Americans are obsessed with statistical information - and it can be illuminating.
But - do these guys ever get out and watch what is actually happening to the great holes of the world?
Do they think it is ok for formerly strong two and three shot holes to be reduced to drives and wedges and easliy reached par fives?
No amount of statistical information can over-ride what has happened to the game - and to find out what has happened you need to watch closely. Everyone with any observational powers knows and understands the combination of modern ball and club has been a catastrophie for the great holes of courses conceived between eighty and a hundred year ago - i.e the greatest treasures the great architects left us - and the greatest treasures the game has. Certainly they are way more important than Phil Mickelson and the bosses of equipment companies bent only on proit - and making a ball that goes even further.

The patient has been stabilized, he's not losing any more blood.

That's cause he's empty.

Ticket price.....they still don't "get it" on the coast, no wonder the state is bankrupt.

The Golden Bear had it nailed long before the ball was a hot topic. Untold millions have been put into courses to defend par against the best players in the world, often at the expense of club members. However, it cuts both ways. The golf equipment industry would not be what it is today had the ball been "revised" when Jack made the observation. When we made the leap from balata & persimmon to metal & solid core we lost all reference points to the great players of the past, not unlike the dead ball era in baseball. The comments by Donald Ross are correct, what he didn't know is that we'd have less people playing this wonderful game were there not advancements in equipment technology.

"All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill. If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7500 and even 8000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out." - William Flynn, 1927.

The Flynn quote above is to be found on pg115 of Geoff's excellent book 'The Golden Age of Golf Design'.

Physics, where the distance the ball travels is related to the square of the impact velocity, will ultimately dictate a limiting distance. Until some gorilla learns to swing the club 20mph faster, it should surprise no one that we are asymptotically reaching a limit as to how far the ball travels. The problem is that limit should have been controlled through technology 50 yards ago.

I keep reading the average USGA handicap index for golfers has not improved in decades. Could you imagine if they had not come up with perimeter weighted irons, 460cc drivers, 64 degree wedges and Scotty Cameron's Titleist Studio Select Squareback Putter? Let's not even discuss the Pro V1...

@Old Hornet: "The comments by Donald Ross are correct, what he didn't know is that we'd have less people playing this wonderful game were there not advancements in equipment technology."

Maybe, but after just a few minutes on the interwebs, the numbers say different:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/44950827.html

Wikipedia:
In the United States, the number of people who play golf 25 times or more per year decreased from 6.9 million in 2000 to 4.6 million in 2005, according to the National Golf Foundation. The NGF reported that the number who played golf at all decreased from 30 to 26 million over the same period.
Reference to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?_r=1&em&ex=1203829200&en=9c9070c4064e72a7&ei=5087%0A

I'm unaware of any evidence that this decline has reversed since 2005. BTW, didn't the ProV1 come out in 2000 or thereabouts, and the 460cc driver since then?

Rugge's argument, "Distance has completely stabilized," only serves as mostly conclusive proof that the ball, and not fitness, not training, not technique, not bigger players, not launch monitors, not 460cc high-MoI drivers, is what was behind the big distance jump in the Pro V era.

Drivers keep changing, improving. Players haven't stopped working out. But the basic multilayer solid core urethane-cover golf ball has been mostly unchanged, with very slight formulation changes, during the time period in question.

Dick Rugge seems like a mostly honest engineer. It is a shame that he doesn't acknowledge that fact and instead focuses on a straw man.

So, too, we have "stabilized" driving distances even as the Tour has done a number of things to penalize errant driving. What might have happened to driving distances if courses had not been changed to discourage players from maxing out the distances that technology otherwise would offer them?

Golf handicaps are not lower because so many novice players have entered the game. . . For many years - before golf became such an "in game" - most golfers had begun playing in their youth. . . Their dad played - they had caddied - they just picked it up and had fun. . . When the golf boom hit many newcomers - lots of them in their 40's and 50's who had never played golf - or other "ball hitting" sports - bought clubs and took a few lessons. . . Most of them came to find the game - especially how to score - really difficult. . . I was a Club Professional - beginning in 1971 - and players were definitely better with lower scores (swings and short games) because most of them had grown up in the game and the courses were EASIER. . . Slower greens and fewer bunkers in front of greens so the run up shot was always possible.

Amen to everything you said, Wisconsin.
Chuck and Ky have also shared great truths.

I would like to add that I truly miss the balata Titleist Black 100, circa 1970, 336 dimples. A trajectory that allowed for ground game golf. Then they came out with the shallow dimple 324 dimpled ball and the arms race was triggered.

(I know this because I often counted dimples while waiting for carts to come in at dark and it was difficult to stack the newer balls past three)
Also, a quote applies here, I know not the author, perhaps you might help me ID it:
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Ludell: Benjamin Disraeli.

The ball has stabilized and is FLYING 300 yards in the air...in the Champions Tour, no less.

What Mike Clayton said.

Re Ross' comment on never using more than 6 clubs in a round, 6 was the number of clubs used
by Francis Ouimet to win the l913 US Open. That's why he could emply a l0 year old caddie.

If the USGA had it to do all over again, which they surely do not, the maximum number of clubs
would be l0.

Rugge's claim that all is OK because Tour driving distance is now stable is like saying the world is in
great shape because there has been no dramatic increase in the power of atomic weapons in
recent times.

Ky and others..... one cannot make a definitive and correct conclusion if there is more than one variable in the equation. The equation of golf participation has multiple variables and as such you cannot place all the blame for the decline in play upon the ball and the equipment. If you want to state your personal disdain for the modern ball and equipment, just do so. However, you cannot justify your position with this false argument. Thank you

Ky -

I can't give you the exact date Ross made the comment, my guess would be around the 20's. I fail to see how that relates to a survey regarding less rounds played 2006-2008. Ross was refering to the art of the "feel " player. I can relate as my club (founded 1898) was fortunate to have a pro from Scotland during the late 50's - 60's, that would often shoot even par using driver, 5, 9, and putter. There will always be slashers that will never become scratch or single digit due to technology, I'm saying that a higher percentage of them will be able to play well enough with it, to avoid losing interest in the game.

Let me know the next time you reach for your Eye-O-Matic instead of the Cleveland DST

Frank Thomas held the same post and said the same thing in the 1990's.

Rolling back might satisfy the purists, most of whom sit at home in their armchairs watching HD, but it would decimate both birdie-hungry walk-ups and casual TV viewers. The game needs any audience they can get right now.

Statistics has given us the lie of Global warming as fact, just as driving data can be massaged however

whatever ...

The golf ball goes too far off the driver, that's the real problem. Dial the ball spin up and the driver volume + COR down

@funny: I placed no blame anywhere and as a working scientist I am quite aware that two equations and one variable do not admit of a unique solution. Thank you. Old Hornet of the 1898-vintage golf club wrote "we'd have less people playing this wonderful game were there not advancements in equipment technology" and implied that this is something Donald Ross didn't know. Actually, I imagine that Donald Ross appreciated that developments such as the steel shaft and the mass production of matched sets by Spalding, MacGregor and the like did increase levels of participation, along with the construction of municipal courses. There can be no doubt that Mr. Ross would have thought that the post-war boom was a good thing. However, in the context of the current discussion, it is clear that the recent quantum advances in ball and club technology have not caused, correlated with, facilitated, or otherwise increased the number of people taking up the game. Or if that has happened, it has been offset by the numbers of people giving up the game at the same time. That is my only point. Thank you, again.

@Old Hornet: While it is not particularly convincing to generalize from one's own experience, I'm nevertheless going to do so. The general run of golfers I see on public and private courses are no better than they were 20-25 years ago, which is when I really starting paying attention. This covers the transition to the well-behaved hot ball and the 460cc titanium driver. It may be true that some tend to hit it longer on occasion, but their "power fades," as they call them, just go farther into the weeds or the woods. Maybe they are sticking with the game due to this. I don't know, but someone is not sticking with the game. As for my Eye-O-Matic, it's either a Cleveland Classic or Ray Cutright special (both with S300 steel shafts), and I would love to use them once in a while. Maybe you can provide me with a dozen 1990-vintage low-trajectory Titleist 100s? Or even a dozen 1998-vintage Professional-90s or 100s? I never used RockFlights or Pinnacles with with either club and I'm not about to start now.

No one mentions the length of time it takes to play a round now...sometimes 6 hours on a muni.....I go to my local public driving range, as I have done since I was a kid, and it seems the range is as busy as ever....I think maybe more players now, but less rounds played as a result of time demands which don't ordinarily allow a family man 6 hours on a weekend anymore, plus the average higher green fees.

Ky -

I'm afraid I agree with those that say time is the major factors in reduce play (In my prime if you didn't play 18 in 3 hrs. they came looking for you), the dollar may also be involved in the equation. I guess we can agree to disagree.

As for your ball request, my preference was the Titleist balata 90. Unfortunately for you, all were consumed over time by my John Ofer & Joe Powell work horses. The only thing I can offer you are a dozen Royal with the square dimples, will that do ?

Enjoy your evening......Please excuse me while I prepare the snow blower for the big dump.

@terry - I neglect to see how the "caual TV viewer" gets any emotional response from "watching" a pro on TV hit a 300y carry drive.

#1. You can't see the ball from behind the player after he swings.
#2. You can't tell the distance during the shot because the camera angles are too tight.

If all the stars align and we start watching golf in 3d(my hope, and I hope to be a part of it in any small way) - then your argument would be more valid, in my opinion. We could see the entire hole(or at least a "birds-eye" side view of tee->landing area) and also have the golfer onscreen actually making the swing. We could then follow the ball flight(like shot-tracker, but live and better) and even put up other pros' distances as a reference...("oooo...see on the 3d rendition there where Tigers tee ball landed, and JBH just flew that by 15 yards...", etc.)

300 yard drives on TV do not make casual golf fans(either TV fans or actual players) want to play more golf, or talk more about golf(both of which I care about). It may however have something to do with the purchase of so many 460cc drivers...boy, I can't wait to try out my new Sumo2 5900.


Cheers,


LK

LK, give your head a shake, emotional response from televison golf has been around for more than 50 years now. Devices are available at some tournaments to complement standing in one spot.

@Old Hornet

Sorry about the snow blowing. I recently moved back to the South and sometimes I miss the snow, but then I see the current news or hear of your chore and I remember. Anyway, one of the great things about my current course is that I can walk it in 3 hrs on a weekend afternoon. Slow play and $400 drivers and $200 putters probably scare off more golfers than anything...

The Royals with the square dimples would be great. I have a sleeve of yellowed Haskell balls (found in an ancient bag in an attic if you can believe that) and sometimes I do want to hit one of them. But what I really would like to see is a Wilson K-28, the ball of my youth, when I played about 4 times a year and couldn't spring for a Titleist. Or maybe an Acushnet Club Special.

Cheers. Hope your course is ready earlier than usual this year.

@Betty - My apologies - I did not mean to imply that an emotional response is not derived from watching television golf in general.

Personally, I love watching golf on TV(for a variety of reasons). I will very likely never see a PGA Tournament in person(as I live in Canada), but I think that just allows me to value what I am seeing all the more.

That being said - watching a pro drive a golf ball, on television, using conventional broadcast and delivery methods would not, to a large degree, cause any average golf fan, or borderline fan, to have a substantial emotional response to viewing, in my opinion.

You can't even see the ball.


Cheers,

LK

Ky -

I would be happy to send you (1) ea. K-28 & Club Special, less blade of era smiles & free of charge. All that's needed is the address (unless you're uncomfortable with posting the info). I'll do a spring tune-up in FL, and be ready to play up north when the snow leaves. We start early at the 1898, we're blue collar not blue blood.

Terry et all-here goes!
When 'game improvement'equipment came out in the 70's it was aimed directly at the average club golfer who by and large found the game pretty difficult.It was never expected that low handicappers or pros would ever want to use the stuff.No pro would ever have been seen dead using a top-flite or a pinnacle type ball-it just didnt happen.Tony Jacklin was derided for signing to Ping as 'no self respecting pro would ever use that rubbish-he must be doing it for the money!'
Game improvement clubs and balls havent done the club player any harm at all but perversely it has helped the top players far,far more.The very players who didn't really need the help can now hit the ball miles harder without fear of it going as far off line,poorly struck shots still go nearly as far and solid balls now spin as much as a balata but go more than 10% further.This has taken a huge amount of skill out of the game at the top level and makes it hard to differentiate between the very good and the moderate player.The 'tour' player of the present day has become (Tiger is the exception)tediously one-dimensional(why would they bother doing anything else?) and the artists such as Trevino,Seve and O'Connor are a thing of the past.All very sad in my view.
Whats been the reaction to this huge increase in hitting ability by the less than 1% who play at that level-longer courses with acre upon acre of rough and Disneyesque greens just to 'protect the integrity of the game!'Who on earth of the other 99% wants or can afford that.Who wants the resulting 5 hr+ rounds?
I am 100% behind a tournament ball-it wouldnt effect ball sales one iota.Its the only thing you cant do without to play the game and who cares if you are using a wee bit different Pro V1 to the tour boys?-almost nobody I would venture.I would also vote for a smaller club head at elite level and make the putter the shortest club in the bag if I could(even though I have the yips!)The ball is FAR the easiest way to go though and if the manufacturers say otherwise they are lying.When sourceing balls for our 220yard long driving range every one of the ball suppliers offered me a ball 'that wouldnt fly as far' so the technology already exists.
All I really want to know is that when a player wins a big tournament they have done it because they are the best player-not because they had the best equipment.I want to see top golf played on the best courses not some crap 7600 yard monster built on boring land more akin to the surface of the moon than Muirfield.
Bifurcation is not a bad thing-losing the skill factor is!CHANGE THE BALL! T.V. is golf's shop window and its getting very boring!
There-phew.

@chico -

Bravo.




-LK

Fact: 2002 less than 10 players on the PGA TOUR drove the ball longer than 290 yards.

Fact: 2003 Titleist introduces the PRO V-1X

Fact: 2003 Phil Mickelson quote, "The faster you swing the more exponential distance gained"

Fact: 2003 Over night 60 plus plavers on the PGA TOUR were driving on average over 290 yards.

Fact: 2003 All par 5's are reduced to two shot holes, gone are the days of great players hitting Driver-3/wood-9 iron into a par 5.

Fact: 2009 By this year the game has morphed into something completely different, shot values and strategy are but a footnote in golf's history books!

Fact: 2010 The USGA is still publishing their myths, and believing them!