“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)
Brandt Snedecker
:)
-LK
Not sure how you determined this, I live in Fulton County, Georgia.
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?
I am not a lawyer and antitrust law seems to be arcane. Witness the problems in the NFL, they seem to go from courtroom to courtroom. Can they lock out the players? Who knows, one judge says "no" a different judge says "yes" Can the players union sue the NFL for anti trust? No. They had to decertify the union and file suit under the names of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees. Yikes!
So, to answer your direct question: I don't know.
Who gave the USGA the legal right to make these decisions? Was it a kinda voluntary thing? (is it legally significant TODAY that in 1895 a few rich guys in a handful of clubs agreed to create the USGA and vest it with some power over the game?) Does the USGA have a legally recognized monopoly on the rules of golf? Did they get the monopoly from some congressional legislation?
Could it be that the USGA is somewhat uncertain about its legal authority?
IF the USGA has totally clear legal authority to roll back the ball, BUT THEY HAVE NOT, does that mean they are corrupt? Stupid? Or maybe they do not think the golf ball is a problem.
A3golfer: Most everyone I play with can hit it past 250. That includes a 70 year old man with a titanium hip, two replaced knees and a 14 handicap. Why are courses getting longer? To accomodate the changes in technology over the last 15-20 years. Why do developers and architects accomodate the .0001%? Because most golfers, including myself, like to play three shot holes and par 4's that require more than driver-wedge. I see your point - some golfers still wrongly confuse "harder" with "better." And yes, you can blame the shafts, launch monitors or the clubs. But that doesn't negate my point that distance does not equate progress for the game at large. Finally, the longer the course, the longer it takes to play. That has nothing to do with courtesy or attitude, it is simple geometry. A to B and all of that.
7.0: See Geoff's list on this very website for prominent golfers who want to roll back the ball or control technology. As for me providing statistical data to back up a simple assertation, my opinion is limited to my experience as a golfer and extensive conversations on the course regarding the subject over the last 10 to 15 years. I didn't take notes on those conversations or provide a study, but hopefully I can still have an opinion in this forum.
Geoff Ogilvy (young and long) wants to see distance contained. If he is longer than his opponents with modern technology, he's going to be able to hit it past them with regulated technology. Funk (short and old, sorry Fred!) will still be shorter than his opponents. That's what I mean by a "broad spectrum" - it's not as if a distance rollback would only negatively affect the bombers to the benefit of the short knockers.
"There are 16,000 golf courses in the US and this ball thing affects, AT MOST 150 of them." I disagree completely (I'd also like to see the data on this assertation if you're asking for my data). Lot's of our best courses were designed in the 20's and 30's. Take a run of the mill Billy Bell municipal course in CA at 6,000 yards - should the course spend the $$ to extend their tees, and move bunkers to comply with the original intent of the architect? Should they raise their prices to finance the changes/progress? Or should the course live with the "good but short" label and lose customers?
This "ball thing" is not limited to the PGA Tour and their courses. It affects everyone who wants to play in 4 hours or less. It also affects everyone who wants to keep golf affordable for the next generation.
RickABQ, Rickie's got to slow down that handsy swing, lose the hat, and get a man's haircut.