"The Overall Distance Standard is essentially the same"
I hate to even point these posts out by Banana and Gap over at GolfDigest.com, but when you insist on ignoring the costs of a technology race acknowledged by virtually every rational person of significance in the game, you do have to wonder.
The latest blog post is in response to Jack Nicklaus's recent remarks to ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski:
GOUGE: Sometimes you have an urge to tell someone to shut the frig up. What would we fix about the equipment, precisely, Jack? Reduce clubhead size? Wouldn't get it done because all my understanding of golf club engineering suggests that a smaller clubhead wouldn't revert to pre-1995 performance levels in terms of on-center hit performance. In other words, they wouldn't make drivers less hot than they currently are with one major exception. They'd be less hot for us choppers who hit it all over the face. Roll the ball back? To what, precisely? The Overall Distance Standard is essentially the same, updated based on clubhead speed and test driver specifications since it was established 30 years ago.
Essentially the same? Uh, 296.8 to 320 yards? Sort of like how Gouge (aka Mike Stachura) sports a handicap on the blog of 13.2 but is actually a 10.6, down from 12.7 a year ago. I guess all numbers are fudgable!
Are balls better than they were 30 years ago? But it's not because the longest balls are going longer, it's because the longest balls can be used to hit finesse shots around the green. Thirty years ago those long balls couldn't do that. There is no question that a lot of rancor could have been avoided if the USGA had not allowed metal drivers. But there is no evidence to suggest the game has been critically damaged by technology. Are some courses too short for elite competitions? Sure. Big deal.
Remember, this is the same guy who said he wouldn't shed any tears if Winged Foot, Augusta and St. Andrews were left behind so that grown men can continue to shop unfettered by regulation.
Is the gap between pro and amateur too friggin' big, to paraphrase Nicklaus? Is the gap between beer league softball and Major League Baseball too big? Hasn't killed participation. Is the gap between Bobby Flay and me grilling turkey burgers on my Char-Broil in the backyard too big? I still do it, and I'm even inspired by him.
Yeah, but you aren't ripping up your backyard every summer to install a new barbeque to keep up with Bobby Flay either!
Are tour players crazy better and super longer than I'll ever be? Sure. But I can still par a hole that they might someday bogey. That's the game. And I'll tell you this: I'm certainly longer than I was 15 years ago. Which makes me no different than Fred Funk. We're playing the same game. They're just better than I am.
It's all about ME and my right to shop!
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 07:42 PM
Reader Comments (36)
And you know, I'm willing to accept the hotly contested, never ending debate on distance, but is it really relevant, or necessary, or remotely polite, to delve into the personal attacks? Maybe the Golf Digest Webmaster needs to update the main page on the blog...handicaps change over time...but taking a swipe at the guy's character is uncalled for.
We've heard their horseshit before, "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, say's who Bubba - Gump?
Last month they were praising the USGA's intention of banning square grooves. They only forgot to mention (keep it up wally ...:o) that square grooves have been legal since 1984, changing square grooves back to V-grooves is putting the genie back in the bottle, it's putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
And so we all see that anything with the USGA is possible, if Walter Driver as President of a non-profit can take publically donated money and fly around on a corporate jet lease program, by God anything is possible.
I say we roll this whole godamn game back in the order of occurance, shrink the MOI in driver heads, shrink the driver heads below 400, deflate the golf ball - these balls today have a different spin ratio from club to club not because of the difference in LOFT - but due to each angle of blow to these balls, it's a POLARA designed to do different things based on which angle it's struck on, then take the square grooves back to V-grooves.
Tiger Woods bless his heart, should have a number of astreks next to his records. Tiger's game with today's equipment is the same argument as Barry Bonds using "juice" in trying to overcome Hank Arron's records. In Tiger's case the equipment is juiced. If Sammy Sosa started hitting 100 home runs a year because Bud Selig said aluminum bats were ok what would baseball critics be saying, of course it would't count - it wasn't acheived in the same manner - with standard issue equipment. Tiger's equipment today is day and night different from Greg Norman's equipment just 10 years ago.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist for Bubba - Gump to figure this friggin out.
Why stop at 400cc? If we're gonna roll back, let's roll back, in order of occurence. I'd prefer gutta percha over featherie, but if we're really trying to reclaim the great courses, the shorter the better. Ganton and Prestwick can return to the Open rota. After all, the baseball today isn't much different from the ones Wee Willie Keeler hit, so why shouldn't we be playing Old Tom Morris' sphere?
Dump the graphite shafts, too, since they add swing speed. Jack never used them in his prime, so why should Tiger break Jack's records with graphite shafts. Asterisks, like you say, like friggin' Roger Maris. Come to think of it, though, I guess there should be asterisks on Jack's records, too. After all, Jones won his majors with hickory shafted clubs, which weren't as consistent as steel. Makes me think the roll back could include hickory shafts, too.
And we haven't even touched on CLOTHING. Let's see Phil Mickelson execute those flops with a Wright & Ditson niblick, wearing hobnail boots and a three piece wool suit and tie! Vardon--there was a guy who could play.
I'm well aware of what the Overall Distance Stardard means and I'm even more aware of the circumstances under which it was changed.
A personal attack? No. Just pointing out an inconsistency.
When did the USGA's ODS change? I thought it has been the same number since its inception, sometime in the 1970s.
It comes down to this. Which would you rather change ?
Revise and renovate the golf course every 10 years by adding tees, moving bunkers, moving greens, etc.
Or would you rather regulate the golf ball and golf equipment ?
If you owned a manufacturing facility and made golf balls and clubs; incredibly, you don't care what your impact is on the game. You will spend a lot on research regardless what the rule is. Why do you care in the short term.
If you play at a golf course, I think it would be better to not change the course, or the balls, or the equipment. If you do consume golf balls, I would rather change the $2 ball than the course.
If you believe money is not being wasted on course work to add new tees, lengthen the holes, move greens and bunkers, then maybe you need to buy a new driver today.
The manufacturers are placing a great deal of unnecessary burden on existing golf courses, who are trying to maintain a reasonable green fee, and who do not need to be constantly trying to update the course.
This is also a burden on new courses who must be up to 7500 yards long.
I hear you--I understand your argument, which many people share. I respect the argument, and I think those who ascribe honestly believe they are thinking in the best interests of golf. But I don't agree, I don't buy it, and I don't think it holds water. But it's like I said before, this is like a political or religious debate--it's at the point where arguing doesn't seem to matter anymore. But you asked...
Golf has been changing, constantly, since it began. The clubs, the balls, the courses, the clothes, the rules. What's happened in the last few years has a few people riled up, yes, but it's not anything that hasn't happened before. The USGA did an article on this in an issue of their magazine a few months ago, quoting all sorts of statements from as far back as the early 1900s, all concerning issues such as distance, reduced requirement for skill, etc., all related to equipment issues such as ball construction, shaft material, etc. As Casey said, "you could look it up."
I don't accept the argument that courses are being forced to change. They choose to change. And those that do are doing so either because they feel the need to be "relevant" for hosting elite level competitions, or because their owners or members have an egotistical urge to prevent people from hitting short irons into their greens. None of this matters squat to 99% of golfers. And again, this has been happening as long as there's been a game. Bobby Jones, in awe of Nicklaus's length and accuracy at Augusta, said "he plays a game with which I am not familiar." In the 1960s.
How extensive is this problem of courses requiring major renovation? There are certainly some high profile clubs and courses which have lengthened themselves in recent years. But I can honestly say that no golf course I have played regularly in the past 10 years has had any major changes with respect to new tees, deeper rough, or changes in greens. I keep reading on this blog that "everyone" is being "forced" to change, as if there is some sort of epidemic occuring, but I just don't see it.
But even if you are right, and there's a crisis and every course in the US has to play at 7500 from the tips, well I still would keep the equipment as it is and would rather see courses change. See, courses have always changed. Always. The Bomb & Gouge guys have explained this, ad nauseum. Many courses that hosted opens in the early 1900s became obsolete by the middle part of the century, and some others may be obsolete now. This is not the end of the world. I also don't buy that changing the equipment is "easy." Setting aside for the moment the question of what to change (shorten the ball? make it more crooked? make the clubheads smaller? how small? what materials? how about shafts?), what about the billions of dollars of inventory in stores, the clubs and balls we all own, the form of the game that an entire generation has learned? We're going to radically change all of that, simply because we're sad that Augusta had to build some new tees?
The subtle attacks and passive aggressive swipes at equipment manufacturers is also wrong headed and unfair. You can say what you want about Wally Uihlein and the rest of these guys and gals, but they run large, successful companies that employ lots of hard working people, and are an integral part of making it possible for all of us to play the game. Are they NOT supposed to be concerned with making a profit? And why wouldn't they be concerned with the future and health of the game? It matters to them just as much as it does to golf philosophers and priests. Don't golf courses try to make a profit, or at least survive? Are the efforts of the engineers and R&D guys at these companies, designed to help us play better and enjoy the game, supposed to be snuffed out because a few purists, champion golfers, and quite a few golf snobs think we've made the game "too easy?"
If I were forced to change something, I would opt for what's been called "bifurcation," or allowing separate rules for equipment in elite competitions--a Masters ball, etc. I don't particularly like this concept either, but it sure as hell beats the idea of fixing "the friggin' equipment."
Well, thanks for asking, and sorry if I've blathered on...too much...again.
Well, yes, it has changed. I really wasn't trying to imply that there have not been changes in the past.
I was looking at the past as something we can't do anything about and don't mean that in smart-alec way.
So why would the USGA not allow an increase the ODS in two years ?
Are there any good reasons NOT to allow for say a 5% increase in the ODS in a few years ? It would increase research, it would increase the size of some golf courses, it would literally employ thousands or people in this effort. It would take more money to maintain, larger staffs for the courses in theory.
And, if you couldn't charge enough to make ends meet, then you could sell the land for real estate.
Likewise, on the consumer side, if you didn't make enough money to pay the green fees and the B&I, then you play another game.
The one thing about regulating is that the folks in charge of reading the rules and then manufacturing a product around the regulations, are usually a lot smarter than those writing the rules. The past shows that they have a pretty track record in that regard.
Move the standards back, and then let them work their way up to the new line.
So, what would be wrong with increasing the ODS by 5% in 5 years ? That is only about 15 yards or so.
Seriously, are there any reasons not to allow an increase in the ODS ?
But does that mean that skills have gone backward since then? I don't think so. Granted, as a chopper, I am way out in territory where I don't belong, but I like being the devil's advocate.
Is it possible that, given how comparatively easy it is to hit modern equipment straight, the very best players in the world have had to get even better than ever before in all facets of the game, primarily short game elements, than anyone before? In other words, could the modern equipment have triggered _improvement_ in at least some aspects of the play of elite golfers? Is there any doubt that Mickelson and Woods have better short games than the top golfers of prior ages? Trevino and Player were very good around the greens and in bunkers, but were they as good as Tiger or Phil? How about this--was the 50th guy on the money list anywhere NEAR as good with short shots in 1975 as today?
Just a thought.
1) Like every other CEO of a major company Wally Uihlein knows that his company does not operate in a vacuum. He is constrained from making the "maximum" amount of profit possible by a myriad of local, state, & federal laws (e.g., no child labor, helath benefits, etc.). Also, like many other industries, he is also subject to regaulation by an additional body (in this case the USGA/R&A) which sets guidelines for the arena in which his products are used. If in the operation of his business he pushes the envelope with these regulatory bodies, he is subject to the risks of corrective action. It is simple risk/reward calculation, and every large company is well aware of this situation.
2) No one is sugesting (or at least I am not) that Wally Uihlein say "to hell with profit." However, isn't it possible for his company to remain profitable by manufacturing goods to a different set of specifications? One could even make the argument that in a "rolled-back" ball world, R&D would be much less expensive, leading to higher lower production costs & higher profits.
3) I agree that regulation must be approached with care, so as to minimize economic impacts. Isn't this in fact a very sound point in favor of regulating the most consumable items possible? A dozen balls is certainly cheaper than a new driver, which liekwise is infinitely cheaper than modifying land.
4) Finally, why must courses be the ones to always dance to the equipment manufacturer's tune? Just because this has been the history of the game does not mean it is a trend that can/should continue forever.
If I were in Wally's shoes, I would certainly like this to continue - I do what I want, and courses react. I certainly don't blame him for the tack he has taken, as he believes he is acting in the best interests of his shareholders.
But why is this one industry somehow more important than the other interests in the game? Do their interest always outweigh those of courses, developers, and consumers? Do they truly "make it possible" for us to play, or are they simply in existence because our enjoyment of the game creates a need for the products they manufacture?
As to your question--first off, I don't mean anything in my posts to be malicious or smart-aleck, either, although I know sometimes it might seem that way. I love debating, and I'm happy others care enough about this to continue the fun.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying "well, if the recent increases in distance are ok, why not just let it go further?" If that's what you mean, my answer would be no, don't go any further.
There is a difference between accepting the state of affairs as it is today, with all that entails, and making an active decision to change...in either direction.
Look, I'm not saying it's a great thing that a famous golf course becomes outdated. I also am not saying that a full blown arms race in golf, engineering equipment to hit shots 500 yards into the wind with an iron, or to keep the face square regardless of skill, or any other absurd thing you could think of, is good. I agree with the principle that you need some rules to ensure that skill governs the game.
But the rules have never been about keeping things static. As I look at the rules, they seem to be carefully drafted to allow for improvements in equipment that could be of benefit to golfers for any number of reasons (steel over hickory and persimmon for durability and affordability, materials for shock absorption to help arthritics, whatever). They are forward-looking, trying to strike a balance between improving the game and preserving the key elements. I'm not sure that the status of Merion or Winged Foot as a major venue necessarily qualifies as one of the key elements of the game, but fine, maybe it does.
Decisions on equipment have never set a precedent that improvements--in distance, forgiveness, whatever--were wrong, or that equipment should be reigned in to satisfy the sensibility of a particular golf course or club membership.
You have to have rules. We have rules. The current balls and clubs are within the rules. Some people don't like that the balance of recreation/skill, at least with respect to distance and direction in full shots, seems to have swung signficantly in the easier direction recently. Yes, the USGA was probably outsmarted by the ballmakers' engineers, but it is what it is, and going back is still wrong, and goes against the history of the game as a breathing, evolving entity.
My dad will always believe that the perfect car is a 1975 Cadillac Sedan de Ville. Some people want us to do the golf equivalent of returing to 1970s autos, which is absurd to me.
If you tell me I can't go any further, fine. But please don't tell me I have to go backward.
I have to get some work done and will defer my answer, but there WILL be an answer.
These debates are so much fun. I think we need a blog-wide golf trip to Myrtle or some other venue, where we can really solve these problems over a few rounds of golf and some adult beverages.
Of course I think I will need to arrive in body armor...
No thoughtful advocate of a ball rollback wants it because it will help or hurt Tiger Woods, or becuase it will help or hurt Corey Pavin. It is only to protect the integrity of the great classic golf courses. To try to reward proper golf; not to dominate the property in the fewest number of equipment-aided strokes possible.
No thoughtful advocate of a ball rollback wants it to "protect par." Most of us were thrilled with last year's Open at Hoylake. In fact, that would have been an even better tournament with a rolled-back ball, forcing more drivers from Mr. Woods, and more long clubs by the rest of the field.
No fair-minded person thinks that the Overall Distance Standard has remained the same for decades. It hasn't. The "number" might have been the same, but the "number" is just a test result figure, and the testing methodologies have been changed and adjusted over time. Actually, Bomb and Gouge make a fair point when they say that the Pro V doesn't go farther than any other ball in history. It is just the first long-distance ball that is playable by the elites. But that of course proves Jack Nicklaus' friggin point. That the urethane balls currently used to such great advantage by the elites are largely irrelevant for 70% or more of the golfing public. They don't even buy them. They buy x-out Cro-Flites at Wal-mart. A ball rollback wouldn't mean squat for the vast majority of the recreational players who make up the vast unwashed market for Acushnet products. A ball rollback, done properly, would do much to bring the game's elites closer to the game's mortals. Now that is what I call a populist development for the game.
Finally, can we please dispense with all the gutta percha-extremism arguments? Let's face it; some technology advances are good. Steel shafts were good. Why? Because they were easier to produce and far cheaper than hickory. Metal heads and modern epoxy were good developments. Why? because they were easier to manufacture, more consistent than persimmon or laminated wood, and easier to work on than whipping a wooden clubhead. The gutta percha ball was horribly, prohibitively, expensive in its day.
But you can't claim any of those advantages for premium-priced urethane balls, titanium-alloy heads, nanothech shafts, or 7,800-yard high-maintenance golf courses.
So there you have it. If you haven't read Geoff's book, "The Future of Golf," I suggest you start there.
No need for body armour though, unless you are off to the right when I have a wedge in hand. I've caught my annual case of the shanks :( Maybe this game isn't so easy after all!
No, It is not you, it's me. I sometimes are taken as being smart-alec. Maybe that is earned. So I was just getting ahead of the curve.
But really, as someone posted above, my opinion is that the manufacturers will sell just as much B&I after changes, as before. They might even save on R&D. Remember when golf balls, even clubs, changed every two or three years rather than every year ?
Drivers are on the same R&D path as golf balls and change every year. I have no problems with yearly changes. You can buy the new club or not. You can buy the new expensive balls every year or not.
But you have to play on a course. And why should the course owners or golf clubs have to periodically change their courses for B & I. The courses are the most expensive component of the game,
Now if the game shrinks because of the cost of play, then their B&I sales and profits might go down.
Do you spend more on golf B&I, or spend more on golf fees ? More is spend on golf course fees.
You could take costs for updating golf courses periodically for B&I to near nothing if there was some regulation.
Geoff Shac,
What has become of the USGA golf ball study ? It was groovy the way the report was whipped out in no time flat on the lines scored in the clubs.
Have I missed the report on the golf ball study ?
I read Geoff's book, cover to cover, by the way. It's what lead me to see things the way I do.
First, I can call my comments blather. I'd prefer if you didn't...but since you did, let me have a crack at some of YOUR blather:
1. From what, exactly, are you trying to "protect" the integrity of "classic" golf courses? If it isn't par, what is it? You said "proper" golf. Who gets to decide that? Proper golf is wood and iron shots, of certain numbers? I'll dispense with the gutta percha argument when someone gives me a good reason to do so. I know we've covered this ground, but you are claiming that your arbitrary notion of "proper" golf is the one all of us should be legislated to follow. I'm saying that, if I have to accept your logic, why can't I insist on going even farther. In practical terms, no, of course not a return to century old technology. But what if _I_ think the real threat to proper golf is that the ball isn't curving enough, not that it goes too far. Why shouldn't it be sidespin that is addressed and corrected, not the distance? Why not eliminate graphite shafts, instead of rolling back the ball. This would have a cascade effect that would likely decrease distance by 10-20 yards for the freaks, since clubs would get heavier and/or shorter, swing speed would decrease, etc. And it would be as "easy" as rolling back the ball, probably.
I don't believe for one minute that it's the "integrity" of the courses that's at issue. It's ego. It's Jack Nicklaus not wanting to see pros win the Memorial shooting 262. It's him not wanting pros to see them hit pitching wedges into the 10th hole. Just listen to some of the statements of the Oakmont members (apologies to any who are lurking on the blog), who absolutely revel in their course embarassing people. You don't think there is machismo, ego, and testosterone behind all this?
2. Modern equipment has helped choppers like you and me (you're probably a good player and much better than me Chuck, but we all know that next to tour pros, we're all basically hacks) far more than it's helped pros. I know this is bizarro-world absurd to you, and Jack Nicklaus, but before you have a seizure, let me explain why I believe this.
Golf at the tour level is about competition and winning. Success as a tour pro has absolutely no connection to stats. Your driving distance, fairways, GIR, "bounceback", whatever, means nothing. It's about winning.
They ALL have access to the same equipment. They all get the same relative benefit. The playing field is level, and it's still skill that differentiates them. Ok, you can argue that since equipment minimizes the errors, maybe some lesser players at tour level have a better chance than they did before, but really we don't know for sure that equipment helps Cameron Beckman any more than it does Tiger. We DO know that, generally speaking, they all have the same equipment, though, and it's really about who plays the best.
Contrast that with me. I rarely compete, other than friendly games. I want to win those games, but I'm really out there to enjoy myself. Part of the enjoyment is the exhiliration of watching a good shot. A long shot. A straight shot. I can tell you with absolutely zero hesitation that the game is 5 times more enjoyable to me with modern, hi-tech stuff than it was when I started, with persimmon et al. I not only want to win $20 from my friends, but I want to see my ball go way the hell out there. I want to see it in the fairway, or at least be able to find it when I hook one. You can't tell me that this equipment hasn't helped my game and thousands and thousands of recreational golfers for this reason. The stuff wouldn't be flying off store shelves if it wasn't increasing peoples' enjoyment of the game.
And yes, even the high priced urethane balls. You can't dismiss 30% of the golfing public as an insignficant number of people, Chuck. Who are you to say the balls don't help them? Before, we had to choose between a distance ball and one that we could control and spin on short game spots. Now, we don't have to. How can that not be interpreted as anything other than a positive for the 30% of golfers out there who choose to buy them.
3. Nor will a roll back not effect those who don't buy premium balls. Unless they figure some way to do a rollback without altering the ODS, it would seem to me that ALL balls will have to be rolled back. ProV1s, HX Tours, HX Hots, NXTs...Pinnacles...Top Flites. So with your roll back, I not only lose the ProV1, but I even lose my trusty Top Flite. How is this not affecting me?
4. How do you figure that the elites and mortals, as you call it, are farther apart now than before? Because Jack said so? As I posted previously...I did some calculations: When I started, using a small headed metal driver, a decent drive for me was 225. With a new FT3, I'm at about 255. The pros, when I started, were averaging 265 or so, and now they're averaging about 290. I've picked up 30 yards, and they've picked up 25. How is the gap widening.
Yes, I know, the driving distance numbers are misleading, they have another gear, they're hitting 2 irons on the driving holes, blah blah blah. Don't you think they were doing all those things in 1985, too? You can't simply pick and choose which aspects of the data you want to believe. There is no doubt a HUGE gap between my and Tiger, or even Kirk Triplett. But I don't believe, no matter how passionately you or Jack says so, that the gap is necessarily any wider today than it was in 1980.
And if it is a little wider, so what? So the back tees are an extra 20 yards farther back than before. Who cares...I don't go there anyway, if I happen to play a modern course.
5. Finally, please illustrate for me what is so awful about the redesign of these cathedrals of golf? Cost? So if 20 or 50 or 200 courses in the world spend a couple of million dollars each lengthening their tracks, that's many millions. Maybe a billion. If equipment is changed, it's not going to cost millions of dollars? What is the inventory out there, is it not multiple, multiple millions. Maybe it costs more to alter golf courses than to change equipment, but I honestly don't know if that's true.
Plus, who, exactly, is paying? Many of the classic courses are private courses, with wealthy memberships. So if they choose to spend their money to keep their course current, why does this constitute a crisis for me? Is Augusta National hurting for cash? High maintenance budgets have more to do with people's demands about course conditions, not length. My home course is 6600 from the tips, and nobody cares if it's lengthened, and most would rather see better conditions than more length. Nobody is forcing any golf course to do anything. The ones that change want to change, so fine. It isn't affecting me, or 99% of golfers out there--the ones you so casually call the "unwashed masses."
Where is this crisis of course redesigns you are talking about? Are munis spending millions to try to stretch to 7500? Are the extra tees and length at Augusta increasing the dues at my course?
You have a good point that today's innovations are primarily about performance, and can't really claim as many other benefits as the steel shaft, etc. But all innovations were accomplished in accordance with the rules as they existed at the time, and the USGA/R&A had every chance in the world to say no, and they didn't.
So THERE you have it. I don't have any book recommendations for you, but if you want to have a beer or a "clear one" with me sometime, I'm up for that, and I'll buy.
All I can say is that Titleist et al are in business to make money. You make money by making the best product, and you can't fault any of them for trying to do whatever they can to make the best, most attractive product out there. I doubt they set out to fundamentally change the game, dictate to course owners, etc. I don't see it as Wally "doing what he wants", he's doing what he has to do to survive. If Titleist doesn't make the proV1, doesn't someone else eventually do it?
Nobody's dictating anything to golf courses. They can spend money and lengthen if they want, or, like probably 99% of golf courses in the world, they don't do anything. Because the fact that everyday golfers are hitting it a little farther and straighter probably means nothing to them.
Yes, they found a way around the intent of the overall distance standard--both in the design of balls AND clubs, because it's synergistic. But the USGA put its stamp of approval on every one of these products, and the game is what it is.
I agree that you could have a situation where things got out of control...if you really couldn't find enough land, as if we were trying to hit drivers on 70 yard pitch and putt courses. But honestly, really, we're not there. We're not even close to being there. What is happening is that some people don't like the way golf _looks_ today, at least at the professional level. And they are trying to re-engineer an entire industry because they place more value on certain places and arbitrary numbers than on others.
We have rules...we have been playing by the rules...life is going on...you still have to make the putts...
I'll try to be brief. Well, maybe not so brief...
Point 1: "Proper" golf is just the kind of golf that fits the course. Where fairway bunkers that are intended to challenge drives do that. Where holes intende to force the player to hit a long iron into the green can do that. Where trickery (laughgably deep rough or treacherously fast greens) aren't needed to prop up scoring numbers. And yet "proper" golf wouldn't be defined by numbers either. "Proper golf would be that which challenges the player to think and understand the features of the course and as much of the land as possible. It is not an "arbitrary" determination, but it is an "aeshtetic" one.
Pot-shots at Jack Nicklaus over questions of "ego" are so wrong-headed that they are silly. A rollback of the ball to MacGregor Tourney standards wouldn't prevent Tiger Woods from breaking all of Jack's records; it would accelerate the process. Jack MAKES money from most of his course redesign work. You know; that work that is made necessary by equipment technology advances.
Point 2:
Rest assured, you are safe in presuming that I am a recreational hack in comparison to tour players. And I don't know how you can say that, "Modern equipment has helped choppers like you and me ...far more than it's helped pros." I don't think the numbers bear that out. I don't average distaqnces have grown like the pros, I don't think scoring on the same old 6200-yard courses has changed for recreational players. You say that, "The stuff wouldn't be flying off store shelves if it wasn't increasing peoples' enjoyment of the game." I say, golfers will buy anything new that they are told is "better." Or that it is "What Tiger Woods plays with." In that regard, "bifurcation" could be the industry's worst nightmare. When "what Tiger plays with" is demonstrably inferior to what we can use in the club invitational, it may be harder to sell that stuff. Ask Mr. Uihlein about bifurcation.
Clearly, for the average golfer, the ball is the cheapest and most inconsequential elemant of his golfing experience. If, tomorrow, there were no more Pro V's, it wouldn't matter to most of them. It might matter to you and to every tour player. I would never be so arrogant as to say that re-regulating golf balls is simple, or unimportant, or that it wouldn't affect the best players. What I don't accept is the argument that the average player will be meaningfully impacted. I say again, it is crazy for anyone to argue that we would needlessly punish all golfers for the sake of addressing the top 0.1% of elite golfers. If we went so far as to ban urethane balls outright (and I don't suggest any such extreme), it wouldn't affect 70% or more.
Point 3:
I understand you points about the details of a ball rollback, and I won't pretend to have any easy answers. What I do reject is anyone who says "there is no problem." If there was "no problem," there'd be no need to do such radical alteratoins to golf courses that host elite championships.
Point 4:
You asked; "How do you figure that the elites and mortals, as you call it, are farther apart now than before?" One way to know that is because the courses that the elites play are getting facelifted to within inches of their usability. And, average courses are not. Although there is pressure to build ever-larger, longer, higher-cost golf courses.
Point 5:
You ask what is the harm in updating all of the old classic course designs to keep up with equipment? I ask you -- what is the harm in scaling the equipment to fit those courses as they are? Forget about equipment company profits versus course renovation costs. If you accept that golf course architecture as art (I hope you do, as I do), I'd like to think that you'd say that there is value in avoiding the need to renovate important art and architecture over a $3 piece of disposable equipment.
Having gone back and forth with you and others dozens of times, it seems it comes down to this: You believe that the fact that famous golf courses must undergo redesigns to play the same as they did before is a travesty, and that it is worth making a significant change in golf equipment to prevent it.
I don't think so. I just can't see why it is so terrible that a golf course has to add some length. I'll resist the urge to dissect it point by point, again, but it isn't so terrible.
There is a need to have some regulation over the game. And they ARE regulated--the game, and distance, are regulated in numerous ways. Yes, something slipped through the cracks. But the game has changed, and most of the courses that are "forced" to change have already done so, and the increases in distance of the last several years are finished. It's physics and the limits have been reached, at least so far as pertaining to launch angle, spin, etc. It's over with.
And I guess you refuse to believe that modern equipment helps average golfers; there's nothing I can do about that. I know it helps me and those I associate with enjoy the game more, and I would rather see the equipment rules favor the masses of recreational golfers.
It ain't exactly titanium and nanotube graphite, but it's exactly the same principle.
And they've probably juiced the ball, at least a little, although MLB denies this.
Baseball is well aware of the bat and ball issues, and purists are arguing that the power game is ruining things--upsetting the balance of pitching and hitting. Yet they're not doing anything about the bats. I wonder why?
Yes, golf is different. NASCAR is different from the NHL. They don't make everyone use the same engine. Different games, different equipment, different history, different rules.
I honestly think the ball-whiners are going to end up winning. I think it's possible that the groove regulation is the USGA's way of testing the waters to see what happens when they try to make a change that abridges the current use of technology. There can be no doubt they've had discussions about rolling back the ball...the fact that they've done nothing yet doesn't mean they won't eventually do something.
Interesting that Corey Pavin says the ball has ruined his game from a competitive standpoint. Chuck has been telling me that the modern clubs and balls don't help average players at all, but that pros are doing tremendous things with them that are leading to the desecration of our sacred golf cathedrals, temples, and mosques.
Why wouldn't you increase the ODS in another few years so folks can enjoy the game even more ?
Corey Pavin has it right, the less spin means less control for him, Wally and his thugs have dialed up the spin factor for high end clubhead speeds, which means these blasting idiots have just the right amount os spin (not toooo much) like before, only guys like Pavin can do NOTHING to acheive spin.
Where does this leave Pavin, with a bag full of FRIGGIN hybreds because he can't spin these Top-Flights, throwing these long distance multi-layered balls in the air is his only chance of getting them to stop.
Where is the friggin 180 pages of testing to these balls by the USGA? Joint statement of principals, truth or myth? The USGA - R&A identified the godamn problem back in May - 2002, what do they have that is substantive? This month's Golf Digest, more square-groove horseshit. Give me a friggin break! They asked manufacturers for sample balls that went 20 yards less 3 years ago, fine, now provide us the information, balls out of 2 to 3 inches of rough spin more than a closely mown fairway, are they out of their friggin minds?
What about their 3 year ongoing friggin ball study, have we heard one iota of friggin information on that front? Friggin insane that!
Who says square grooves are even a problem, the way I see it hitting friggin wedge into a 480 yard par 4 is the friggin problem, the godamn ball goes to friggin far - even for a friggin pitching wedge, get a friggin clue USGA.
F*** grooves, back these friggin balls down a bit and see how these friggin gorillas like hiting friggin 7 irons from 3 inch rough. Go friggin figure!
Who here would like to see Walter Driver Jr. taking the friggin train to the next USGA championship, can I see a show of hands?
Walter, let's complete the first order of friggin testing before we jump off in the deep end and start testing things that may in fact not be a problem. Conclude what you friggin identified first back in 2002.
As I said elsewhere, I don't think we've crossed the line. The issues raised by Geoff et al pertain to a miniscule segment of the golf universe, and for the rest of the world, things are better the way they are. One must balance the issues of the elite against the masses, for sure, and it ain't always right for the majority to rule, but in this case, nobody's convincing me that the game's been irreparably harmed by the distance explosion.
We're still all here, we're still all playing. The lowest score still wins. Augusta and its brethren golf cathedrals have made the adjustments, and are still standing. And the ball has reached Isaac Newton's brick wall.
Gee, _everyone_ is hitting it farther, which arguably doesn't favor anyone. I won't tackle your "Corey's ruined because he can't spin it," but it makes no logical sense. Maybe I will tackle it...He doesn't have to curve it with his driver anymore, at least not as much...that's the whole point. Plus, the ball DOES curve, just not as much. Otherwise, why do we hear Tiger constantly talking about shaping his shots, and why are the announcers telling us about the curvature of every single drive and approach we see on TV today?
But everyone hits it farther, so arguably the distance favors no individual player, and doesn't change the importance of skill.
Grooves, which you are vomiting all over in your rabid discourse, are potentially a different story. If grooves make it possible to spin the ball as much from light rough as from a clean lie, then there is no penalty for the errant drive. To me, in contrast to the distance thing, this CAN be argued as a technological development that erodes the importance of skill.
If pros can't control the short shots, they might demand balls which spin more from the manufacturers. It might not be possible to achieve this without softening the core and increasing driver spin as well, which will have the secondary effect of reducing driving distance a little.
"Anyone considered that the groove regulation may be a back-door way for the USGA to dial back the ball? If pros can't spin the ball from light rough, it will affect shots around the green just as it will shots from edges of fairways.
If pros can't control the short shots, they might demand balls which spin more from the manufacturers. It might not be possible to achieve this without softening the core and increasing driver spin as well, which will have the secondary effect of reducing driving distance a little."
Answer: Yes, I have considered it. I think a lot of people have considered it. Wally Uihlein can't complain too much if it is Davis Love III who is telling Acushnet to make different balls, instead of the USGA making the same demand.
But what is the problem with, as Frank Hannigan has said, we just roll back the fail-point in the USGA's ball testing? The current fail-point is as arbitrary as anything else is. Golfers are pretty much the same. Golf courses are (I hope) pretty much the same. But balls have changed. So why not change the testing fail-point in response to the balls?
But, the USGA is just writing the ODS, while only tinkering with B & I testing.
Until the USGA starts making B & I for a profit, the USGA cannot even begin to know all the steps being taken to make it go higher, straigther, longer.
Manufacturers test, re-test, make shells thinner, harder, softer, make cores larger, smaller, reformulate the materials, ad naseum.
The manufacturers are producing new balls and implements every year, and the USGA can't complete testing and writing one report in three years. The USGA cannot catch up.
The USGA will be caught by the next new development whenever that comes along because it will be within the ODS rules. To compound the issue, in reality, the improvements might come in small increments as is often the nature. So, every 5 or 10 years, you turn around and say, what the heck has happened.
The USGA needs to regulate, and I prefer to regulate the least expensive item in the game except for wooden tees.
Whatever happened to the submittal of the golf balls that did not travel as far ? Any report from the USGA on that matter.
86, you'll be okay. You will hit the ball just as far, and if you don't, move up to the next forward set of tees.
Also, whatever came of the secret hush-hush meetings by the USGA with archies, and who knows else was invited ?
Hopefully, I'll be able to tell the gen to 'move up my friend.'
"The folks who run things at Colonial have known this all along. Let the old-style venue, which this week hosted a PGA Tour event for the 62nd consecutive year, serve as Exhibit A for the latest phenomenon. Despite persimmon woods having given way to mammoth-headed 460cc drivers and gutta perchas having transformed into Pro-V1s, the course -- at 7,054 yards -- played exactly 19 yards longer than it did when Ben Hogan first triumphed in 1946."
The article, if anyone is interested, is at:
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/columns/story?columnist=sobel_jason&id=2884497
Shows that maybe the knee-jerk response of lengthening golf courses to stay current with modern equipment doesn't always make sense.
First, a preface: 86, you've made some great posts in this topic. You're one of the few folks who I have seen made a reasoned debate for a different course of action than a rollback (which I support). It's nice to see.
I think I'm a fan of the rollback idea because of what has happened to classic golf courses in the name of any number of crusades - maintaining par, keeping the players challenged, exciting golf, hubris, whatever. Classic golf courses are getting murdered by being lengthened or redesigned (I'm looking at you, Fazio) in the name of these goals. It is being done in response to the technology available to the pros today. (Available to you and I as well, but obviously we're not nearly as skilled.)
In 2002, when Muirfield hosted the Open Championship, it played at under 7000 yards. UNDER! And the winning score (to get in the 4 way playoff) was, I think, -6. Wow. Colonial this week - and every year - is another fantastic example that a well designed classic course can stand up to any player from any era and any equipment they wield. If more Tour stops and designers understood this concept, I would not mind technology as much.
I still would not like that players could wail driver then wedge to most par 4s, but at least the courses I grew up loving and salivating over would still be the same. I think I could make that compromise.
The ironic thing about all the lengthening of courses is that when they do it, they only _encourage_ the type of "bombs away" play that is supposed to be so "anti-golf." When they keep the course shorter, they take the driver out of these guys hands, reward accuracy, and you end up with a more interesting tournament. The members at Colonial seem to understand and accept this; some at other courses seem obsessed with the idea that the challenge must be one of length.
People are obsessed with length in golf, at all levels.