Should we create a TOUR BALL to offset effects of technology?

[GolfSLO]

Like preventing aluminum bats in pro baseball

Top pros feel technology has to be reined in, as short-hitting players find it hard to survive in golf, Charles Happell writes.

The Power Struggle - theage.com.au

Geoff Shackelford calls these guys anti-technophobic troublemakers.

I'm not in favor of technology restrictions so that the 5'6"" guy can compete, but to preserve the playability of our existing courses. I'd hate to see technology obsolete current courses by requiring ever-increasing acreage and costs to create and maintain them... resulting in even higher greens fees.

Seems to me that limiting ball technology for example is no different that disallowing pro baseball players from using alumimum (to titanium) bats. Not only would more infielders and pitchers fear for their lives if these bats were used, but it would obsolete our professional baseball stadiums.

I recently introduced Damian Pascuzzo at golfslo.com, a golf course architect, and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, who designed a new course coming soon to San Luis Obispo County - Monarch Dunes. Pascuzzo is well known for his views on this subject.

This post includes links at the bottom to several articles by Pascuzzo about the adverse effects of technology on golf and the challenges it presents for course designers.

Introducing Damian Pascuzzo

[Coach]

Of course we should. However, there is only one man that can make this happen today, and that is Hootie Johnson. No ties to manufacturers or PGA Tour. The Masters is an invitational private event.

 

Next year's invitation would simply say, "oh and don't worry about bringing any balls, we will be supplying them this year!"

 

Who would not show up at the Masters?

 

Nicklaus was on record at the recent Golf Digest conference, with Tom Fazio in the room, as saying that they are ruining the shot values at Augusta with this continued length.

[gjones77]

I actually believe we do need a tour ball, because so many of the old courses can no longer be used do to length, Merion for example, a once great challenging course is no longer used for US Open's due to it's lack of length.

 

Seriously, where does it stop, when we have to put the tees in the parking lot?

 

All sports have put restrictions on certain equipment over time and golf should be no different, especially since Golf as a sport is one known to stand by it's traditions.

 

Yes, I know that all the advances make things easier for us hacks, but you also have to look at it from other perspectives. Records that were once thought impossible to break and starting to look like they're going to go to the way side soon, and things are getting to the point that if you can't hit a 300 yard bomb off the tee you don't stand a chance.

 

Yes, I know that guys who have a reputation for being short (Funk, DiMarco) are winning and competing, but then again look at Augusta, the most recent winners are only guys that can bomb it.

 

I just happen to think that ball striking and accuracy should determine the winner, not length.

 

Just what I think

 

(And just incase you think I'm bitter because I can't bomb it, I can hit 300+ drives)

[DemolitionMan]

I'm not even concerned about technology ruining the game for shorter players. As the poster pointed out, shorter guys win and make a lot of money playing a game, so no tears from me.

 

But technology is ruining the game from a spectator on TV point of view. Watch the '86 Masters, then watch the '04 Masters. Although '04 featured a couple of aces, a PM breakthrough and Sergio/KJ Choi on fire in R4, from a shotmaking perspective and appreciation of the game '86 is way better viewing.

 

Forget this nonsense about a limit in technology, particularly the ball, it's not going to happen in any meaningful way. The game has changed and we might as well face up to it. Every sport has been transformed by technology both in equipment and training. Men's tennis - boring. Sub 10 second 100M dashes - boring. Tour de Lance - boring. Or worse, transformed by big money. MLB - moments of excitement, the industry sucks. NFL - some good games, but parity, the salary cap, and fat TV contracts has created a lot of mediocre teams. NBA - ya, I just love watching wrestling matches with fans. And please Kobe, rape someone else so I don't have to watch you and four hacks try to score. That's entertainment.

 

TV Golf was always tenuous when it comes to entertainment value. Now thanks to the ill attempts to wax poetic about the game from Ernie Johnson, Jimmy Roberts and others combined with relentless coverage of professional putting contests, it's boring.

 

Still, it's a great game to play and that is what will keep the sport alive.

[Steve_FLA]

They should limit the ball on the PGA Tour. And it would not be that difficult. Just go back 20 years and use ball spec's. from that era. The PGA should be able to hold events at courses 6,800 yards and not have to worry about the field driving all the par 4's.

 

Nicklaus was a long hitter in his time. He hit the ball 280 yards off the tee. If Nicklaus played today and was in his prime do doubt he would be hitting it 320 off the tee with all the juiced up clubs and balls.

 

Let the amateurs (me) use the juiced up stuff. Have the Pro's use a conforming ball. Not every golfer has a right to hit 300 yard drives...but all the golf manufactures want you to.

 

-Steve

[Steve_FLA]

some of you make it sound like every player hits it 300. the vast majority do not. it's tv that makes you think that. why would they show you guys that can't hit it 300? trying to make comparison between old greats and today tech is a waste of time. if jack was playing today, he would be better than tiger or just as good. these guys aren't the best in the world by chance.

 

I respectivaley disagree. Name a PGA tournament that the course is UNDER 7000 yards...you can't do it. 25 years ago their were several PGA tournament events on courses under 7000 (including the Masters). The game has changed...mostly due to technology.

[ObieTrice5]

With limitations on the ball Fred Funk would go from nutting one 290 to nutting one 250. so that would mean tiger would go from 325 to 300. That still gives the longer hitter the advantage right?

[DemolitionMan]

some of you make it sound like every player hits it 300. the vast majority do not. it's tv that makes you think that. why would they show you guys that can't hit it 300? trying to make comparison between old greats and today tech is a waste of time. if jack was playing today, he would be better than tiger or just as good. these guys aren't the best in the world by chance.

 

I respectivaley disagree. Name a PGA tournament that the course is UNDER 7000 yards...you can't do it. 25 years ago their were several PGA tournament events on courses under 7000 (including the Masters). The game has changed...mostly due to technology.

 

You may have heard of some of these....

 

Pebble Beach, site of the ATT and the occasional US Open, it played at 6799 yds last year.

 

Little track down south called Riviera, host to a tournament that Tiger struggles at yearly, it plays at 6987.

 

Even the monster at Torrey Pines South is offset for one day on TO North playing at 6874.

 

The lefties up north play the Bell Canadian Open at 6946.

 

John Deere - 6762

 

Winchester CC, nice place if you can get the invite - Pros are welcomed with 6839.

 

There are several others. Yes the game has changed and mainly due to technology, but how do you disagree that Jack would not wax these guys in his prime? And most players do not average over 300. Check the stats. Jim Furyk is at 280. Now maybe he got stat'd on the wrong holes, but he's not that long, but last I checked he's pretty good.

 

Technology is great for the masses, arguably it is killing the game at the top levels, maybe not for some people. There are those who like some excitement and shot making, there are some who like putting contests, and there are some who just like Tiger PERIOD.

[DemolitionMan]

With limitations on the ball Fred Funk would go from nutting one 290 to nutting one 250. so that would mean tiger would go from 325 to 300. That still gives the longer hitter the advantage right?

 

Who won the 5th major? Not tiger.

 

Fred Funk is laser straight, that's his game. His game is also 270 avg drives for the last 9 years, not 250, not 290. So while technology has benefitted others greatly, FF has benefitted from doing a damn good job of golfing his ball.

[Steve_FLA]

some of you make it sound like every player hits it 300. the vast majority do not. it's tv that makes you think that. why would they show you guys that can't hit it 300? trying to make comparison between old greats and today tech is a waste of time. if jack was playing today, he would be better than tiger or just as good. these guys aren't the best in the world by chance.

 

I respectivaley disagree. Name a PGA tournament that the course is UNDER 7000 yards...you can't do it. 25 years ago their were several PGA tournament events on courses under 7000 (including the Masters). The game has changed...mostly due to technology.

 

You may have heard of some of these....

 

Pebble Beach, site of the ATT and the occasional US Open, it played at 6799 yds last year.

 

Little track down south called Riviera, host to a tournament that Tiger struggles at yearly, it plays at 6987.

 

Even the monster at Torrey Pines South is offset for one day on TO North playing at 6874.

 

The lefties up north play the Bell Canadian Open at 6946.

 

John Deere - 6762

 

Winchester CC, nice place if you can get the invite - Pros are welcomed with 6839.

 

There are several others. Yes the game has changed and mainly due to technology, but how do you disagree that Jack would not wax these guys in his prime? And most players do not average over 300. Check the stats. Jim Furyk is at 280. Now maybe he got stat'd on the wrong holes, but he's not that long, but last I checked he's pretty good.

 

Technology is great for the masses, arguably it is killing the game at the top levels, maybe not for some people. There are those who like some excitement and shot making, there are some who like putting contests, and there are some who just like Tiger PERIOD.

 

 

Great...you names 5 events. 2 of which are wthin 54 yards of 7000. When did I say Nicklaus could not compete today? I said he would be longer today (320 compared to 280). Nicklaus is my favorite golfer of all time and without doubt still the best of all time until Tiger breaks his records.

 

I think we agree on the same thing. Technology has made the courses smaller. Furyk averages 280 with juiced up clubs and balls. Put him in Nicklaus era and I bet he averages 250. I'm not sure of your point?

 

-Steve

[tildengolfer]

NO!!! ISN'T THAT PART OF THE FUN!! WATCH APPLEBY HIT 426 YARDS!!

[Steve_FLA]

Must be a generation thing. I like 1-0 baseball games. I like 14-10 football games. My point that I am trying to make is Nicklaus was a big hitter in his time (280 off the tee). Today that is average at best.

 

Nicklaus would have to hit a driver and 3-wood to reach 18 at Pebble Beach. Today it's a different game beacuse of technoloy. A larger pool of the golfers can reach these same holes where 25-30 years ago only a few could. If you guys like watching 350 yards drives...fine.

 

Let's agree to disagree.

-Stevd

[wwhitehead]

I think a standard ball will happen in the next 5 years, but only for use at Augusta. Each manufacturer will be given specs with which to work. Each company will produce a Masters ball, and they'll sell them to the public. I can even see a Saturday morning rollback game...or a guy using the "old" ball instead of giving strokes. Just my thoughts...

[GolfSLO]

this turned into a great thread... good arguments on both sides. I especially like the last post by wwhitehead - implying that a standard ball could be used on a course by course basis. Shorter, older courses can extend their life as technology advances by requiring a standard ball, while longer courses could stay as is. I like his idea for weekend "rollback" or "retro" games too. Keeps everyone happy - including the ball manufacturers!

[StaffBag]

No, to the tour ball.

 

100% Agree!

 

...Don't mess with mother nature!

 

...Don't open Pandora's Box!

 

...Let the technical argument remain just an exercise for debate!

 

 

 

The game will be ruined forever with a "TOUR" ball. It could take away players...... marquee players.... of ALL the major TOURS and ruin careers!

 

It would bleed down to a total "TOURNAMENT BALL" that would be used for ALL competitions, pro and top level amateurs. This would send a wrong message. The great thing about golf is that (for the most part) EVERYONE can use the SAME equipment their professional "Idols" and Icons use.

 

Technology is what makes golf great! To reign-in the ball would (more than likely)probably require messing with the spin rates and launch conditions (at least temporarily). I doubt that they would put an end to the multi-layered ball and go back to the wound "Professional" from Titleist, for example. (Since making a "range-ball" is cheaper for the company's to manufacture than a "wound" ball.) This could (potentially)mess-up some players enough that they could not compete. No one really knows WHO these players would be. If it's a popular player, then the game would be HURT and possibly the hanging-on-by-a-thread poplularity of the game could be ruined forever! Golf DOESN'T NEED THIS RIGHT NOW FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME!

 

In the end, the major manufacturers would figure out another way to gain another "edge", over a period of time.

 

 

That's my view!

[simmoboy]

You have to think about it if they made a tour ball Tiger would just hit that ball 50 yards longer the Furyk,DiMarco etc. No matter what they do the long hitters are still going to hit the ball longer then the short hitters.

If they were to bring in a tour ball that took 50 yards of your tee shot that would make it even better for the long hitters becuase they will be the only ones that will be able to reach the par 5 or will be hitting a iron into the long par 4.

 

IMO this a stupid idea that would only make the game easier for the long hitters.

 

What are they going to do have different balls for different player so the all hit it the same distance.

 

 

brent

[kiwidave]

You have to think about it if they made a tour ball Tiger would just hit that ball 50 yards longer the Furyk,DiMarco etc. No matter what they do the long hitters are still going to hit the ball longer then the short hitters.

If they were to bring in a tour ball that took 50 yards of your tee shot that would make it even better for the long hitters becuase they will be the only ones that will be able to reach the par 5 or will be hitting a iron into the long par 4.

 

IMO this a stupid idea that would only make the game easier for the long hitters.

 

What are they going to do have different balls for different player so the all hit it the same distance.

 

 

brent

 

 

 

Couldn't agree with you more Simmo, I know excatly what you and i feel the same.

 

Say you bring in a tour ball and it costs Tiger say 50 yards, how is that not going to cost the shorter hitter 50 yards as well. Sure a few more courses maybe back in the Tour rota but overall you haven't achevied anything

[GolfSLO]

is there two different topics here? is it ball vs. course? or longer hitters vs. shorter hitters? if it's course vs. ball, then that's just a stupid thing to think that because longer hitting should make some courses on tour obsolete. Demo said it, there are many courses in which long hitters don't win. how many players championships in the last five years were won by long hitters?

 

yes, although the article referred to in the original post brings up the issue of technology with regards to player survival, the intent of this thread pertains more to technology with respect to its affect on golf course survival. However, both issues are worth discussing.

 

my original post states, "I'm not in favor of technology restrictions so that the 5'6"" guy can compete, but to preserve the playability of our existing courses. I'd hate to see technology obsolete current courses by requiring ever-increasing acreage and costs to create and maintain them... resulting in even higher greens fees."

[ScottWS33]

This is super tough question to find an answer to. If you do have a tournament ball how are the manufactures going to feel? Titleist pay non-contracted players hundreds of pounds an event to win ball counts and thus boost sales. They will apapletic if they can't promote their product. Also despite the distances the players do hit it the game is still very exciting with all the great players that are around just now. Additioanlly courses can keep up to new technology. I would say the best example is Harbour Town. At 6973 yards it isn't overly long but is clever in the way it makes you lay back and play percentage shots in order to make your score. And look what Darren Clarke, Peter Lonard etc did at the MCI Heritage this year. They may a complete mess of it. Tough dog-legs and tight fairways can froce higher scores if necessary. Also what happens if this 'tour ball' suits certain players. They will then gain an advantage over other players. However I do believe it's ridiculous that Tiger can hit the ball with a 50 yard push-slice and get away with it because he is averaging something like 315 yards. And definently some courses are loosing their charm with this monsterous length they are adding. St Andrews, for example was a far better course before they started adding length.

 

To come to a conclusion on this subject though I think we should just let it pass for a few years. If it comes to a point where courses are becoming unable to stop 20+ under par winning the tournament then action needs to be taken. For now though I think we just wait and see what evolves in the next few years.

[gjones77]

I think we have a different set of issues here.

 

Now, I agree that changing the ball may hurt some of the shorter hitters, but I also think that with the balls today people are bombing them way too far on the tour.

 

I think the best solution (and this was touched on earlier) is to just make the course play harder.

 

Put more trees at the inside turn of a dogleg and then make sure you put some deep, deep rough on the ouside. Now put a nice, deep, bunker with nice soft sand that swallows any ball driven into it right around 300 yards on the outside of the turn, have it stretch into the fairway about 5 yards and pinch the fairway in to about 12 - 15 yards there.

 

Now you have a risk reward area where if the bombers try to make a 300+ yard drive they better damn well be accurate, if not you're losing s troke in the rough or sand.

 

This would put the premium on ball striking.

 

Anytime there's a short par 4 (350 or less) put saome water in back, again, hope you can control the big dog or you're taking a drop.

 

There are way to fix what's happening, take the benefit out of long drives and put them into ball striking and course management.

 

Just my thoughts :)

[wjdpar1]

Absolutely not. The courses on the PGA tour need to be set up differently without adding length. We all (or most of us) know that can easily be done.

[Golf_Beauty]

I think they should restrict the technology. I like watching the Champions Tour a lot because those guys rely on their short game. The know they can't bomb out the younger guys, but they sure can chip and putt.

 

That being said, I can't wait for BBVI. It's going to be for the 50+ guys and I can't wait to see their skills. It'll be a lot better than hearing and seeing the young guns try to out-drive and out-talk each other.

[peter3]

Why is it that everyone seem to think that hitting it long is not a part of being a good golfer? Why is it that 300+ yard drives and pitching isn't considered golf? Why is it that everyone seem to think that the short hitting guys needs a handicap? Why is it that everyone seem to think that winning at -2 is better for the game than winning at -24 although the distance to second place is the same? Why is it that everyone seems to think that long hitters should be punished?

 

Although many long hitters win on tour, they win because they have a good short game as well. Long hitters without short game rarely wins anything.

 

In any sport, there is a top 1% that is significantly better than the rest. Should we not allow them to be?

 

PS

I'm not a long hitter myself.

[DemolitionMan]

Good points, but what is so skilled about being great with three clubs? (Driver, Wedge, Putter). I call it the VJ model. VJ was the first to realize that if he works out a lot, pounds a ton of balls on the range and works on short game at all hours, then he can be very successful. He took the left side off the course bombing fades all day long. He worked like mad on his wedge game from any lie 100 yards in. And when he putts well, he gets 10 wins a season, he putts horribly he gets 20 top 10s. Not a bad recipe for success at all, but pretty boring to watch after awhile.

[Debit]

Must agree with Pete. The point of the game is to get the ball in the hole with the fewest number of strokes. The way to alter the driver - wedge scenario is to make the rough inside of 100 yds virtually impenitrable or some such method to put greater emphasis and reward on accuracy. It took him a while, but even Mickelson has figured out that the game is much easier from the short grass. As for changing the ball... It will protect the course, but do nothing for the field. Also, and the arguement of equipment manufacturers, we amateurs will insist on using the same ball simply because golf is the ONLY game in which the professionals and the amateurs can participate on the same courses (ignoring set up) and using virtually the same equipment. So now we have the possibility of some wag claiming to have shot such-and-such using a Tiger ball. Since most amateurs are dumber than dirt, every testosterone-driven nut will be attempting to play this Tiger ball -- even though he was hard pressed to hit today's ball and equipment more than 200 yds. Face it, the top 10 professional golfers are just that much better than the rest of the field -- the field has to play better, and the tournament organizers have to divine some way to make existing courses more challenging while keeping playing conditions fair, i.e. it is possible to score without relying on divine intervention or pure luck.

[peter3]

Good points, but what is so skilled about being great with three clubs? (Driver, Wedge, Putter). I call it the VJ model. VJ was the first to realize that if he works out a lot, pounds a ton of balls on the range and works on short game at all hours, then he can be very successful. He took the left side off the course bombing fades all day long. He worked like mad on his wedge game from any lie 100 yards in. And when he putts well, he gets 10 wins a season, he putts horribly he gets 20 top 10s. Not a bad recipe for success at all, but pretty boring to watch after awhile.

I don't disagree with you: I think it is pretty boring to watch as well, but how fun it is to watch shouldn't determine whether pro's play a dinky ball or not, IMHO.

 

Although I have access to it, I seldom watch the PGA tour anymore (apart for the last hour on sunday if there are any good players in contention or if it is a major).

 

The drive-wedge-putt game on look-alike courses, constantly interrupted by commercial breaks just drives me nuts (here in Europe we don't see the commercials: the american producers shows us a picture of a tree or a stream or the leader board - anything but the game :dntknw:).

[Steve_FLA]

In Jack Nicklaus book "Golf My Way" he has a chapter on the differences between the PGA today and years ago when he was the number one player. He said that technology has improved equipment so much that it helps the lower end players more than the higher end players. Mishits and mistakes are covered up which helps the weaker golfer. For those of you who think technoloy does not affect a professional golfer becausee they are already "great" Jack disagrees.

 

Another point he had was course conditions are so much better that you do not need to master as many trick shots then you did 50 years ago. Interesting perspective from the greatest golfer in the world.

 

-Steve

[Steve_FLA]

Hey distantfromyou,

I did not make up my the stuff I wrote in my last post regarding what Nicklaus said. Pick up the book and read it. It is in the second to last chapter of the book regarding the difference between the PGA today from his time. Don't give me crap...just because it is different than your opinion. That's Nicklaus point on the whole technology debate. And you can bet I trust his opinion over yours.

 

I bet you are under the age of 30 and think everything new is better. Someday when you are old like me, you will realize that new is not always better...its just new.

 

-Steve

[willie991]

Fun thread! Some great diversity in opinons... and only a tad bit of "grouchyness"!

 

Will there be a "distance limited ball" introduced on an event-by-event basis? IMHO, I don't think we will see it in our day. Many posters have pointed out the obvious answer to this question. $$$$$$ The manufacturers who spend zillions in R&D and more zillions marketing the concept of how much farther their ball goes, how much better their ball spins, how much better this year's ball is than last years... Those manufacturers are not going to see their contract players entering events playing a ball branded by the manufacturer that happens to get the contract for the PGA ball. Likewise, those manufacturers are not going to see their contract players win, or place in the top 10, in an event playing a competitor's ball. I just don't think we will see it happen!

 

TV audiences and galleries enjoy seeing the 350+ yard drives. TV commentators get a charge out of talking about how far players are hitting the ball. I don't think the fans will allow those lengths to be diminished through the use of a "whiffle" ball.

 

Has technology changed the game to a point that a "distance limited ball" is required? IMHO, NO! Again, many posters have pointed out the obvious. Narrow the fairways, penalize players who hit it in the rough, set up the courses to separate the players from the hitters. Take a look at the evolution of stats through the past 20 years. What stats have changed significantly? Scoring averages have not come done but a smidgen. GIR's?? Fairways hit?? Putts per round?? The only stat category that has changed significantly is driving distance. That stat has run wild.

 

We can stand and watch on Sundays as the pros hit from the tee on a perfectly manicured course. As the ball flies through the air and hits the pristine fairway some 300 yards out, it may casually roll into the rough. Rough?? Yes, that similarly manicured 1" to 2" grass that is commonly referred to as rough. (My goodness! Some of the "rough" on these courses looks better than some of the fairways we weekend hackers are destined to play.) If, when the ball left the fairway, the penalty would be at least one stroke for even a seasoned tour veteran to get the ball back to the fairway you would see much more emphasis on accuracy than on distance. I don't care how talented and remarkable the player is, he/she should not be able to hit an iron 225 yards to the center of the green from 10 to 20 feet off the fairway in the rough! The game should be a "risk/reward" game... The game should not be reward/reward game!

 

Better yet, stage some of the events on the courses that we weekenders play. The maicured courses look great on TV. I really think the course conditions have changed from the Nicklaus days about as much as the technology we are arguing about!

 

The Masters seems to be the tourney most often referred to as having a problem with current driving distances. It IS the CHOICE of the Master's staff to lengthen the course rather than tighten the course. Maybe they just need to mark off some grids on their fairways similar to the Long Drive Association events we see on ESPN and give the players Teddy Bears or free beer if they hit it to a specific target at the far end of the grid!!!

 

Let technology proceed. Let the game continue to evolve as it has for the past few decades. It certainly makes for some good discussion, though!