"If we play with a golf ball that is 10 percent rolled back and we used to hit it 300 yards, now we're hitting it 270 yards. Well, fans that come to a tour event are not going to be impressed by that."
Phil Mickelson's comments to E. Michael Johnson about equipment in the new Golf World prove short-sighted and frankly, disappointing.
What do you think of two sets of rules on equipment?
I believe it is our job to entertain, and it is difficult to do things others can't when we roll back equipment rules. If we play with a golf ball that is 10 percent rolled back and we used to hit it 300 yards, now we're hitting it 270 yards. Well, fans that come to a tour event are not going to be impressed by that.
Fans are not impressed by a lot of things, like slow play, players who spit and the general drone-like personality of too many players. But feeling cheated because of the distance a ball doesn't fly? Hard to see that one when driving distance measurements aren't immediately available to a fan. A long drive is a long drive. It's all relative Phil.
It is detrimental to the PGA Tour that we will no longer be able to hit those shots around the green that we were able to in the past -- the shots people pay to see.
Yes, people do love a shot that spins and a miraculous recovery, but there is also the possibility that golf fans are savvy enough to have an even greater appreciation for recovery shots in the future knowing players are using equipment around the greens more consistent with what past generations used.
How much more can tour players gain through equipment?
You can gain with club fitting and optimization of set makeup, but the USGA over the last five or six years has capped much of the improvement. Basically the attitude of [USGA senior technical director] Dick Rugge, who is the omnipotent one in the game of golf, is that if something comes out that is beneficial to tour pros, then he's just going to change the rule [Ed. note: the USGA, citing that the configuration did not adhere to the intent of the rule, disallowed a groove design Callaway submitted although it met the technical parameters]. So there's no opportunity for real advancement when we have that type of governing body.
Callaway and Phil need to lay out how technical advances grow the game. Unfortunately, the only folks who benefit from constant product obsolescence are manufacturers and their shareholders.
What would you do if you were in charge of equipment regulation?
I would definitely rescind the right for one man to approve or disapprove a club regardless of whether it conforms to the rules that were set forth. Dick Rugge has that power. I think it is wrong to have that much power in one person's hands.
Anything else?As far as other areas, I won't go into specifics, but technological improvements are not as evil or bad as the USGA is making them out to be. Historically, they have been beneficial for golf.
Yes, tell that to all of the people with 7,300 yard courses they can't afford to keep open for business.
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 09:36 AM 42 Comments | in Grooves, PGA Tour, Phil Mickelson, State of the Game
Reader Comments (42)
Don't be too disappointed. Phil is just shooting from the wallet again.
Not a good start for Phil's first step into the spotlight formerly held by Tiger.
Of course, this whole thing skipped over the part where they had already approved a reduced carry ball.
Having said that, and as more of a Phil partisan than the rank and file here, Phil comes across as the compleat idiot. Ely "ERC-II" Callaway couldn't have said it all better himself.
Not sure about his comment on one man having too much power...I'm confused. One person certainly can be in charge of enforcing existing rules, but obviously one person should not be entrusted to write all subsequent rules on the issue.
I agree with Phil that people who oppose further technological advances are probably worried about nothing.
I think we need to hold the line on technology for professionals. I'm not 100% against rolling back the golf ball a little for pros, although I don't think it's necessary. I think the groove rule is a good idea.
However, I think rules should be "bifurcated" as they say, and standards should - while still controlled and regulated by the USGA - be markedly relaxed for recreational players. The "one set of rules" is outdated, and needs to go. It's that little philosophical quibble that is causing any "ruin" in the game on this issue, and it's so simple to fix.
My hunch is that fans are more impressed with pros making shots they can't really hit: REALTIVELY long drives in the fairway, approaches very close to the hole, approaches with ANY spin, crazy hooks and cuts out of trouble, sand shots close to the pin, and long putts. It's not about the numbers of 330 vs. 275.
If distance is SUCH a big deal (i'm still not convinced) go ahead, roll back the ball for 110+ MPH swing speeds, leave it for the rest of us. Ball makers can do it. The bifurcated groove rule is stupid.
Steinberg has his hands full, who is giving Phil advice??!!!!
I think it is huge micro/macroeconomic factors which drive participation. Population demographics, money, changes in culture and child-rearing norms, etc., are what are driving people away from golf.
If there is any way you could change golf to get a big rise in interest, I think you'd have to radically change the game. Create a form of competition that is a 6-hole affair that can play out on TV in an hour or two, and which a guy can play in an hour on a weekend morning. Radically change what's legal for average golfers, so they can actually advance the ball decently and get it in the hole without spending their first 6 months in the game learning to get it airborne.
As it is now, golf - which I love, just as it is, mind you - will always be a niche pastime, and it's going to shrink, IMO.
Well Hogan did hit driver, 6 iron into 18 @ Merion the first time he played it that day.... ;)
The problen ISN'T how far the ball carries or even how straight it flies due to technological changes, but rather, how it has effected golf clubs and the courses where the pro's play. How it has forced many to take their course designed by Da Vinci & have it redesigned by Picasso.
Great holes are NOT defined by length, but instead by how the hole plays upon the ground on which it is built. That is why the "Postage Stamp" is every bit as great as the 16th at Cypress Point...
Fine! I nominate Ben Crenshaw, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson, Sandy Tatum and Frank Hannigan as the USGA's inaugural five-man panel on Implements and Balls. They'll get it all straightened out for you, Phil.
Those who hit it 360 would have to settle for 324. Poor babies.
The problen ISN'T how far the ball carries or even how straight it flies due to technological changes, but rather, how it has effected golf clubs and the courses where the pro's play. How it has forced many to take their course designed by Da Vinci & have it redesigned by Picasso."
I think what's wrong is concentrating on those few clubs who feel the need to hire Picasso. We're talking about, what, maybe 1-2% of golf courses in the world? I guess they are pretty high profile courses, because they are where the big championships are played. But is equipment technology causing an apocalypse of golf course renovations the world over? No.
The style of play in any sport is a function of the fields of play and the equipment. As the two change, the styles follow. The triple is almost extinct in baseball...I have fun trying to "make shots," John Redcorn, but I think it's an open question whether it is really something important for golf that we have a dominant style of play that resembles what professionals did between the 1930s and 1980s. The last few years have been pretty exciting for golf, and I haven't heard too many people lamenting that the big tournaments are being won with a series of long, high, straight shots. (And that is what they do, even Tiger, although he may work the ball more than others, it's basically a high/straight game now).
After all, he is the one that said "I am such an idoit".
That's why we love him.