[Niall C]

Hmm, I'm struggling to see how bifurcation is going to work in practice. Can't imagine the manufacturers will be too happy having their show ponies playing "inferior" equipment which they aren't going to be able to sell. I'm also struggling to imagine fans being that interested, and consequently sponsors being that interest. Once they lose the interest then the tournament ceases to be a major.

In theory, fans of auto racing would all be opposed to slower cars, but they didn't care one bit.


It's the manufacturers who stand in the way. It's all about the Benjamins.  The players are only going to boycott The Masters if the equipment companies pay them to skip it, and the fans might not take kindly to that.

Tom


The problem with that example is that the motor racing fans don't often get to drive the same track, and very very rarely get to drive the same cars. One of the beauties of golf is that to an extent we can play the same course and with the same equipment as the elite. That's one of the points of interest watching professional golf, measuring yourself up against the best. A top player hitting the ball 230 yards with an iron to stop it on a green next to the hole induces wonder in viewers who can't hit it that far with a driver. 


Now you may counter you'd still have the spectacle and the excitement of players competing against each other and to an extent you'd be right. But you'd still be left with the feeling that what you were watching was in some way an inferior product, a bit like watching Formula E as opposed to Formula 1.


And if the R&A, USGA and the Masters decided to go down the Formula E route with their tournaments, as some on here seem to be suggesting, there would be a real possibility that the tournaments could bomb and lose their major status, which is after all not something tangible that can be owned and protected in any legal way. With that they lose perhaps their main source of income, and I think inevitably their status and clout perhaps resulting in the power shifting to the PGA Tour and the manufacturers.


I suspect most on here wouldn't cry for governing bodies in that scenario but I for one think their innate conservatism has served the game well. I'd hate for the game to be ruled by wholly commercial interests.


Niall 

[Mike_Clayton]

Niall,


I've always thought the weakness of the often-made analogy made between athletics - running, jumping, throwing etc - formula one, swimming, - and golf is a poor one.
In none of those sports/games are the fields of play designed to test a wild range of skills long (a driver, 4i par 4 for example) thought always to be essential to the essence of the game.  A swimming pool is not a piece of architecture.
They are simply places testing how fast people can go - although F1 has the element of wildly different tracks testing different skills. Monte Carlo, for example seems to be their Hilton Head.
Nor do I think there is any chance of majors losing status, notwithstanding the demise The Western Open and the British and US Ams as majors.


What replaces them? The Players? Definitely not a 30-man Fed Ex Cup final.

[Niall C]

Mike


You mention the Western which is a good example. Before that, and in this country you had the PGA/News of the World which was second only to the Open and who knows about it now ? The current majors have a certain natural advantage in terms of the organisations that run them but even then the Open nearly lost its status until Palmer showed it some interest. I don't think the R&A or Augusta or USGA are taking any chances and have upped their game in the way they market and promote their tournaments. 


I just don't see them going out on a limb and risking the status of their tournaments in order to promote change.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Hmm, I'm struggling to see how bifurcation is going to work in practice. Can't imagine the manufacturers will be too happy having their show ponies playing "inferior" equipment which they aren't going to be able to sell. I'm also struggling to imagine fans being that interested, and consequently sponsors being that interest. Once they lose the interest then the tournament ceases to be a major.

In theory, fans of auto racing would all be opposed to slower cars, but they didn't care one bit.


It's the manufacturers who stand in the way. It's all about the Benjamins.  The players are only going to boycott The Masters if the equipment companies pay them to skip it, and the fans might not take kindly to that.

Tom


The problem with that example is that the motor racing fans don't often get to drive the same track, and very very rarely get to drive the same cars. One of the beauties of golf is that to an extent we can play the same course and with the same equipment as the elite. That's one of the points of interest watching professional golf, measuring yourself up against the best. A top player hitting the ball 230 yards with an iron to stop it on a green next to the hole induces wonder in viewers who can't hit it that far with a driver. 


Now you may counter you'd still have the spectacle and the excitement of players competing against each other and to an extent you'd be right. But you'd still be left with the feeling that what you were watching was in some way an inferior product, a bit like watching Formula E as opposed to Formula 1.

Niall

I don't think that is the case. When javelin specs had to be changed because guys were threatening to throw it out of the stadium, nothing changed really in the sport. The best were still the best, it's just that everyone threw it a bit less far. And nobody was worried about it.

[Thomas Dai]

When javelin specs had to be changed because guys were threatening to throw it out of the stadium, nothing changed really in the sport. The best were still the best, it's just that everyone threw it a bit less far. And nobody was worried about it.

.... exactly like how the rest of the golfing world just got on with it when the 1:62” golf ball was dropped in favour of the 1:68”.
Stiff upper lip and all that instead of moaning?
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

The elephant in the room is not the distances pros are hitting the ball. It is the distances unskilled young fit amateurs are hitting the ball in unpredictable directions. Reining in the ball will happen when it is recognised universally that golf has a major health and safety issue, both on the course and in respect of neighbouring properties and roads etc. This is the area which should be highlighted by proponents of a restricted ball.

I haven't seen or heard of this elephant in my corner of the jungle.   In fact, other than you and the tireless David Thomas who has put forth every conceivable argument in favor of making golf small and cheap, I don't recall anyone else making this claim.  I play with a lot of golfers, old and young, big hitters and distance impaired (like me), scratch and bogie types.  This is not a problem.  That's not to say that courses with boundary issues don't face liability issues, but this has been the case long before the newest arms race (the issue of how far the ball is going is more than a century old, as you should know).


I am in agreement with Sean.  Even if just the Masters mandated a rolled-back ball (provide the technical details to each of the manufacturers a year in advance and allow them to choose whether to participate- if none do, give Costco the data and a contract), others like the USGA are likely to follow, then maybe the Tour.  I suspect that the Europeans would have an easier time enacting the change due mostly to cultural factors.  Perhaps the R&A would like to lead with the Open and the Am.


Niall,


Did someone hack your gca.com account?

"And if the R&A, USGA and the Masters decided to go down the Formula E route with their tournaments, as some on here seem to be suggesting, there would be a real possibility that the tournaments could bomb and lose their major status, which is after all not something tangible that can be owned and protected in any legal way. With that they lose perhaps their main source of income, and I think inevitably their status and clout perhaps resulting in the power shifting to the PGA Tour and the manufacturers.

[/color]"I suspect most on here wouldn't cry for governing bodies in that scenario but I for one think their innate conservatism has served the game well. I'd hate for the game to be ruled by wholly commercial interests." [/i][/b]

Sometimes, perhaps, inertia and the preservation of the status quo work in tandem with "commercial interests".  The "problem" (as someone has previously suggested that it be first defined) is plural and the reason why there are so many different opinions on what should be done.  I personally don't care if the ball is rolled back in terms of how it would affect my game, though I am not THE PROBLEM.  Seeking to constrain the game universally because maybe 1% hit the ball "too far" is too draconian and unreasonable.  We regularly use USGA promulgated local rules at state, regional, and national events with regards to the ball.  All the USGA would need to do is put out the specifications and makes/brands of a tournament ball in its list and the organizers can make it a condition of play.

[Niall C]

Lou


I'd typed out a response but got timed out when I tried to post and I don't think I've got the energy at this time of night to give it another go but fair to say I don't think I'm saying anything that would contradict what I've said before.


Niall

[Niall C]

I don't think that is the case. When javelin specs had to be changed because guys were threatening to throw it out of the stadium, nothing changed really in the sport. The best were still the best, it's just that everyone threw it a bit less far. And nobody was worried about it.

Adam


I suspect you meant to respond to Mike's comments rather than mine as I only dealt with Tom's motor racing analogy. However in terms of the javelin, it's not a popular public participation sport with equipment manufacturers paying eye watering amounts to promote their particular brand of javelin. So when the athletics body changed the spec of the javelin I can't imagine their was any danger of The Mighty Javelin Company setting up their own events.


Niall

[Mike_Clayton]

The elephant in the room is not the distances pros are hitting the ball. It is the distances unskilled young fit amateurs are hitting the ball in unpredictable directions. Reining in the ball will happen when it is recognised universally that golf has a major health and safety issue, both on the course and in respect of neighbouring properties and roads etc. This is the area which should be highlighted by proponents of a restricted ball.

I haven't seen or heard of this elephant in my corner of the jungle.   In fact, other than you and the tireless David Thomas who has put forth every conceivable argument in favor of making golf small and cheap, I don't recall anyone else making this claim.  I play with a lot of golfers, old and young, big hitters and distance impaired (like me), scratch and bogie types.  This is not a problem.  That's not to say that courses with boundary issues don't face liability issues, but this has been the case long before the newest arms race (the issue of how far the ball is going is more than a century old, as you should know).


Lou,


Ian Andrew and I have both argued boundary issues are exacerbated by the ball going further off-line. I've never seen the ball hit as far off line as it is now by exactly the players Duncan is referencing - young, strong guys with speed, the club way inside and the face open. The consequent high, block cuts go miles off line.

[Mark Fedeli]

One of the beauties of golf is that to an extent we can play the same course and with the same equipment as the elite. That's one of the points of interest watching professional golf, measuring yourself up against the best. A top player hitting the ball 230 yards with an iron to stop it on a green next to the hole induces wonder in viewers who can't hit it that far with a driver. 

We so easily accept this as being true—but is it really? The whole idea of playing the same courses and equipment as the pros has been grossly over-glamorized. That’s got nothing to do with why the vast majority of people watch golf. Sure it’s cool to play a course you saw on TV, but how often does the average person actually get to do that? And how much lower is the percentage of people who, using the same equipment, can hit any of the famous pro shots they remember seeing? Some muppet dropping a ball in the right trees on 13 at Augusta, trying to slash it up onto the green like Phil, sounds less like a romantic aspect of the game and more like just horsing around. After all, we don’t wax rhapsodic when 25 caps are insisting on playing from the very back tees at Bethpage.

[Sean_A]

I agree Mark. Those days are long gone for most. Plus, these guys usually play tees most never bother to seek out.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Ian Andrew and I have both argued boundary issues are exacerbated by the ball going further off-line. I've never seen the ball hit as far off line as it is now by exactly the players Duncan is referencing - young, strong guys with speed, the club way inside and the face open. The consequent high, block cuts go miles off line.

+1 ... thank you Mike .... and Ian and the numerous others worldwide who have written articles and contributed to podcasts etc on this and other closely related subjects.
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,


Ian Andrew and I have both argued boundary issues are exacerbated by the ball going further off-line. I've never seen the ball hit as far off line as it is now by exactly the players Duncan is referencing - young, strong guys with speed, the club way inside and the face open. The consequent high, block cuts go miles off line.

Mike,


Let me note at the outset that I look forward to seeing your work at Shady Oaks.  I used to play the course a bit some years ago and felt that it could be substantially improved.


Re: distance related boundary/safety problems, I did qualify my comments as being U.S. centric.  I would enjoy reading your and Ian's arguments if you are able to link them for me. 


From personal experience, I can remember just one wildly hit drive that went a mile some 100 yards offline- a Mike Nuzzo straight pull at Whispering Pines more than 15 years ago.  It was so unique that I still remember the shot (though not the specific hole) like it was yesterday and that he was able to then hit it over the trees to the green in regulation.


I can think of specific, individual examples of long hitters at various handicap levels and without exception, the wild misses, especially to the right/slice side are considerably shorter.  Having followed the distance issue for as long as I've been on this site (some 20 years), I play close attention to how others play the game every time I am on the course.


Without a dog in this hunt, I am fairly comfortable that confirmation bias has not seeped into my still open opinion on this issue.  Again, from my experience relative to safety, I have more to fear from close-in than from 300+ yards out.  I've been hit twice in my 50+ years in the game, once from < 5 yards, the other from about 40 or so, both shanks hit by very poor golfers.  Perhaps I should become an activist in pushing the ruling bodies to require proper training, licensing and periodic re-testing of golfers in order to allowed on the course.  Talk about "common sense regulation" killing the victim.


It seems to me that just throwing stuff up on the wall to see what might stick is counterproductive.  Having followed the issue for a long time, I've evolved from an uncompromising roll-back to at least the Titleist Professional era position to a mostly leave-it-alone for the 99% of us for whom how far we hit the ball is not a problem.  The game can withstand bifurcation for high level competitions, maybe even gross club championships.  After all, from the courses to the equipment, what nearly all of us play on a regular basis has little resemblance to what these exceptional golfers experience. 


As an example, I played Blessings Golf Club recently from a bit over 6600 yards.  One of the guys in my group was playing new Homa irons with a price of $400/club (he said that they were mid-priced in that brand), optimized for his swing.  Both he and his equally well-equipped friend hit the ball 50+ yards pass me off the tee and usually would hit two less clubs on the iron shots from the same distance.  At 6600 yards, Blessings was more than we could handle (all of us were in the 2-6 index range) and we were up 1300 yards from the back markers.  The club is hosting the inaugural SEC Invitational tournament today through Wednesday (on the Golf Channel) and it will be interesting to watch what the men will shoot from around 7400 yards.  It is just a very different game for which, if a solvable "problem" does exist, merits a different, more nuanced approach than the one-size-fits-all roll-back.

[Lou_Duran]

Niall,


No need to expend precious energy in replying.  I was merely having fun with you, juxtaposing your comments on the subject with your prior advocacy of government-owned and operated transportation, utilities, and other services that some with your ideological bent see as public goods. 


Which brings up a question, since many courses in Scotland utilize common goods, might golf one day be seen as a public good as well?  Is a club with a course on common good land that charges visitors 200+ quid in proper form?  I suppose that St. Andrews has adopted a work-around with its resident card program. 

[Bruce Katona]

Though I'm not the one with the degree in physics or engineering, if the loss in distance going from 1.62" ball to 1.68" was 10%; why not go from the 1.68" ball to 1.74-1.76" ball?


Putting may be impacted slightly, but all players would be using the same equipment and this would slow down the distance issue for another 20 years or so.

[Mark Fedeli]

If there was bifurcation, how difficult would it be to just make the tournament ball spin a lot more, and harder to control, instead of taking away distance? I'd hope there'd be a few more people on board with the idea that speed and power should come with a higher risk of inaccuracy, and that the pros should face stiffer challenges than the rest of us in all aspects of the game, not just from the course set-up.

[Tom_Doak]

If there was bifurcation, how difficult would it be to just make the tournament ball spin a lot more, and harder to control, instead of taking away distance? I'd hope there'd be a few more people on board with the idea that speed and power should come with a higher risk of inaccuracy, and that the pros should face stiffer challenges than the rest of us in all aspects of the game, not just from the course set-up.

That would be nice for the pros, but it would just make those young wild hitters be even MORE wild; it would likely not cause them to slow down their swings.

[John Kavanaugh]

Though I'm not the one with the degree in physics or engineering, if the loss in distance going from 1.62" ball to 1.68" was 10%; why not go from the 1.68" ball to 1.74-1.76" ball?


Putting may be impacted slightly, but all players would be using the same equipment and this would slow down the distance issue for another 20 years or so.

Why not fire cannon balls at the gallery? Why are the fans at a bowling tournament aways behind the players?

[Mike_Clayton]

Lou,


Ian Andrew and I have both argued boundary issues are exacerbated by the ball going further off-line. I've never seen the ball hit as far off line as it is now by exactly the players Duncan is referencing - young, strong guys with speed, the club way inside and the face open. The consequent high, block cuts go miles off line.

Mike,


Let me note at the outset that I look forward to seeing your work at Shady Oaks.  I used to play the course a bit some years ago and felt that it could be substantially improved.


I WAS INVOLVED IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE WORK BUT NOT THE SECOND.
INVOKING ALISTER MACKENZIE AND HIS WORDS IN THE SPIRIT OF ST ANDREWS REGARDING TITIRANGI, THE NEW COURSE HE DESIGNED IN NEW ZEALAND, "THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOLES APPEARED TO BE GOOD,JUDGING FROM THE PROTOGRAPHS THEY SENT ME."


Re: distance related boundary/safety problems, I did qualify my comments as being U.S. centric.  I would enjoy reading your and Ian's arguments if you are able to link them for me. 


From personal experience, I can remember just one wildly hit drive that went a mile some 100 yards offline- a Mike Nuzzo straight pull at Whispering Pines more than 15 years ago.  It was so unique that I still remember the shot (though not the specific hole) like it was yesterday and that he was able to then hit it over the trees to the green in regulation.


I can think of specific, individual examples of long hitters at various handicap levels and without exception, the wild misses, especially to the right/slice side are considerably shorter.  Having followed the distance issue for as long as I've been on this site (some 20 years), I play close attention to how others play the game every time I am on the course.


I'VE SEEN COUNTLESS WILD RIGH BLOCK CUTS BY STRONG YOUNG PLAYERS COMBINING SPEED WITH LESS THAN IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THEY ARE NO SLICES - WHICH BY DEFINITION ARE SHORT AND LESS LIKLEY TO BE OVER A FENCE BECAUSE THEY FIRST START LEFT OF THE LINE AND SLICE. THE BLOCKS JUST START RIGHT AND GO FURTHER RIGHT.


Without a dog in this hunt, I am fairly comfortable that confirmation bias has not seeped into my still open opinion on this issue.  Again, from my experience relative to safety, I have more to fear from close-in than from 300+ yards out.  I've been hit twice in my 50+ years in the game, once from < 5 yards, the other from about 40 or so, both shanks hit by very poor golfers.  Perhaps I should become an activist in pushing the ruling bodies to require proper training, licensing and periodic re-testing of golfers in order to allowed on the course.  Talk about "common sense regulation" killing the victim.


THE SAFELY ISSUE IAN AND I HAVE REFERNECED (MAINLY ON TWITTER!) ISN'T PLAYERS SO MUCH AS HOUSES AND ROADS.


It seems to me that just throwing stuff up on the wall to see what might stick is counterproductive.  Having followed the issue for a long time, I've evolved from an uncompromising roll-back to at least the Titleist Professional era position to a mostly leave-it-alone for the 99% of us for whom how far we hit the ball is not a problem.  The game can withstand bifurcation for high level competitions, maybe even gross club championships.  After all, from the courses to the equipment, what nearly all of us play on a regular basis has little resemblance to what these exceptional golfers experience. 


I AGREE WITH THIS - HAVING PLAYED THROUGH BIFURCATION IN THE LATE 70s. IT WORKED JUST FINE AS PROS AND THEM AMATEURS SWITCHED OVER A DECADE.

[Sean_A]

If safety is concern for 10 cappers bashing the ball all over town, won't a ball with more spin create more dangerous situations?

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Titleist did a ball test with no dimples which looks like a table tennis ball which did not travel far.


https://www.titleist.co.uk/teamtitleist/gb/b/weblog/posts/the-dimpleless-golf-ball-experiment


I for one think the number of dimples needs to be reduced and its depth shallower to reduce the distances. Titliest is 332 dimples I can remember 384 as well. What is the number if dimples on the current Pro V1? 


Tennis in the 1990s was so boring with ace by ace and over again with a lack of rallies. They have now reduced the pressure of the ball and there are much more exciting games now to watch even though the quality of the returns are much better.






 

[JESII]

Ha...yes, naturally!


I wonder if the hens would support action on the fox gaining access to their pen...






The discussion really could go round and round several thousand times, couldn't it?




Regarding the safety issue; are there any statistics supporting a huge increase in injury or property damage?

[David_Tepper]

"Tennis in the 1990s was so boring with ace by ace and over again with a lack of rallies. They have now reduced the pressure of the ball and there are much more exciting games now to watch even though the quality of the returns are much better."


Sadly tennis has gone too far in the other direction, with interminable (boring) rallies of 15 or 20 strokes from the backcourt. Serve and volley tennis has become a lost art, even at Wimbledon. Over the last 20-30 years, the way tennis is played has changed a lot more than the way golf is played.

[Niall C]

One of the beauties of golf is that to an extent we can play the same course and with the same equipment as the elite. That's one of the points of interest watching professional golf, measuring yourself up against the best. A top player hitting the ball 230 yards with an iron to stop it on a green next to the hole induces wonder in viewers who can't hit it that far with a driver. 

We so easily accept this as being true—but is it really? The whole idea of playing the same courses and equipment as the pros has been grossly over-glamorized. That’s got nothing to do with why the vast majority of people watch golf. Sure it’s cool to play a course you saw on TV, but how often does the average person actually get to do that? And how much lower is the percentage of people who, using the same equipment, can hit any of the famous pro shots they remember seeing? Some muppet dropping a ball in the right trees on 13 at Augusta, trying to slash it up onto the green like Phil, sounds less like a romantic aspect of the game and more like just horsing around. After all, we don’t wax rhapsodic when 25 caps are insisting on playing from the very back tees at Bethpage.

Mark

I did qualify my remarks and I'm not necessarily suggesting folk generally try to recreate specific shots a la Mickelson at Augusta but whether you like it or not, and whether you consider it glamourising or not, the only reason the general golfing public have heard of Augusta because it is played by the world's best golfers every year. That's why a lot of golfers would re-mortgage their house to get to play it, not because it's a good course.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()