A Plan For The Future
Jim Achenbach writes his latest online column a bit like Nuke LaLouche pitches (all over the place). But you have to love that he is writing about the issues, trying trying to generate discussion and attempting to consider all sides of the equation.
He first suggests that a competition ball would be the best way to go:
The answer is for the USGA to create a "condition of competition" that allows tournament officials to impose the use of a shorter ball. This ball would be used in PGA Tour events and any other tournament, professional or amateur, that elects to go with this detuned ball.
Sure, this notion is controversial. Regardless, it provides a workable answer to the distance dilemma.
Golf fans in the big world out there don't give a toot whether J.B. Holmes uses the exact same ball as you and I, but everyday golfers drool over the possibility of hitting some of the same irons into par 4s as Holmes does.
The one-ball rule was established as a condition of competition, and the same could be done with the velocity of the golf ball.
And he seems to be joining the growing chorus that feels the difficulty of relating to the pro game may be stifling the growth of everyday golf.
If we are serious rather than hypocritical, we will do whatever is reasonable to foster the growth of the game. I believe that equalizing the playing field between tour pros and the rest of us would make the game more compelling.
Because golf is so difficult, we must be conscious of the regulations that are imposed on golfers and their equipment. If I were the czar of golf, I would change the maximum number of clubs from 14 to 15. This would help revitalize the industry and would allow golfers to take advantage of new clubs such as hybrids.
Don't expect a 15-club limit any time soon, but the point remains: We should be encouraging the expansion of all segments of the game, including golf equipment manufacturers.
Really? Or maybe some pushed for such a rapid product turnover cycle that manufacturers have used up their best stuff? Or dare I say, maybe they've created weary consumers who might feel like they are being taken advantage of?
My fear is that additional golf equipment regulations will stifle creativity within the golf industry. Too many rules could result in an environment in which golf clubs and balls are sold largely through smoke and mirrors rather than performance.
Lord knows that line has never been crossed!
If design creativity is limited, golf companies are smart enough to compensate with creative marketing. This can lead to greater confusion among golfers and less emphasis on the true sophistication of golf equipment.
I remember mentioning to a very well known equipment maker that he must really enjoy the creative side of designing clubs. His reply? "Nope, it's all about marketing."
If golf is not healthy and does not grow, there is a trickle-down effect that touches many aspects of the game. We would be wise to consider the many golf jobs created among golf manufacturers, golf professionals, golf shops, golf course maintenance staffs, clubhouse employees and all golf-related businesses.
True, and just think how many more tips a member could hand out if he did not buy that 15th club!
Or...eh, forget it. Here's where things seem to unravel:
Golf is an outdoor sporting phenomenon that is played by all ages. It should not be diminished, thwarted or truncated. It should remain vital, dynamic and spirited.
All things considered, this is why USGA officials are so worried. We (and they) are standing at Ground Zero. We must choose the path to the future.
The final exam for Golf 101 has just one multiple-choice question:
(A) Do we really want golf to grow and prosper? Or . . .
(B) Do we want it to reflect and resemble the game it was 50 years ago?
Think hard, because in all likelihood there is no "all of the above" answer.
The conclusion seems to be: the game as it is now is much better off than 50 years ago, BUT...we need to fix the mess we are in now.
Friday, March 10, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Reader Comments (18)
Well this is a tough question to examine if you have no real background in golf, and certainly if you have no reference to the history of the sport.
Unfortunately, most people have neither. Thus they would probably choose A simply because it sounds better, like comparing there Grandfathers 56 Chevrolet 4 door post, to todays all family friendly mini van.
Golf History, and Golf's Lessons were founded on sportsmanship, integrity, courtesy, you etiquette. What's happening with todays golf balls and drivers in particular, have scratched right through the sportsmanship, along with the integrity, and is seriously broaching upon courtesy.
So from my viewpoint on this topic, I most assuredly would have to go with "B". Because "B" still resembles what the game was created to do from the beginning. The answer "A" would be a complete Capitalistic viewpoint in order to manipulate "B" into equating to some bottom line. Who would compromise the principles of Sportsmanship, Integrity, and Courtesy?? Only a Capitalist who only gets out and plays about twice a month would do such a thing.
Why can’t golf follow suit? Pick a ball that goes X yards when hit purely, require drivers and fairway woods to be made of wood with nylon inserts, set a standard for the type of grooves allowed in irons and limit the length of a putter. Easy, no?
Well, unfortunately, an entire industry has grown around technological advances. Metal woods, graphite shafts and balls that fly forever are a fact of life in golf. At this point, equipment manufacturers are making too much money in producing the latest and greatest stuff to reign in.
Sure, the PGA Tour, the Masters and the Ohio Golf Association can unilaterally do something and implement some sort of equipment “standard”. But then what happens to the Handicap System, which is based on the premise that any one golfer can play any other golfer on equal terms? If that happens, pro-ams are a thing of the past. No ATT Pebble Beach, no Bob Hope Chrysler Classic (however, if I don’t see Ray Romano ever again, this may not be a bad thing). And how do you conduct qualifying for the U.S. Open and British Open with some qualifiers gaining entry using a different standard?
I don’t have the answer, but I can say this. Any equipment rollback means a war with the equipment manufacturers. Most are publicly owned companies with fiduciary obligations to their shareholders to defend themselves. They are not interested in “the integrity of the game”, only in making money. At this point, I think putting the toothpaste back in the tube is impossible.
Players qualifying for the U.S. Open and British Open can keep playing with the toothpaste thats out of the tube. PGA Tour players can play these two events with the toothpaste thats out of the tube. Handicaps and Pro Ams can keep playing with the toothpaste thats out of the tube.
The Masters, they can put the toothpaste back into the tube and players playing there will cope. Also the PGA Tour can put the toothpaste back in the tube, and monday qualifiers can cope with the toothpaste being put back in the tube if they want to Monday Q. The "PLAYERS" on the "PGA TOUR" care about the fact that this is a "GENTLEMAN'S GAME", players care about the "HISTORY", the "INTEGRITY" and most importantly, because there is a lot of money in the purses today, players care about "SPORTSMANSHIP".
So you see Fred F. the manufacturers and the usga don't really have to put the toothpaste back in the bottle because their not competing for a living each week where the toothpaste makes all the difference in the world to top class athletes who need the playing field level, and where there is not some artificial means that is skewing the "integrity" of the sport where players are competing for their livelihood.
If the manufacturers and the usga can't see the real importance in getting the toothpaste back in the tube for professional athletes, then the PGA TOUR will be forced to start manufacturing it's own toothpaste, and its own rules.
You make good points about the Opens and the pro-ams. But I have a question. If all of the tour players have access to the same equipment, how is the playing field not level?
I can buy the arguments that distance is making classic courses obsolete and that it's turning golf into a boring, driver-wedge exercise. But equipment has made the competition unfair? If you and I have access to the same driver and you hit it farther than me, that's not unfair. That means you're a longer hitter than me. There have always been long hitters in golf. If length off the tee causes the game to be unfair to some, then why not argue golf should be played on par-3 executive courses where length isn't a factor at all?
It is all about the FACE GIVE + GOLF BALL CORE GIVE that has "SKEWED" the level playing field on the PGA Tour. How has this happened?? It's the harder and harder core give in the golf balls today that can't be "COMPRESSED" by every professional golfer on the PGA TOUR today. So as you are correct in saying all players have access to the same equipment, where you miss the point is that golf balls "USE" to be compressed by every professional golfer.
When the Golf Ball Core is Compressed by every player on the PGA Tour like it was for years and years and years, the outcome to the contest is fair. However when you bring equipment out on Tour that creates the significant "Exponential Advantage" with a "SPECIFIC" golf ball in favor of someone who can do what??? Swing a club 120mph, and nobody else can, to then take advantage of the "MAIN" objective! Simply getting a golf ball in a little hole. If we were conducting a Long Drive Contest on the PGA Tour all of this would be "ACCEPTED". But, the PGA Tour is not conducting a Long Drive Contest are they???
Your example equates to contesting a NASCAR race where all racers are restricted by a "GOVENER" placed on their vehicle "Except"for a select few who are allowed to race without one.
When you have professional golfers playing for their livelihood, where there is a lot of money on the each tournament, players will not allow some artificial means to skew the scoring or the skill required to get that ball in the hole.
Fred, we are not conducting a Long Drive Contest on the PGA Tour, we are contesting the skills it requires to play golf. Soon I think Dick Rugge will have all of the information he needs to see through all of the smoke and mirrors, and rhetoric, so that they (usga) can begin to run some specific tests where all of the loopholes (once and for all) get closed off. Sportsmanship, Integrity, Skill, Technique, and Imagination, will always rank above strength in the game of golf.
So if I understand you, what you are saying is that if I swing a driver at 100 MPH and you swing at 120 MPH - an increase of 20% over my swing speed - then your ball is going to go MORE than 20% farther than mine? Some "exponentail advantage" accrues to you because the compression of the ball's core is optimized to higher swing speeds?
Here you go. This should help you. It's not about club head speed Fred, it's about golf ball core "GIVE". If you are swinging it at 100mph and the core of the golf ball is giving, and I'm then hitting the "EXACT" same golf ball as you at 120mph where "OBVIOUSLY" at 120mph I'm compressing the "CORE" more than you are I'm still going to hit it further than you. However, we are both equal in that we both have the same exact "CORE" that we are compressing. Since I would be compressing it more than you it would be on my club face longer than it was on yours.
Now we change the scanario, we both now are given a golf ball where the "CORE" can only be compressed at 120mph where I can still compress the core but you cant. At a speed of 120mph where I can still compress such a core I still get (kick) rebound and you on the other hand get a ball that can't be compressed and therefore it falls straight out of the sky. For you it would feel like punching a "BRICKWALL" and for me like I just jumped off a trampoline.
Another example I could give you Fred F. would be if we were field goal kickers on apposing teams where I'm kicking a football that has been inflated to the standard limit, and you on the other hand were given one that was over inflated (significantly) where you really couldn't compress this ball when you kick it. I would be able to still kick mine from 48 yards where you might not be able to kick yours from 30.
I hope these examples help you Fred, and hopefully now you see just how important it is that every player on the PGA Tour are given balls that can be compressed. This would also mean keeping any balls that couldn't be compressed by every professional off the PGA Tour. Just the same as keeping all footballs compressed to a standard so that we are both "EQUAL" in being able to compress that football, and so then we find out who can kick the best instead of finding out who can and can't compress a football.
I sure hope this helps you out.
http://golf.about.com/od/faqs/f/cor.htm
Thanks for the info. And you anticipated my next question by providing a link to the science behind what you are saying. In browsing around the golf.about.com site you referenced, I found another article talking about the Ohio Golf Association's decision to use a "tournament" ball. Here's the link:
http://golf.about.com/b/a/250580.htm#more
And here's a quote from the article:
"We haven't chosen the exact ball yet, but we are leaning to one that optimizes (distance efficiency off the tee) between 100 and 105 miles per hour (driver swing speed). The ball is not going to benefit somebody at 120 (mph) the way the current ball does."
Two last questions (sorry for being a pest). First, as a golfer with a lower swing speed, couldn't I just drop down to a lower compression ball? In that way, I'd be compressing that ball in the same way as the golfer with a higher swing speed? Similar to your football analogy where I'd be kicking a normally inflated ball instead of an overinflated ball?
Second, I thought the increase in distance was coming from a higher launch angle? I'm guessing that the increased compression of the core imparts more spin, allowing the ball to climb?
Thanks for your answers.
Answer to your first question: yes you could drop down to a lower compression ball of course. But then the object is to get the ball in the hole. Just like the object to other sports that use a ball. These other sports have come up with regulations on "THEIR" balls that creates a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" which is what golf had when "EVERY" core to every ball was compressed by every professional. When golf was played on a level playing field and all professional golfers where compressing any ball that came out on the PGA TOUR, the preferences then became feel, trajectory, and spin rate. Everyone of these preferences were controled by the dimple pattern and material used in making the golf balls cover. "NONE" of these examples favored someone "SPECIFICALLY" in "MAXING" out ones club head speed.
My answer to your second question: A higher launch angle today is "YES" creating more distance. Here is the difference; when we played three piece balls trajectory was created with club head speed and "specifically" spin. For high swing speed players who hit it too high (which is almost impossible to do today because there is hardly any spin on a high launched drive today, hence wind never really becomes a factor) they would simply use a lower lofted driver, say 7 or 8 degrees. Today's launch angle and spin ratio is different as witnessed by high swing speed players going to 9.5 and 10.5 degree drivers compared to the 7 to 8 degrees that most of these bigg swing golfers used to use. Why are they going to 9.5 and 10.5 degrees today??? Because the "CORE" again has been "specifically" hardened for their club head speeds, thus the ball doesn't compress fully, and since that ball does not compress fully it does not "OVER SPIN" which allows them to use 9.5 to 10.5 without worrying about that ball "SPINNING ITS WHEELS" while up there at 12 to 13 degrees launch angle and spinning so hard that its going nowhere. The "HARD CORE" because of its resistence to give (compress fully) means it climbs up the face faster which also helps in creating instant "TRAJECTORY".
Fred there is one last thing you should remember, spin always equates to control. As a professional golfer who has taken the "TIME" to learn the skills required to flight the ball correctly, say for a right hand player with a left to right wind, and that player being able to draw his shot back up against that cross wind to hold the shot on a straighter line and vise versa. Todays balls because they are not compressed fully anymore and are not spinning as much as they once did, render the wind "MEANINGLESS". Which has deminished the "TIME" and "SKILL" that some rather profecient professional golfers are upset about today. They no longer have an advantage against another player who has not taken the "TIME" nor learned the "SKILL" in how to flight a ball in the first place, and who can now compete equally with the greater seasoned professional. These new balls have been "Devestating" to "Seasoned Professionals" for all of the above "REASONS".
Here You Go Right Here Fred F., Here are some things that well seasoned professionals are saying:
"Everything we're seeing in course setup is to offset what's happening with technology," said Sutton. "All the things they're doing now plays into the hands of the big hitters. They took the field size from 150 to 25. There's only 25 people in this tournament that can win."
Kenny Perry, who finished third at the U.S. Open and eighth at the British, said equipment is playing a larger part in the results than fans think. "The ball just doesn't react to the wind like it used to," said Perry. "It doesn't make any difference where you play.
Funk: I can’t compete on golf courses with real wide fairways and no rough, because the bombers will just take over. I don’t usually mind long courses – I just need ‘em set-up right. It’s not necessarily narrow fairways and high rough, but there’s got to be something that’ll penalize you when you’re off line. But even then, it doesn’t seem to matter for this current group of top players. If you look at the Doral statistics (2005), Tiger and Phil were almost last in driving accuracy, yet finished first and second. Granted, the rough was deep in spots there, but the guy who finished on top in driving accuracy, Billy Mayfair – he still was well back at the end.
Funk: The technology’s created more of a separation between the shorter and longer hitters – most of it’s the ball right now. (It's Club Face Give + Super Hard Core Give that only a very small percentage can compress) It’s so aerodynamically good; it just doesn’t fall out of the sky. (Well that is if you can compress this specific core. If you can't, believe me, it's falling out of the sky, and fast!)
GTMA: How do you feel about having a tournament-spec ball?
Funk: I’d like to see them slow down the ball a little bit, to two ball generations ago, before this last set of balls came out. Those golf balls didn’t make the gap between long and short hitters so dramatic – everybody had more of an even playing field.
This last generation of balls, the distance just spiked – eight, ten yards out there, on average. Now you’ve got so many guys who can hit it 300-yards in the air, it’s a joke.
Fred, I'll be the first to admit that my career has not been a stellar one, in that I'm not a hosehold name. But, I have spent 18 years making my living getting a little ball in a hole, and I do know first hand what it is these players are saying, and "WHY" they are saying what they are saying. Sutton and Perry are MAJORS WINNERS and know exactly what is going on with these new balls today.
For your reference I have provided you with some other examples of "BALL SPORTS" and how the "MAIN" objective, the "BALL", is "PROTECTED" with and "EXTREMLY" "CRITICAL" amount of "INTEGRITY" given to doing just that. Protecting the integrity of the "BALL" ensures that each sport, in its competitions, are actually being decided by skill instead of some artificial means to skew the competion. The example on bowling balls is priceless in that these balls have absolutely no compression in them at all. However, even in that sport, engineers have found a way to create an artificial means to "SKEW" results. Check them out for yourself.
Sean
Nicklaus on the MASTERS
http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/20050407topicb.html
BASKETBALLS:
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Basketball.html
The ball must be inflated to a pressure sufficient to make it rebound to a height (measured to the top of the ball) of 49-54 in (1.2-1.4 m) when it is dropped on a solid wooden floor from a starting height of 6 ft (1.80 m) measured from the bottom of the ball.
The factory must test the balls, and the air pressure that makes the ball legal in keeping with the bounce test is stamped on the ball.
During the intensity of high school and college tourneys and the professional playoffs, this inflated sphere commands considerable attention.
FOOTBALLS: http://www.answers.com/topic/football-ball
American and Canadian football
An American footballIn North America, the term football refers to a ball which is used to play American football or Canadian football. Nearly a prolate spheroid, it is slightly pointed at the ends (unlike the more elliptical rugby ball). It is about 11 inches (28 cm) long and about 22 inches (56 cm) in circumference at the center. Balls are made of four pieces of leather stitched together. A football has a rubber lining, which is inflated to an air pressure of 12.5–13.5 psi (86–93 kPa). The ball weighs 14–15 ounces (397–425 g).
BOWLING BALLS: http://articles.bowlingzone.com/publish/article_3.html
USBC vs Ball Manufacturers
By BowlingZone
May 19, 2005, 17:21
Well it looks like lines are already being drawn in the sand in terms of what USBC expects from bowling ball manufacturers in upcoming seasons.
According to USBC's website, the USBC is proposing some drastic measures to "maintain the credibility and integrity of the sport and assure that scoring is based on individual skill and effort as opposed to artificial means."
Hats off to the Ohio Golf Association!
Fred Funk doesn't have a problem with long hitters, he has a problem with a specific golf ball being manufactured for them exclusively.
D.P. I don't know how much golf you have played. But the "MAIN" "OBJECTIVE" is the "BALL". Skewing "Distance" "Exclusively" for 120mph swings is = to cheating. When the golf ball is manufactured specifically to produce distance for a slect few is equivelant to allowing some NASCAR racers to ignore the car set up restrictions. "NICE" "RACE" when its "SKEWED"!
Thanks for the answers. Very informative.
One last thing, as I've re-read what you posted. Frank Thomas once said in an interview that there's no such thing as "over spin" in a golf ball. The loft of the club can only impart backspin. I believe the quote was "over spin is a myth."
That seems logical in that, if a ball had over spin, it would dive, not climb, and therefore not go anywhere.
Maybe by "over spin", you mean less back spin? That seems logical in that a higher swingspeed player compresses the ball more, causing the ball to be in contact with the face longer, and thus imparting more back spin. And as you note, this also allows the ball to climb on the face, causing increased trajectory.