USGA's Davis Has An Idea.....

[Mr. Herbert]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

 

I couldn't agree more...

 

I thought the US Open at Merion was terrible. They ended up tucking pins into corners where it was almost impossible to get the ball close, even with a great shot. Dial back the ball and the course can be played at it was designed to.

 

Agreed. The only thing missing at Merion during the US Open was windmills on the greens.

[bladehunter]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

 

To answer #1 no. They way to handle it would be for the tour to take bids for getting to be the supplier of the ball. Then the tour disperses said balls to the players. Player pays for the balls. Similar to nascar and Goodyear tires. If they have no choice they will pay.

 

#2 anyone aspiring to play in anything usga run or above should be practicing and playing with the pro ball. This will trickle down to even guys wanting to " play what the pros play " and will lead to the short ball being mostly adopted. Which is a good thing in my eyes.

 

Now the answer to #1 could also be that multiple ball makers still make balls for different players. But they will need to be proven to be capable of same distance etc.

 

All that being said. Driver/ fairway size limits much small than they are now would do a better job than messing with the ball.

[bladehunter]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Because golf doesn't need bifurcation. Its a simple game at its core. Did adding aluminum bats and then composite help amateur baseball? No. It did create an instant market for mfgs to exploit and subsequently throttled back with bbcor.

 

Team sports in general are not a good analogy with golf. They just aren't.

 

 

Edit. I said that a** backwards. Sorry.

[ray9898]

 

 

Team sports are fine analogy when it comes to equipment.

 

The equipment at the pro levels is different because of the skills of the individuals using them. It doesn't matter if it's golf, baseball, football or basketball.

 

Maybe you're one of those 18 handicaps that like the fact that you play the same game as the pros. Which we know just isn't true. The average 18 handicap hits it 215 off the tee. Hits 3 GIR and can't control spin. The average tour pro hits it 80 yards longer, hits 60% GIR and can go out on any course in the country and shoot 65.

 

Dial their ball back and the course keeps it characteristics for all.

 

We can keep changing the courses or we can dial back the ball and stop the needless spending that comes with course renovation.

 

Very true. Plenty of sports have different rules and equipment for the pros than the rec players. Have them play a different ball and if effects everyone equally. The long hitters won't be penalized like so many keep talking about, everyone would lose a certain percentage. That would keep the courses so that they are playable by the pros and everyday player.

 

Some will claim distances haven't changed but many courses are forced to lengthen holes because what was once designed as driver - mid iron with appropriate sized greens have turned into driver - wedge. Adding length is the only option because modifying green size or hazards will have a huge impact on the everyday player that the course caters to 99.9% of the time.

[Roadking2003]

Well, don't ever let it be said that the USGA's Mike Davis is afraid to go "outside the box," though Jack has been chirpin about this for years-

 

 

He's looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is no distance problem.

[Roadking2003]

Some will claim distances haven't changed but many courses are forced to lengthen holes because what was once designed as driver - mid iron with appropriate sized greens have turned into driver - wedge. Adding length is the only option because modifying green size or hazards will have a huge impact on the everyday player that the course caters to 99.9% of the time.

 

not true at all. Augusta National #15 used to be wide open. They narrowed the fairway in a big way by adding trees. Strategically placed trees can easily increase the importance of hitting the fairway.

[tannyhoban]

USGA simplifying the rules is a much better charter.

[Whatsinthebag]

So my 80% ball will still end up in a 3 inch deep fairway divot that wasn't replaced by the guy ahead of me and I can't move it out. Great idea USGA

[Outlier]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

[hogans71]

So my 80% ball will still end up in a 3 inch deep fairway divot that wasn't replaced by the guy ahead of me and I can't move it out. Great idea USGA

 

Three inches deep?

 

Dude is putting an aggressive move on the ball...

[caniac6]

So my 80% ball will still end up in a 3 inch deep fairway divot that wasn't replaced by the guy ahead of me and I can't move it out. Great idea USGA

 

Three inches deep?

 

Dude is putting an aggressive move on the ball...

I've seen some divots that look like they should have a hand laying next to them.

[Tgstan]

Seems dumb. Don't we have this already? Aren't there already "illegal" balls on the market?

 

Just stay the advancement of the golf ball.

[Roadking2003]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

 

I'm not sure why it matters, but just to set the record straight, he did beat some golfers "of color".

[vmann]

The USGA is in the business of protecting the game. If they feel the ball is too hot and harming the game, they should dial it back.

However, there should only be two types of balls, conforming and non-conforming. (similar to grooves and COR rulings) I don't think there are too many people in the rules bifurcation camp.

[soap1984]

This seems pretty close to just playing with handicaps lol...is this real?

[Outlier]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

 

I'm not sure why it matters, but just to set the record straight, he did beat some golfers "of color".

 

Never faced any as a junior, the "clause" was technically removed the same year he turned pro...1961. No realistic competition till the mid 80's Thorpe, Dent, Peete. A few others were like Satchel Page playing in major league baseball.

[Outlier]

The USGA is in the business of protecting the game. If they feel the ball is too hot and harming the game, they should dial it back.

However, there should only be two types of balls, conforming and non-conforming. (similar to grooves and COR rulings) I don't think there are too many people in the rules bifurcation camp.

 

Protecting the game from what exactly? Jack's records being obliterated? Basically all I see is making the "dunk" illegal for Lew Alcinder. It would seem to me a conservative approach would be to keep the rules the same and appreciate advances in human achievement. Instead they are trying to "socially engineer" the ongoing relevance of the likes of Ken Duke and Paul Goydos.

[PJ72]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Good points, you could be right about people not really knowing the difference in the ball.

 

I guess adjusting to the ball would probably depend on what type of ball we're talking about. If we're talking about a ball that is just distance impaired it could probably be doable in a reasonable amount of time. I think if we're talking about balls that act like the balls of the 90s that would be a whole different situation. Now you would have to change how you play the game because of the increased spin. Irons shots and distance control into greens would be much different.

 

Yes, and changing the ball so radically would, almost certainly, mean changing equipment to suit.

 

A whole new set of specifications for the ball would need to be made. How would a manufacturer reduce 20% off the distance? Added mass? More spin? Bigger ball? Or do we go back to the balls using in the 70's? I know we've had equipment changes in recent times (460cc max, 0.83 COR, groove rules etc) but they kind of evolved and limits were imposed quite quickly to curb any unfair advantage.

 

I think it's possible to make the change but very unlikely.

 

Btw, the balls of the 90's go nearly as far as today's balls, unless you mean wound balls? When did multi layer construction balls first make an appearance on tour, 1995 onwards?

[PJ72]

I don't hate it but its not going to bring US Opens back to the classic courses, sure the length is a factor but a bigger issue is the lack of room for the infrastructure.

 

I think lengthening courses has completely missed the point - if you increase the length of the course, it means that players have to hit it further to compete, then it puts you back to the start.

 

The courses need tightening up, and perhaps more hazards in strategic places (NOT in the middle of fairways, duh, and NOT at approx. driver limits (because some'll hit it past them, and everyone else will play from the exact same spot)).

 

It costs a lot of money to change courses. You don't want to lengthen, but you want to change the rough, which is a nice idea until there's no rain and rough doesn't grow. And adding hazards costs as much as adding tee boxes, if not more. And the hazards have a huge impact on the weekend player who is using these courses 99% of the time.

 

We're talking PGA tour courses here, money is no object. These types of courses are spending hundreds of thousands/millions each year on renovation/repair/adjustments, oh, and irrigation.

 

I'm talking about putting hazards in strategic places - not at the 200-250 yard distance that your average weekend golfer is hitting too. Why are we even talking about your average weekend golfer? The original quote above was about bringing courses back to the old, shorter, not used anymore US Open courses, where lengthening is an issue.

 

If the top players are hitting drives 300-350 yards but spraying it a little in order to do so (bomb and gouge), then put your hazards in that zone, as they've done traditionally with bunkers etc further back at 200-300 yards. Of course, if you bomb a straight one 320 yards down the middle, you don't get penalised obviously, and the best player on the day/week will win if he's doing that often enough. It might bring some of the strategy back into some of the old, classic courses.

 

The UK is the same, in that we have a list of courses that are obsolete to the Euro tour - e.g. Sunningdale, Woburn etc.

 

You're kidding right? PGA Tour courses aren't magical places that have unlimited funds. They are courses that are used by members or the paying public 99.5% of the time. If a course adds bunkers, grows out the rough or adds tees it's usually paid for by the membership. Or if the course is public, it just drives up greens fees.

As for the amateur weekend golfers who play. If you add a bunker 250 yards out it will have an impact on everyone. The 18 handicap playing from the white tees is going to hit it into that bunker, which makes the course harder for them. Growing in the rough takes several weeks, if not months. Again, makes for a miserable experience for the weekend golfer.

 

Dial the ball back to 80% for tour pros and nothing about the courses needs to change.

 

Ok, PGA courses don't have unlimited funds but they do very well out of hosting PGA tour events and majors, not specifically from profit or a fee for hosting the event, but from future prestige (increased course usage; green fees go up; membership fees go up; people donate to the course to get membership; on course hotels are full and rates go up etc etc etc.). I'm 100% certain that these types of courses can handle an extra bunker or two on the par 4's and 5's, or narrowing the fairways a touch, IF the course is getting eaten up by the top pros.

 

Your average 18 handicapper won't be reaching the 250 yard bunker, they'll just land in the one that is 220 yards out that's already there. How far forward are we talking about the members tees? 40-50 yards max? That 320 yard bunker that has just been put it to catch DJ, JD, Rory et al is still out of the reach of your average amateur at 270-280 yards.

 

As for the rough, well that will be trimmed back after the event anyway, if it needs to be. I'm not sure I agree with you about how long it takes to grow rough - in the UK it grows pretty quickly and needs trimming every couple of weeks.

 

I think you're just making up issues to suit your argument about the ball, and none of them hold water when you look at them.

[ChillyDipper]

I think we really have to consider the impetus of industry in this conversation. At the federal level, major industry players progress or regress at their will, using significant above and below table negotiations. The golf industry is no different. Who stands to lose from reining (not reigning) in the game? Manufacturers (not manufactures). The same manufacturers who provide significant sponsorship to media, to tournaments, and who thus line the pockets of governing bodies. It's not gonna happen.

 

We live in a society where bigger and farther is better. We should expect that obsoleting courses is just collateral damage in this conversation.

[JimNewton]

Has anyone floated the idea of getting rid of the tee peg? Or at least preventing it from being so tall ...

[Roadking2003]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

 

I'm not sure why it matters, but just to set the record straight, he did beat some golfers "of color".

 

Never faced any as a junior, the "clause" was technically removed the same year he turned pro...1961. No realistic competition till the mid 80's Thorpe, Dent, Peete. A few others were like Satchel Page playing in major league baseball.

 

I'm glad you agree with me. And you can add Trevino to the list.

[bladehunter]

and i get accused of off topic posts.. whew... from dialing the ball back to this? man o man .. thats a long bridge!

[gvogel]

Please excuse me if this has already been asked, but didn't the USGA recently come out with a report that the distance gain from balls was rather small over a period of years?

 

Sure, if you measure from 2003 as the USGA does. The real distance gains came from 1992 to 2003, when the ball went from wound to solid, and driver heads went from wood to titanium. Disgraceful.

[gvogel]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

 

I have been saying this for years. Seems kind of obvious, but...

 

"Firm up the greens and grow the rough a little."

 

They had the greens at 14 - 15, and the rough at levels that the average person couldn't play a shot. If most of us were to play Merion in US Open conditions, we wouldn't finish in under 6 hours.

 

Frankly, I think that that is a pathetic way to conduct a national championship. They set the course up in conditions that would make the everyday player quit the game if his local course was set up that way.

 

Here is an alternative. Roll back the ball 10%. Dustin Johnson's 315 yard driver becomes 283. The average tour driver of 290 becomes 261. My paltry effort of 235 becomes 212. So, what is the difference if I move up about 20 yards or 25 yards to a shorter tee? I am still playing the same game. But the tour pros will be challenged by the existing golf courses, without having 5" rough and greens stimping at 15. More importantly, they will all be challenged by the same extent - the long hitters will still be quite long, and the mid and shorter hitters will be not as long.

 

And then Augusta National doesn't have to spend $35 Million dollars to buy Augusta Country Club's 9th (10th?) hole; they can restore that course to the length that they played it in 1995.

[Disco Dave]

I like this comment - "I don't think that you can find another sport that has allowed equipment to dictate how playing fields get changed."

 

I think this is one of the stupidest comments in the article.

 

1.) hockey composite sticks making shots quicker

Light weight skates making skating faster

Different sharpening techniques to make skating quicker

Compounds rubbed on skate blades making coasting faster/more efficient.

 

2.) tennis composite racquets making game faster

Increased tension on strings making game faster

 

3.) football

Light weight pads/shoes/better cleats allowing game to be faster

Sticky gloves making catching easier

 

Almost every sport has been effected by increased technology. The ones that use sticks, ie golf obviously get effected more then ones that are just human powered, is basketball.

 

 

Plus almost all other sports do not allow for a different ball, puck, etc. The only ball change I'd support is going to one standard golf ball for everyone but I'm guessing the manufacturers aren't going to go for that one.

 

In none of those sports was the physical playing field changed because of the evolution of the equipment. Golf equipment has dictated how the playing field is designed.

[Forged4ever]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

 

I'm not sure why it matters, but just to set the record straight, he did beat some golfers "of color".

No realistic competition till the mid 80's Thorpe, Dent, Peete.

Hey Bro, I hope that you're well :)

 

"No realistic competition till the mid 80's????"

 

This really isn't the thread for this though since it's my thread and I don't care where ya take it and that's fine however this is an inaccurate post so I will address it~

 

I don't know what you consider to be "realistic competition" however I consider a man who wins a PGA Tour event "realistic competition," lol-

 

Charlie Sifford won both the 1967 Greater Hartford Open & the 1969 LA Open, the first with Mr. Palmer, Billy Casper and Gary Player & Jack in the field and the latter with the 17 of the Top-20 money leaders in attendence.

 

Charles Ownes also won on Tour in 1967, taking the Kemper Asheville Open-

 

Last but certainly not least is Pete Brown(I've gotta thread on Pete somewhere in the first 5-6 pages of the Tour Section..solid thread), who was the first Black Man to win a PGA Tour Event, the 1964 Waco Turner Open, along with the 1970 Andy Williams San Diego Open Invitational, which qualified him for the Masters, until ANGC then moved the goal posts again(They'd done this twice before when a Black Man Won to qualify, once going back to points like this time when Charlie Sifford won in '67, then they went back to Victories the next year and another going to "A win you're in" and then back to points after his '69 win and back to a "win you're in" one month before Pete Brown's victory, only to then change it back to points again. It really was ridiculous and today would be front page news, not to mention at the top of the board, lol, however back in the day, the times were different and Pro Golf was a tiny blip on the radar).

 

Again, like most things in this game, the definition of "realistic" is a an individual thing however there were a few black men who did what few white men had done, won on the PGA Tour, which I believe establishes one as "realistic competition," and they won long before the mid-80's.

 

One who didn't win on Tour though he competed there was Ted Rhodes, who Mentored Jim Thorpe, Jim Dent, Charlie Sifford and Pete Brown. It wasn't for lack of talent that Mr. Rhodes did not win as he led FOUR PGA events going into the final round though the suffocating pressure of the situation and the position that he was in, and he admitted this, was too much for him and left him with two runner-ups, a T3 and 4th place finish.

 

So, it's safe to say that there was indeed "realistic competition" on the PGA Tour long before the "mid 80's and Thorpe, Dent, Peete."

 

Thanks much for responding as I always enjoy your thoughts and posts :)

 

My Best,

RP

[Disco Dave]

Terrible idea, long hitters are just an outliner in the population of golfers. I think less than 3% can drive over 300 yards.

How would they force DJ to use an 80% golf ball in the tournament And have a player like ZJ or Luke Donald hit a100% ball?

That is a pure EEO to level up the field. Long hitters leverage their natural gifted talent and technology to hit it far.

This confirmation bias will be great for lawsuits filed by long hitters.

The same thing happened in the education system with admission quota based on other identity factors.....

 

 

So you go from DJ hitting a golf ball to educational admissions criteria? WTF are you doing? So are you saying Jack Nicklaus should have an asterisk beside his Hall of Fame stats because he didn't have to beat anybody of color?

 

I'm not sure why it matters, but just to set the record straight, he did beat some golfers "of color".

No realistic competition till the mid 80's Thorpe, Dent, Peete.

Hey Bro, I hope that you're well :)

 

"No realistic competition till the mid 80's????"

 

This really isn't the thread for this though since it's my thread and I don't care where ya take it and that's fine however this is an inaccurate post so I will address it~

 

I don't know what you consider to be "realistic competition" however I consider a man who wins a PGA Tour event "realistic competition," lol-

 

Charlie Sifford won both the 1967 Greater Hartford Open & the 1969 LA Open, the first with Mr. Palmer, Billy Casper and Gary Player & Jack in the field and the latter with the 17 of the Top-20 money leaders in attendence.

 

Charles Ownes also won on Tour in 1967, taking the Kemper Asheville Open-

 

Last but certainly not least is Pete Brown(I've gotta thread on Pete somewhere in the first 5-6 pages of the Tour Section..solid thread), who was the first Black Man to win a PGA Tour Event, the 1964 Waco Turner Open, along with the 1970 Andy Williams San Diego Open Invitational, which qualified him for the Masters, until ANGC then moved the goal posts again(They'd done this twice before when a Black Man Won to qualify, once going back to points like this time when Charlie Sifford won in '67, then they went back to Victories the next year and another going to "A win you're in" and then back to points after his '69 win and back to a "win you're in" one month before Pete Brown's victory, only to then change it back to points again. It really was ridiculous and today would be front page news, not to mention at the top of the board, lol, however back in the day, the times were different and Pro Golf was a tiny blip on the radar).

 

Again, like most things in this game, the definition of "realistic" is a an individual thing however there were a few black men who did what few white men had done, won on the PGA Tour, which I believe establishes one as "realistic competition," and they won long before the mid-80's.

 

One who didn't win on Tour though he competed there was Ted Rhodes, who Mentored Jim Thorpe, Jim Dent, Charlie Sifford and Pete Brown. It wasn't for lack of talent that Mr. Rhodes did not win as he led FOUR PGA events going into the final round though the suffocating pressure of the situation and the position that he was in, and he admitted this, was too much for him and left him with two runner-ups, a T3 and 4th place finish.

 

So, it's safe to say that there was indeed "realistic competition" on the PGA Tour long before the "mid 80's and Thorpe, Dent, Peete."

 

Thanks much for responding as I always enjoy your thoughts and posts :)

 

My Best,

RP

 

Related to the thread or not, this was an awesome history lesson. Thank you.

[vmann]

The USGA is in the business of protecting the game. If they feel the ball is too hot and harming the game, they should dial it back.

However, there should only be two types of balls, conforming and non-conforming. (similar to grooves and COR rulings) I don't think there are too many people in the rules bifurcation camp.

 

Protecting the game from what exactly? Jack's records being obliterated? Basically all I see is making the "dunk" illegal for Lew Alcinder. It would seem to me a conservative approach would be to keep the rules the same and appreciate advances in human achievement. Instead they are trying to "socially engineer" the ongoing relevance of the likes of Ken Duke and Paul Goydos.

1. Jack's records don't need to be protected. 2. The dunk rule was made because of Wilt Chamberlain. 3. The distance the ball flies doesn't alter advances in human achievement. 4. Long hitters will still hit it farther than shorter hitters.