Swing Thoughts: Technology, Tradition, and 'The Facts'

[[email protected]]

By Erik J. Barzeski via TheSandTrap.com

If you want to get people riled up, try using "technology" and "tradition" in the same golf conversation.

Last week, Titleist posted an opinion piece on the brand's website on the ever-contentious subject of technology vs. tradition. Geoff Shackelford responded with point-by-point dissent, which touched off a flame war of comments, and another story on sportsfanmagazine.com has covered some of the same ground.

Shackelford's piece and the companion piece on sportsfanmagazine.com both claim to be rooted in "the facts." There are plenty of opinions in both, but actual facts are hard to come by. Let's take a closer look.

The main thrust of both response pieces is similar to what the USGA would like golfers to believe: that golf is headed to hell in a handbasket because of technological advances in golf equipment. One of the "facts" cited is that the number of rounds played is flat, TV golf ratings are down, and someone named Ryan Ballangee thinks "the game is fizzling."



The only real facts here are that rounds are flat (uh, the economy hasn't been so good in the second Bush dynasty) and TV golf ratings are down (like nearly every sport on TV in the age of TiVo, hundreds of cable channels, etc.). The game "fizzling" because professionals hit the ball a long way? That's not "calling it as I see it." That's plain silly.



Ballangee would have you believe that there are legions of golfers standing sadly in the parking lots of their favorite courses, sadly eyeing the courses they used to play before Bubba Watson or Tiger Woods or John Daly started hitting the ball a really long way. Oh, they want to play golf, but the game just isn't the same now that someone, somewhere occasionally drives the ball 350 yards. Therefore, golf is damaged.



The only cure? Rolling back the ball and clubs "before it's too late." Well, rolling them back to what? 1996, before Tiger was on tour full time? 1990, before John Daly won a major? 1950, before Arnold Palmer was bashing his way to Masters victories? 1880, when Old Tom Morris was winning British Opens at 20 over par? Oh well, I'm sure Shackelford and Ballangee will apply the facts to determine the correct date.



The Dynamic Duo (as I've taken to calling them in my head) contests that we can't trust Titleist or other equipment companies because they're out to make a profit. Gee, they must be the only ones sullied by money. When Ballangee holds up Jack Nicklaus as an example of someone wanting to curb technology. Nicklaus - who owns an equipment company, a huge course-development business, and several other ventures - surely can't be motivated by money, right? At least Shackelford and Ballangee don't have profit as a motive. Sure, their websites have advertising, and they'll make more money if stirring up some controversy brings more traffic to their sites. But they only care about the good of the game, according to, well, them.



Everybody in this has an agenda. Titleist wants to express its corporate opinion on a hot-button issue, Shackelford et al want to respond. The more opinions the merrier, I say. But let's remember that these are opinions, not facts. There's no need for Ballangee to assert that Titleist's position is tainted because it is "anonymous." It is on the company's website in plain view, meaning it is a statement from the company. Just because it doesn't carry a byline doesn't mean you have to guess where it came from.



So let's all step away from the flamethrowers and try to look at the real issues. Does technology that influences how the game is played at the highest level have any impact on recreational players? Would Titleist or any other equipment company sell more or less equipment if there were strict caps on technology, or even if that technology were rolled back? Discuss amongst yourselves. Express your opinion. Just don't confuse it with stating a fact when you're dealing with an argument that is hardly black and white.



Photo Credit: © Old Course .com.

Click for Article>>>Here

"This article is republished with permission from The Sand Trap .com and
remains copyright © The Sand Trap .com. All rights and privileges reserved."

[Gxgolfer]

Golf seems to be facing alot of challenges. Number of Rounds played, number of affordable courses, and keeping people interested in the game. Technology helps the Avgerage Golfer tremendously and Makes skilled players even better. You still have to have skill and talent to really go low. The % of skilled players is so low, that the technology issues seemed to be out of whack sometimes. It's almost like Constitionalist. Strict Constructionalist vs reformers. Its all a matter of how you see things. Just like different levels in Baseball, courses are really only "pimped" out for the Big Leagues. Fences are moved back, metal bats aren't allowed, etc. If technology/physics have really reached their limits, as Wally has said, then why mess with the ball? Also, I haven't heard an avg golfer say "I am really hitting the driver to long now."

[cornbred19]

the problem w/golf is how expensive it is to be good enough to go low...even if you buy used clubs, the cost to get lessons and play a decent course regularly to improve your game is substantial to most golfers...so rather than invest that kind of money, they either continue to be hackers or as good as they can self teach themselves to be or they quit the game and lose interest all together bc there are cheaper recreational activities they can enjoy...and those that don't quit might not watch bc of envy...i agree the skill level of the tours have improved w/the influx of new players, but if you fall into one of the categories i mentioned, why do you care?

[ce_me_golf]

While the technology has certainly gotten better the biggest change in pro golf is the overall improvement in the physical condition of the athletes playing at the pro level. There is nothing any traditionalist can do about that. When you combine that with new technology you have guys who can hit 350 yard bombs on the PGA Tour.

 

And while all this fuss is going on about technology and how the longer hitters are changing the game I haven't seen really radical changes in the overall scores of PGA players. Golf is still more than anything else a game of skill.

 

For the average Joe golfer, the technology also allows him to improve his game even if he has marginal skills.

 

So overall I don't see why people are getting so up in arms about golf technology. After all the continious technological improvement of golf equipment has been part of the game.

 

But it still comes down to the Indian not the arrow.

[DemolitionMan]

The problem is, there are less arrows to master. The game is largely Driver-Wedges-Putter. Speaking of opinions/facts, how can anyone dispute the fact there are a lot less guys on tour hitting middle-long irons. The opinion is whether or not this equates to a more boring brand of golf and to a larger extent what are the consequences.

 

Pre-Tiger Woods there was not a lot of talk about growing the game and there were not a lot of 2nd tier OEMs like you see today. But ever since TW came on the scene and golf enjoyed an explosion in growth, the industry has been going crazy trying to figure out how to control the growth of the game and what to do now that the TW effect is over.

 

Did people really expect the TW effect to last forever? How can it when newcomers found out the game is (a) hard, (b) expensive © really f'g slow most of the time, and (d) not a lot of fun.

 

It's just an opinion, but the caretakers of the game should be concerned about technology because it has changed the game at the pro level and the fact part is this does have a trickle down effect all the way down to the average player. I don't know what trip Titleist is on, but you do not see such insecurity from Taylor Made and those guys have a lot more to lose if people start bellyaching about drivers.

 

There may not be a one-size-fits-all answer, and I can appreciate OEMs getting nervous about technology rollbacks. But you still have to address the issue that when interest in golf on TV goes down, so goes TV contracts, advertising, sales, R&D budgets, innovations, and service. Does Titleist think for a second that they could survive as a major OEM with technology completely unleashed and no need for tour presence? How many $400+ drivers would the average golfer buy purely on in-store advertising without any tie-in back to the PGA Tour? Not many.

 

The OEMs and PGA Tour need each other, so they better start playing nice, and they better find a way to get a spark back into the TV show, or this problem will never go away.

[Gxgolfer]

I would think we would have more replies than this???

[NPVWhiz]

If you want to get people riled up, try using "technology" and "tradition" in the same golf conversation.

 

The main thrust of both response pieces is similar to what the USGA would like golfers to believe: that golf is headed to hell in a handbasket because of technological advances in golf equipment.

Photo Credit: © Old Course .com.

 

Click for Article>>>Here

 

"This article is republished with permission from The Sand Trap .com and

remains copyright © The Sand Trap .com. All rights and privileges reserved."

 

I do understand that the USGA has some traditionalist views, but I just can't reconcile this statement with the USGA member's newsletter from a few months ago, which was a complete and utter capitulation to the industry position.

 

The whole issue was about how they tried to roll the ball back in 1936 and people rejected it, and how technology is going to progress no matter what. My impression of the blue coats is that they would love nothing more than to just see the issue go away due to physics or divine intervention rather than have to actually do something.

 

"We think 460 cc's is big enough". Boy, that's defending the traditions of the game.

 

I don't know anyone that wants to go back to hickory.

 

The whole thing about requesting ball samples from companies is just a ruse. The USGA has not done one single thing to address the impact of technological advances in the last 20 years. They're the most reactive, head-in-the-sand rules stewards in sports.

 

How hard is it to set the CoR/characteristic time limit right at the edge of a swing speed that collapses faces at the level of a touring pro? That's like having a sign at a cliff that says "Don't not stand closer to the canyon than the edge of the cliff". No problem heeding that advice...

 

My issue is not whether or not the USGA can do something now about the problems that have arisen during the last decade.

 

The real issue is whether they have any clue about what is coming during the next decade, and whether they'll continue to ignore the effect on the game.

 

 

The bottom line for me is that skill at all the different elements of the game should pay at the pro level.

 

The shorter but straighter hitter should be able to squeak out an advantage over the long crooked hitter, and the long, straight hitter should have an advantage over them both. What it seems like today is that brute force is more a factor than being an excellent all arounder. That's why we'll see more wins by Bubba and Holmes than by Luke Donald or Jonathan Byrd.

 

But maybe Deacon's advice to Arnie was correct. Hit it as hard as you can, go find it, then hit it again.