Ask the Secretary
The Guardian offered readers a chance to email questions to R&A Secretary Peter Dawson. As you can imagine, the answers are spellbinding. Dawson is getting better at answering the technology questions. Like his counterpart in the States, he can rationalize with the best. But sorry, no baseball analogies.
Should something be done to prevent technology's influence on the game? - Neal Walker Coventry
Modern equipment has certainly helped golfers of all abilities to improve their performance and this is generally to be welcomed. At top level, skill remains the dominant factor in achieving success, as evidenced by the fact that the same players - Tiger, Vijay, Ernie, etc - consistently head the rankings. If technology had taken over, then this would not be happening. Clearly, there could come a point where technology renders courses too easy and the challenge of the game is diminished. It is the responsibility of the R&A and the United States Golf Association to ensure that this does not occur by setting the equipment rules to limit the impact of technology. Course set-up, of course, has a part to play as well.
So like, if Ernie and Tiger and Vijay start to not consistently "head the rankings" (and what great rankings they are), then that could be a possible reason to consider that technology has overtaken skill?
You have tolove the stuff where Dawson and his U.S. counterpart talk about how technology has made the game easier and that's a good thing. But that they are prepared to step in when it becomes too easy and they are monitoring that closely. But how will they gauge that?
Someday they'll understand that it's not about hard or easy, but instead, how the game is played and what elements of skill somehow got the sport to this point (and why some of those elements were worth protecting). But they would have to understand what those elements were, wouldn't they?
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 07:51 PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (26)
You also lack factual basis on how much technology has helped today's players because any measurement must include several unknowns, including course conditioning, weather, player conditioning and strength, etc. Yet you criticize the guy for saying it's made the game of golf easier for everyone. Perhaps it's made it 1% easier for pros and 50% easier for duffers. I'll take that, because a good # of people quit the game each year out of frustration. Neither of us can know to what % technology has helped different classes of golfers, but I don't believe it's helped pros that much, really. Driving distance over the past 30 years has increased less than or around one yard per year, and that trend was happening back in 1950, too. And we still can't say that's all technology because course conditioning, player conditioning, etc. have improved over time as well.
"Someday they'll understand that it's not about hard or easy, but instead, how the game is played and what elements of skill somehow got the sport to this point." What makes you think - what facts do you have - that they don't already understand that. Everyone has the same technology and, during a tournament, plays the same course. Clearly, "skill" and a bit of luck is what separates them week to week. Heck, it's the only thing that separates them. Even if the USGA and R&A raised the CoR limit to .9 or .95, skill would still be the determining factor. So your argument that they don't understand that skill separates players really lacks a foundation, because given the same equipment, the same course, etc. - skill (and a little luck) is the only variant, regardless of the equipment, the course, etc. The officials can't HELP but realize that, and the quickest way to remove or minimize skill from that equation is to force DIFFERENT equipment (tournament ball, whatever) on different players.
Erik for USGA president ! ;-)
Spoken like the true Titleist man that you are.
So a rolled back ball would be the only thing that could minimize skill, is that what you are saying?
And we can never really know how deregulation has impacted the sport, so we should just sit back and let it continue?
That makes sense...if you are a manufacturer and since you represent one, I can see your point. But I'm still not sure how you see this all helping the everyday golf course facing issues brought on by these difficult to measure changes?
"Spoken like the true Titleist man that you are." It's true, I'm not an architect (nor do I simply claim to be). I use Titleist equipment, and they make clubs, balls, putters, and bags.
"So a rolled back ball would be the only thing that could minimize skill, is that what you are saying?"
That makes no sense, logically or otherwise. So long as people are using the same equipment, compete on the same course, etc., skill will continue to be the determining factor that separates "good" from "bad" and "good" from "great."
However, simply blaming the ball (or any single aspect) is short-sighted and scientifically stupid. The British Open this year saw some drives getting ONE HUNDRED yards of roll, and R&A officials bragging that their fairways were running nearly as fast as the greens. Is that the ball's fault, too? Or is that a matter of "gee, maybe they shouldn't have had such firm, fast fairways"?
As I've repeatedly said, there are several major factors (and even more minor ones) that factor into the fact that PGA Tour players are hitting the ball further today than they did 30 years ago. Any intelligent look at why that is should consider ALL factors, not just one.
Furthermore, you assume that "more distance == bad" and, simply put, not everyone agrees with that. Your foundation, your point of view, differs severely from that of many (the majority, I can safely say with certainty).
"And we can never really know how deregulation has impacted the sport, so we should just sit back and let it continue?"
The surest way to actually "ruin" something is to make a braindead, half-baked change based on a lack of logic, reason, and fact.
"That makes sense...if you are a manufacturer and since you represent one,"
Again, you're playing a little fast and loose with the facts. I do not represent a golf manufacturer, nor have I ever. The only companies I've ever represented, for your future knowledge, are Boston Market (HS job), Gator Technologies (IS/IT stuff), Apple, and my own software company.
"I can see your point. But I'm still not sure how you see this all helping the everyday golf course facing issues brought on by these difficult to measure changes?"
I've yet to see any proof hat "everyday golf courses" are "facing issues," let alone that these issues are "brought on by these difficult to measure changes." In some places, golf courses are doing exceptionally well. People camp out the night before to get on some golf courses, yet others fail miserably. The differences there? Management, location, price, and a whole lot of other things.
Simply put, blaming any real or perceived "problems" with the game of golf on "technology" or "the ball" devoid of any facts and without considering ALL factors - including society's changing taste, changes in economy and taste, and countless other things - is bound by definition to be short-sighted.
You've launched a campaign against "technology" on nothing more than your own assumptions and suspicions, and you've sustained that campaign for as long as I've known you based on nothing but more assumptions, speculations, and the odd out-of-context quote or two.
Uh, I don't know you, which is why you anger towards me has always been a bit creepy, as is your devotion to this site despite your lack of interest in the subjects covered here.
But you do fly a big Titleist ad on your web site, which does make me suspect you are compensated to come here and post (and today, I hope it's by the word!). Mr. Uihlein told me in an email that he was subsidizing bloggers and you're the only one I can find with a Titleist ad on your site.
My passion is golf course design and contrary to your attempt at a cheap shot, I have designed a course and am working on several more (you only make yourself look foolish trying this approach). So through my interset in that area, that is how I became aware of the issues which you say you have no proof are happening.
So I'm curious, what drives your passion to insist that nothing is even up for discussion on this distance issue? Consumption? Buying? Shopping? Is it really that good for you?
You strike me as a legitimate, passionate golf nut, so I'm guessing your determination to come here and rant about my commentary or to take shots at other people posting like Ned is financially driven. Which is a shame, but hey, to each his own.
Some guy named "Erik" is a real buzz kill. I hope he likes playing Daly's new layout
"Uh, I don't know you, which is why you anger towards me has always been a bit creepy, as is your devotion to this site despite your lack of interest in the subjects covered here."
I'm not angry at or with you. I should have said "as long as I've known OF you," I suppose, but you're splitting hairs. But I am not angry with you - I'd prefer if you not put words into my mouth.
I do however think that your point of view is based on assumptions and speculation and your stance void of facts, logic, or reasoning. If you're going to effectively call me "creepy" and "angry" and launch into ad hominem attacks, well, I decline to play that game. It is seemingly a favorite of yours as it diverts attention from the fact that you are arguing from such a shoddy foundation, I have noticed.
I care about the game of golf, and while I don't think it's "in ruins," some people - including yourself - do. "Golf" and "golf course architecture" and "technology" are "the topics covered here," so far as I can tell, and I have a keen interest in those topics. I rarely if ever agree with your take on those topics, but don't presume to tell me that I have no interest in the "subjects covered here."
"But you do fly a big Titleist ad on your web site, which does make me suspect you are compensated to come here and post (and today, I hope it's by the word!). Mr. Uihlein told me in an email that he was subsidizing bloggers and you're the only one I can find with a Titleist ad on your site."
That's funny, because when I go to GolfObserver.com, I see "Presented by Titleist" and a big Titleist ad and, just below, your name (and picture) with links to several articles written by you!
I am a software and Web consultant. Titleist has never paid me to comment on your site (or any others, for that matter). By advertising on my site, I suspect one could say that they're paying me to comment on MY site because "content = readers = eyes on their ads," but that's stretching it. They advertise on the site. My relationship with them, for all intents and purposes, ends there.
"My passion is golf course design and contrary to your attempt at a cheap shot, I have designed a course and am working on several more (you only make yourself look foolish trying this approach)."
I apologize and will henceforth drop "self-proclaimed" from before "golf course architect." I wasn't aware of the one course you've designed. Correction noted.
"So through my interset in that area, that is how I became aware of the issues which you say you have no proof are happening."
I've yet to see where you've cited actual proof that what you say is happening is happening and that it's 100% directly attributable to "technology" and not a combination of countless or near-countless factors you've neglected to mention.
Heck, I could say that the rise in the cost of golf is due to the fact that golf course architects charge so darn much. Alister MacKenzie died quite poor. But I don't believe that because I realize that there are a thousand other factors. You harp on "technology" and most often "the ball" as if it's the only factor affecting golf these days. As I said, I don't even agree with the premise that there's something "wrong" with the game of golf these days.
I remain open to the possibility, however, and that's one of the reasons I read this site and many others. However, you'll NEVER convince me that there's something wrong with golf (and, having done that, that "technology" is to blame) without fact, reason, and logic.
"So I'm curious, what drives your passion to insist that nothing is even up for discussion on this distance issue? Consumption? Buying? Shopping? Is it really that good for you?"
I'm discussing it right now. It's all up for discussion, but you need to realize that I don't accept the premise of the debate. You presume that there's something "wrong" with golf. You presume that something deserves blame and needs to be changed. You then happily ignore many, many factors that could be contributing to increased driving distances (the only fact you regularly use, that pros today drive the ball further than pros from 1980 or whenever).
"You strike me as a legitimate, passionate golf nut, so I'm guessing your determination to come here and rant about my commentary or to take shots at other people posting like Ned is financially driven. Which is a shame, but hey, to each his own."
Once again, your guess, as your assumptions and presumptions about the game of golf, is wrong. There's no two ways about that.
Had to delete your last post. You can take shots at me because you are paid to do so, but I can't have you taking shots at people who come here and post. Please don't tempt me to click the spam button because I do appreciate your posts when you are not shilling for Titleist.
Given your delete-happy ways (which I mention in my article) and the fact that this is your own site, however, I shall accept your new and rule and respond only to you, despite the fact that Ned has responded with untrue assumptions about me, as you continue to do.
I don't know how much simpler I can make this, Geoff: I'm not paid to comment here or on any website. I shill for no-one (except, as a freelance consultant, myself).
In fact, commenting here could be seen as the opposite of being paid as I could be doing paying work while taking time out of my day to respond here.
I also love that he feels free to use backhanded slaps at Geoff, then poses as taking the high road, all the while throwing slaps.
I love how anyone can post their view here, and provide us such great entertainment by playing such childish games.
Geoff, please don't spam him out (yet). I need a laugh during the day, and Erik's posts are usually good for at least one now and then.
I'd hate that.
To Erik, I submit that you do make valid points on occasion. However, a truly mature person who wishes to engage in an informed and intellectual debate does not resort to feigned superiority by dismissing topics as undebatable after making inflammatory and excitable positions. You chose the forum and you know the expected views of many readers, expect and accept discussion or go some place else to have your fun.
I understand and respect your love of the game. One thing I haven't heard you comment on that Erik is questioning you about is course conditions and its contributing factor in distance. I would love to hear your opinion.
I have a hard time buying that course conditioning is impacting distance as Erik and the folks at Titleist have claimed. The ball is carrying most of these prodigious distances. Roll is minimal compared to the days when courses didn't have irrigation or weren't maintained like turf nurseries. Fast and firm today is so rare that I think people have forgotten what real fast and firm is like.
Naturally, there is also no data to support the claim of lower mowing heights leading to the huge jumps in distance.
Thanks for the response. I think if you surveyed course superintendents they would nearly all say that fairway height is much lower than it was, say 20 years ago. I think that roll is a big part of the equation today. Watching the guys on tour every week and being at the US Open this year, I got to witness it first hand.
I understand your comment about turf nurseries vs non-irrigated times. My contention is that they only use the irrigation to keep the shortened, trim fairways alive. Not to keep conditions soft. I would walk on the outside of the crosswalks at the Open and the fairway didn’t feel soft to me and I could barely sink into the grass because it was so tight and dry. It was almost like walking on Berber carpet
We can agree to disagree I guess.
The other course I play is one of the best conditioned in Indiana, Rock Hollow. There, unless the ball strikes the fairway at a shallow angle, there is little if any roll.
It is the equipment
I am not a bowler, but I would imagine it is easier to score with a larger ball and a shorter alley.
I truly believe my statement above. It doesn't mean I won't listen to anyone else, but just watch some of the old highlights of tournaments back in the 70's and 80's and it's hard to ignore the lack of roll back then.
I have enjoyed out spirited discussion, and I am certain that we all love this great game. Best in golf to each of you.
When you see a Tiger Woods 350 yard drive, how much of it do you think is coming from the roll? Most I've seen have gotten 10, maybe 15 yards max, some as few as 5 yards.
If fairway heights were raised 1/4 of an inch, how much do you think it slow down drives?
I highly doubt that Tiger...or anyone else on tour, are carrying the ball 335-340. The recent winners in the Long Driving championship are in the 360's and they are getting a ton of roll.
Heck, D.A. Points has the longest drive on tour at 442 and is only 78th on the driving distance list. You can't tell me he carried it 440 yards...
The world record for drive with the most carry? It was set in 1993 when people were first switching to metal drivers...surely someone would have easily beaten it by now with the advances in technology. Right?
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=45143
All I'm saying is that carry does not constitute the biggest percentage of increase in distance. Right now we are playing fairways that are, for the sake of using an analogy, berber carpet on wood (today) rather than shag carpet on cement (20 years ago). The first bounce may be a bit better on cement, but the roll through the berber carpet is more than going to offset the bounce.
Again, I appreciate your love for the game. We still agree to disagree.
Open your eyes, Geoff. Tiger was getting 100 yards of roll at the British Open, and well over 50 to 75 at the U.S. Open at times. When his ball hits 80 yards short of a cross walk and then rolls THROUGH the crosswalk, the math isn't terribly difficult.
Why do you think Tiger hits a "stinger" 2-iron or 3-wood that goes 300 yards? Because he knows it'll run out.
Your arguments here have gotten plain silly. "15 yards max"? I suppose you haven't watched the PGA Tour in the past ten years? The first HOP carries an extra 15 yards at some Tour events (those not plagued by rain). Then the ball bounces again. Then it rolls.
Did you walk the grounds at Pinehurst during the U.S. Open? Or St. Andrews in that Open? Or even a regular PGA Tour event? Have you felt how hard the fairways are, and have you seen how closely cut the fairways are?
I watched Titleist fit drivers for pros. With the ideal ball flight, which maximizes carry, the standard formula for figuring length was to include an extra 9% for roll. A drive that carries 275 would result in a 300-yard drive. The fitters said that on the PGA Tour in an average (i.e. not soaking wet), that percentage jumps to 15%.