR limits, and balls that fly 20% further if the USGA would just eliminate testing and remove the limits. 

[Thomas Dai]

The whole rollback argument reminds me of the ideal course discussions that took place back in the early days of golf course design. Then it was ideal hole lengths to fit a notional idea of shot length, now it seems we seem to be wanting to reverse engineer things so that the equipment provides shots of a notional distance to fit existing hole lengths.

This might be the small ‘golf shots and design only’ position but it doesn’t reflect the bigger perspective ... a world presently inhabited by 7.7 billion people all of whom desire to be fed and watered and clothed yet all of whom live on a planet with finite land, water etc resources. And of course the huge majority of the 7.7 billion don’t give a damn about golf and whether it is played or not or even if it continues to exist.
Golf needs to get its own house in order otherwise the alternative is that outside factors or agencies with their own vested political and social interests and no liking for golf will impose their regulations upon golf.
Atb

[John Mayhugh]

Tucky

Nobody plays against par. Golfers may use par as a scoring guideline which may help with a strategy to play against golfers. Or maybe they practice with par in mind.

Ciao

But people that run clubs pay attention to par and scoring and may make changes if they fear their course is being too easy.

[Thomas Dai]

No par, no handicap, no competitive golf amateur golf unless scratch.
A benchmark is needed whether it's called 'par' or 'bogey' or something else. The important thing is how and where the benchmark is set.
As to pro-scratch-TV-golf, Nicklaus was once asked what he thought was going to be the winning score in some tournament. The interviewer was expecting an answer like 'x-under' but Nicklaus answered something like "276" adding that "276" usually wins this tournament on this course. In other words he was focussed on the probable a 4-round winning score (and no doubt how he was planning on scoring it).
Different folks, different thought patterns.
atb

[Sean_A]

No par, no handicap, no competitive golf amateur golf unless scratch.
A benchmark is needed whether it's called 'par' or 'bogey' or something else. The important thing is how and where the benchmark is set.
As to pro-scratch-TV-golf, Nicklaus was once asked what he thought was going to be the winning score in some tournament. The interviewer was expecting an answer like 'x-under' but Nicklaus answered something like "276" adding that "276" usually wins this tournament on this course. In other words he was focussed on the probable a 4-round winning score (and no doubt how he was planning on scoring it).
Different folks, different thought patterns.
atb

ATB...aka Welsh Wizard

I am confident a smart bloke could devise a handicap system without the use of par.  It was done prior to par.  In the main, way too much thought and effort are given over to handicapping.  Golfers are too precious about competitions when the truth is any handicap event is for hackers. I find it incredibly ironic that golfers with handicaps get serious competiitions when such a crutch is needed to compete.

I wonder if golf is any better off for the idea of par? 

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

Dean Knuth's handicap system is a system without par. Par was only introduced to it when WHS was created.