“I think it’s sad they let the golf ball get out of control."
Like you need a reason to root for 55-year-old qualifier Fred Funk, there's also this, as told to Ryan Ballengee.
“I think it’s sad they let the golf ball get out of control,” Funk said Sunday in a telephone interview.
“[The USGA] is going to argue that it’s pure club head speed and increased athleticism, but I don’t think they can make that argument if you look at the game and how it’s progressed in a little more than a decade. There are guys who are great athletes that have a lot of clubhead speed, but they generate so much carry with the golf ball. There’s more dispersion between the average guy and these guys that are really, really long.”
Barry Svrulga fills us in on Funk's Monday press conference and excitement about qualifying this year.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 05:11 AM
Reader Comments (44)
Take the Top 10 driver distance guys to a range.
Each hit a dozen Titleist ProV1X circa 2011 and then a dozen Titleist Tour Prestige circa 1999.
Compare distance.
Let's see if it's athleticism and clubhead speed then.
I cannot recall anyone saying exactly how they should have been able to do this without of course the benefit of hindsight never mind the litigious nature of american society breathing down their necks!
This literally takes 2 seconds to disprove. Take Fred Funk and any PGA tour player.....this is about distance, so lets pick America's favorite long ball hitter and "gifted athlete": Dustin Johnson. Now, lets give DJ and FF the same driver and ball. DJ will destroy FF.....will it be because of equipment? Impossible as they hit the same driver and ball.
So how does this argument even make it to this website? This is freaking nonsense. This is just the whining of an old man who misses his glory days.
Get over it Funk. You're old.
2011: 270.3
2010: 267.6
2009: 269.6
2008: 269.7
2007: 271.8
2006: 272.8
2005: 270.0
2004: 271.9
2003: 274.1
2002: 273.0
2001: 272.1
1999: 269.7
Granted, driving distances definitely jumped up after the Pro V-1 was introduced in late 2000...that said, since then it's been pretty much a zero sum game. If the ball got out of control over the last decade, somebody must have been hiding the new toys from Fred.
In all reality, there's many factors at play. Longer balls, better equipment, better athletes. It all contributes...you can't simply single out one little piece of the equation and scream "Eureka!" Something in my gut tells me that Dustin Johnson would pummel a balata, even with a hickory-shafted persimmon driver...and Fred Funk would still hit it 260 with a rocket propelled NASA-engineered moon-metal driver.
Let's make it even easier. Hook up the swing robot with a club from today, doesn't matter which one. Have it hit a few dozen balls of various types from today, and representative balls from the last 10 to 15 years. Replace club with 10 to 15 year old model, repeat experiment. I tell ya, this data driven guy typing here would have a field data with evaluating those data sets. :)
@All-
As for Funk, he makes a good point, but it seems to be lost in the nasty cynicism that pops up here now and then. Funk has some validity to his point regarding the ball and equipment. Has he benefited? Sure. I think the point is that the courses and the game suffer overall.
Stepping away from equipment for a moment and move to the whole "length is ruining the game thing"....I would like point out the following:
-Mark Wilson has 2 wins this year (one on a course that's built for the bomber....i.e. TPC Scottsdale....lets be real, there's NO way JB Holmes could win ANYWHERE else).
-Luke Wilson is #1 in the world (for those of you that think the OWGR is flawed...shut up, you're wrong...basic math in a spreadsheet is not bad, it just means you suck at math)
-Jim Furyk was player of the year last year, won the FedEx cup and had 3 wins.
-David Toms had a T2 at the players followed by a win.
Notice anything about these guys? Oh yeah....not long hitters. Yet they can still get it done.
Has golf put WAY too much emphasis on the long hitters. Sure. Has equipment changed the game. Also sure. But you know what that's called....life. Things progress....things evolve.....just like they always have. Want proof? I'd like to paraphrase Bobby Jones comments of Jack Nicklaus when the Golden Bear started out "He's not even playing the same game."
Nicklaus was bombing it 30 yards by everyone when he started out....then people had to play catch up. Progress. Get used to it.
Fred funk is a short man, anything he says must take that into account.
Get over it ball haters, it's human nature to make things faster stronger better. It called progress. Design better golf holes. And drop your ego at the door cause your new course that your building ain't hosting the 2019 US Open with Tiger. Instead it's just rich guys who should play from the ladies tees.
A little light reading: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12926.full
Now, who's gonna win the National Open?
There is a broad spectrum of players, short and long, young and old, who think the game would be better off with a shorter ball. Those who dismiss Funk just because of his distance off the tee are missing the point.
You are going to have to provide a little data to back up this kinda meaningless assertion...what exactly does "Broad Spectrum" mean? How many people are members of this "Broad Spectrum"? Do they meet at a pizza place on Tuesday night? A membership number?
My own unsupportable, anecdotal impression is that more than 99% of the 28 million golfers in the US do not care at all about the golf ball. And that your "Broad Spectrum" is in reality a very teeney slice of 1/10th of 1% of the golfers in the US. Not a broad spectrum, more of an echo chamber.
From FF's quote above: "..There’s more dispersion between the average guy and these guys that are really, really long.” This is exactly why the ball agrument does not resonate: juiced balls do not impact the game that 99.9999% of golfers play. There are 16,000 golf courses in the US and this ball thing affects, AT MOST 150 of them. And most golfers could not get anywhere near most of these 150...let alone play them.
NASCAR restricts speeds on some races, the Rockies put their baseballs in humidors to control distance, MLB bans aluminum bats
To suggest that equipment and ball distance is moot is plain stupidity....
The ball debate is not about competition, or about picking certain winners or losers in competition. It isn't about trying to help short hitters win, or preventing long hitters from winning.
It is purely about scaling the equipment to fit the classic golf course designs. Now I can understand if the people who have a vested interest in selling more and more new golf equipment might have a certain take on this subject. Eric B.? But my interest is in the betterment of the game and the preservation of the one irreplacable part of the game, which is the classic golf course designs. And if the USGA does not have that same mission, then they ought to re-think whether they should exist. The notion -- all too real, I suppose -- that the USGA has not acted to better scale the golf ball to the current state of affairs because of a threat of litigation, fills me with disgust. Should one, or a handful, of equipment manufacturers determine how a sport should be played? It is a disgrace to the game of golf.
So we can add Fred Funk to The List.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/the-list/
And my long-standing challenge remains, to any proponents of 21st century golf ball technology. Geoff Shackelford has compiled The List; a running list of quotes from the game's best players, architects, administrators and writers, all concurring that golf ball regulations have gotten away from the USGA. Does anyone have a counter to The List? Is there anyone besides Wally Uihlein of Acushnet, and a few people paid by Acushnet, who are arguing for the status quo? Please; show us 'The Counter-List' if one exists.
@KLG--Thanks for the light reading! :) That's a fascinating article. Thanks for passing it along.
If The List is filled with the great and good while there is only Wally on the other side, how come the ball hasn't been rolled back?
Anyway, 99% of the people around these parts don't care that the library has had to cut its hours severely over the past two years. They are wrong and shortsighted nevertheless. Not to mention philistine in the extreme.
I'll answer the question you posed above. I've narrowed it down to two - either Choi or Kooch to win. My head says Choi but I would really love for Kooch do it, so being a scientist I will go with the head and pick KJ. So, I've likely doomed both of them to a MC.
Who are you picking?
http://www.abbeyweb.net/images/covers/mwg.jpg
Sounds like Pasatiempo is in your future?
I'd love to see Rickie break out and do well - as would my wife. Her motto - more of Rickie, less of everyone else. Go figure.
Pro-regulation lobby, rock on.
I didn't know what it meant, went googling and found the most concise and lucid Wiki entry ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
And no, of course no one (at least not me) is accusing the USGA of "corruption." I'm not aware of no evidence to support such an allegation.
But the USGA hasn't done itself any favors in recent years. It has been conducting a golf ball study for years, with virtually no published data or results. The Association has been terribly opaque in its promulgation of equipment rules. Not once has the Association conducted a thoughtful open meeting on equipment regulations. There is an ongoing debate for years, and the USGA has been virtually silent. That is no way for the game's "legal guardian" to behave. (Those were great television ads; it is the backup that was lacking.)
As for "the threat of litigation," only the USGA and Acushnet know that back-story. But instead of my speculating, I'll just ask you, Mr. 7.0: Do you think the USGA has the legal right and the effective power to roll back golf ball performance such that eltie players would see about a 5% reduction in distance, or a 10% increase in spin, or some combination thereof?
Let's not get too lost in technological details. Assuming that some change along those lines is possible, do you agree that the USGA can legally do it? (I'd prefer it, if technologically possible, that most recreational players would experience little if any noticeable change.)
Or do you think that Acushnet ought to be able to sue the USGA? Do you think that Acushnet would be right to sue the USGA?
Because I think that's a fight that should happen. Actually, I don't think it should be much of a fight. The USGA ought to have absolute ability to regulate the game of golf played under the Rules of Golf, which the USGA and the R&A basically own. If somebody wants to play some other game, with other implements, under some other set of rules, they can knock themselves out. Have at it. Enjoy. The USGA won't tell you what to do in your spare time. Just don't ask some federal judge to decide how the Rules of Golf are supposed to be administered.
Nice pickup.
... as for everything else, I'm going to write a bunch more when I get home, but guys hanging their collective hats (and arguments) on "progress" doesn't make any sense to me.
The ad hominem attacks on Fred Funk just disgust and tire me...as mentioned above, he'd wax anybodys arse on here (he just shot 62 the other week for F's sake...), and, like mentioned above, it's not as if he just got SHORTER when everybody else got longer...most guys have been knocking it past FF for his entire career. Sour grapes? Now that he's on the Champions Tour? Huh?
More to follow. :)
-LK