Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What gets me to wonder the most is that if Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones had problems gaining distance because of the high spin rate their swings were imparting on the ball, what they would’ve done. I honestly don’t think they would have depended on a ball manufacturer to produce a low spinning ball. I don’t know enough about Bobby Jones to comment on his interest in equipment. But I don’t believe there have been many very successful golfers who were uninterested in using the best and most appropriate equipment available. To the contrary, those who resisted technological improvement were beaten by people like Byron Nelson. Technology offers the opportunity for the best to play a better game. Frankly, I enjoy watching more powerful and precise play. Must be why I can’t stand watching college football.
I agree as a player I should seek out and use the most technologically advanced components of the game. However, I must also agree with the greatest body of players as to rules governing what is possible and acceptable otherwise the game is destroyed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -joseph
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just heard Phil Mickelson being interviewed on winning the Tour Championship and he was asked about the benefits of hitting the new Titleist ball which produces a very low spin which in turn has helped the leftie drive much longer now, whereas before, he couldn’t help it but to produce a higher spin rate the harder he hit it. It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment. Look at soccer, football, tennis, basketball, baseball, hockey and etc…a ball is a ball, a puck is a puck. You don’t have soccer cleats that helps a player kick the ball with more distance or velocity, nor balls in football that helps quarterbacks throw further or more accurately.
A few exceptions… bowling, skiing, most motor sports. Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip I still love this game and it will always be my favorite sport. Even though I grew up playing competitive hockey, volleyball, and soccer, and only took up golf in my mid 20s, I still love the sport of golf for reasons I really can’t explain. But as much as I love it, I don’t like seeing the advances being made in the game through the equipment. Regards, Steve K. Lee I completely agree with you Steve. Unfortunately (and surprisingly) we seem to be in the vast minority around here. Already it seems that very few of the par 5s on tour are truly par 5s for any but the shortest hitters. I understand some of the reason is better conditioning and ball striking by the players, but not all of it. I’m all for technology which allows courses to be better maintained and makes balls and equipment more durable and consistent.
Yeah, good point. Those were the points I was looking for and failed to mention sooner. I just went out firing about how the technology was giving unfair advantage for the players and not mentioning how other elements of the sport can be improved upon. It just doesn’t make sense to me to get into this arms race between equipment and courses.
Heh, good anology. In order to keep the game a challenge, courses need to modified (made longer and/or fairways narrower) to offset the added distance that new technology is creating. What’s the point? Wouldn’t the game essentially be the same if course length and ball distance were both scaled back 20%? There’s just not enough real estate to keep lengthening courses to offset the added distance technology is creating.
Well, I’d still be more than happy to trade off 20% of my distance for better ball striking. And I guess this brings back the argument that the advances of technology in golf don’t concern the average player anway and that only the elite players are the ones who truly benefit from it. But then I think….see? Here we go again, coming to full circle. Anyway, I’ll give it a rest on this matter and just wait for December 21 to come. I’m taking off to sunny L.A., leaving the misery I’m faced here in Edmonton, AB. It’s below -5celsius with few inches of snow already. Take care. Best, Steve
Response:
[snip] I know the USGA and the R&A have put their foot down on the trampoline drivers Actually the R&A hasn’t. It doesn’t use the trampoline test. The ERC driver and similar clubs are legal everywhere that is governed by the R&A i.e. everywhere *but* the USA.
You’re absolutely right and I was wrong about the R&A barring the use of the ERC drivers. On a related point, given the Titleist V1238 (I think that’s the ball in question), does anyone know how it was kept within the Overall Distance Standard if it supposedly travels so far?
Colin, I actually have no idea, to be honest. But what got me wondering was, if Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones was having problems gaining distance because the harder they hit the ball, the more their swing produced was spin and not distance, what they would’ve done. Steve
Response:
I know the USGA and the R&A have put their foot down on the trampoline drivers, but big deal. I don’t believe the R&A has barred any drivers on this basis.
You’re absolutely right, they never banned the ERC driver from the tours and competitions they preside over. I was dead wrong. Steve
Response:
It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment. By all means, let’s return to the good old days, when the fairways that were irrigated didn’t drain well, when greens weren’t fast unless they were dead, when golf balls got cut and wouldn’t stay round, when skying a shot always left an idiot mark, and when the average handicap was 16-18, just like it is today.
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear or specific about which aspect of golf; the competition of the few elite, such as the "professionals and a small number of low handicap amateurs". None of the technology out there has changed scoring or distance in a significant way for any but professionals and a small number of low handicap amateurs.
Touche!! And this is exactly what I’m talking about. (See below for my further explanation.) I’d rather see the USGA bless the practice of "tournament rules" rather than "rein in" technology. Already, tournaments are conducted under a significant number of local rules. (No carts, one ball, no practice putting, etc.) But you’re right. Technology has ruined golf. I don’t enjoy it at all and I don’t know anyone who does anymore either.
Do the shoes that NBA players use these days help them jump _several_ inches higher than the ones used in the past that would enable a player to dunk or get more rebounds whom otherwise would not have? Do the balls used in MLB these days help the batter hit more home runs? Do the balls used in the NFL enable the quarterback to throw further or more accurately? Do the balls used in the Olympic volleyball finals these days help a spiker to smash through a 3 men block? The answer, even surprising myself would be yes, BUT!!! only to a certain point AND arguably within a negligible limit. What gets me to wonder the most is that if Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones had problems gaining distance because of the high spin rate their swings were imparting on the ball, what they would’ve done. I honestly don’t think they would have depended on a ball manufacturer to produce a low spinning ball. Was Michael Jordan or Larry Bird ever asked about the shoes or the balls they used to win their World Championships? Was Maguire ever asked about the bats or the balls he hit set the single season homerun records? Yes, he was asked about the supplement he took, but that’s not equipment. I still love this game and it will always be my favorite sport. Even though I grew up playing competitive hockey, volleyball, and soccer, and only took up golf in my mid 20s, I still love the sport of golf for reasons I really can’t explain. But as much as I love it, I don’t like seeing the advances being made in the game through the equipment. Regards, Steve K. Lee
Response:
with each Olympics, you see better equipment used by the athletes, be it in swimming, cycling, or even in the marathon in Sydney in which the gold medallist admitted to taking a concoction extracted from bumble bees which supposedly gave her enormous amount of stamina. Why was she able to keep her gold medal when other athletes who take other supplement get disqualified and have their medals taken away?
First, it’s likely that any perceived improvement was simply a placebo effect or the result of good training. Why was she able to keep her gold medal? Because whatever she was using was permitted by the rules. Athletes know before entering competition what is and isn’t permitted them, and if a diet of bee pollen, sucrose pills, or pickled baby octopus tentacles make someone think they’ll do better, more power to them. Getting back on topic, if I’m looking for new golf equipment, I’d be a fool to look for anything other than what I felt would offer the greatest improvement to my game. Even purists have to admit that if the golfers of a century ago were given access to the equipment that we have, they’d take their hickory clubs and use them for firewood. (Hmmm… let me change that, as the mental image makes me shudder….) They’d take their hickory clubs and stash them in the attic for us to find. 
Eliyahu
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What gets me to wonder the most is that if Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones had problems gaining distance because of the high spin rate their swings were imparting on the ball, what they would’ve done. I honestly don’t think they would have depended on a ball manufacturer to produce a low spinning ball. I don’t know enough about Bobby Jones to comment on his interest in equipment. But I don’t believe there have been many very successful golfers who were uninterested in using the best and most appropriate equipment available. To the contrary, those who resisted technological improvement were beaten by people like Byron Nelson. Technology offers the opportunity for the best to play a better game. Frankly, I enjoy watching more powerful and precise play. Must be why I can’t stand watching college football.
LOL, college basketball isn’t so good either. But a friend of mine pointed out somethings to me with whom I was having a discussion about this. He said that with each Olympics, you see better equipment used by the athletes, be it in swimming, cycling, or even in the marathon in Sydney in which the gold medallist admitted to taking a concoction extracted from bumble bees which supposedly gave her enormous amount of stamina. Why was she able to keep her gold medal when other athletes who take other supplement get disqualified and have their medals taken away? Eventually, he too concluded that even if the equipment is superior, it’s the athlete who’ll win the medal. We just kept on going in a circle and we cut our conversation to the gorgeous waitress who was serving us. She had all the right equipment in the right places, including a very nice smile. Anyway, I think I’ll give it a rest now, but…..nah, last words seldom bring me any satisfaction Best, Steve
Response:
What gets me to wonder the most is that if Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones had problems gaining distance because of the high spin rate their swings were imparting on the ball, what they would’ve done. I honestly don’t think they would have depended on a ball manufacturer to produce a low spinning ball.
I don’t know enough about Bobby Jones to comment on his interest in equipment. But I don’t believe there have been many very successful golfers who were uninterested in using the best and most appropriate equipment available. To the contrary, those who resisted technological improvement were beaten by people like Byron Nelson. Technology offers the opportunity for the best to play a better game. Frankly, I enjoy watching more powerful and precise play. Must be why I can’t stand watching college football. -joseph
Response:
Response:
On a related point, given the Titleist V1238 (I think that’s the ball in question), does anyone know how it was kept within the Overall Distance Standard if it supposedly travels so far?
THe standard is for Iron Byron hitting the ball with a particular setup. It doesn’t address how players with higher swing speeds, different lofts, different approach angles, etc., will drive the ball. The USGA made a move to update the test (probably, get rid of Iron Byron and replace it with more robust tests) in 1999 but that was shot down and seems to be on indefinite hold. It’s not that balls like this haven’t existed to date. However, the ball that Phil is playing is apparently one of the first to satisfy his need for soft feel around the greens. -joseph
Response:
It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment.
By all means, let’s return to the good old days, when the fairways that were irrigated didn’t drain well, when greens weren’t fast unless they were dead, when golf balls got cut and wouldn’t stay round, when skying a shot always left an idiot mark, and when the average handicap was 16-18, just like it is today. None of the technology out there has changed scoring or distance in a significant way for any but professionals and a small number of low handicap amateurs. I’d rather see the USGA bless the practice of "tournament rules" rather than "rein in" technology. Already, tournaments are conducted under a significant number of local rules. (No carts, one ball, no practice putting, etc.) But you’re right. Technology has ruined golf. I don’t enjoy it at all and I don’t know anyone who does anymore either. -joseph
Response:
It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment.
If you think we golfers can become techno-weenies, you should try competitive cycling! Contrast, for example, the modern Tour de France with that of the 1920’s. Riders used balloon-tired single-speed monsters (organizer Degranges banned derailleur gears as being "unmanly.") with no support vehicles or assistance, riding long stages over dirt, gravel and cobblestone roads, day after day without rest days, personal support crews or mechanics. In one of the more memorable stages, Eugene Christophe’s fork broke, he walked the bike several miles to the nearest village, rented a forge from a local blacksmith and forge-welded it himself. He was fined for having unfair assistance because he had a small boy pump the bellows for him as he worked. Our equipment, rules and courses have, indeed, changed in recent years, but not to that degree. I might grouse if I were required to use clubs like the ones Bobby Jones used, but I could still play with them. The average competitive cyclist, if asked to race with equipment of that vintage, would quit and take up gardening. Perhaps what we need are separate rules for amateur and professional golfers. It works for baseball… i.e., wood bats vs. aluminum. Eliyahu
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not that balls like this haven’t existed to date. However, the ball that Phil is playing is apparently one of the first to satisfy his need for soft feel around the greens. That could be the clue to it … pros simply haven’t used the "maximum distance balls" because they haven’t up until now met their feel requirements. But if the Overall Distance Standard remains the same, balls *can’t* just keep on getting longer forever. There must be some limit. The Overall Distance Standard used to say that when tested on approved apparatus "the ball shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards (256 metres), plus a tolerance of 6%". Now it just says (2000 Rulebook) "shall not exceed the distance specified under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard …". I assume the figure of 256 metres + 6% is still used.
I haven’t read the standard in a while so I can’t answer that. But one thing that has changed steadily since the introduction of the standard is that manufacturers have been able to engineer balls that have such consistent properties that they are right at the limit of the standard. So while balls were originally engineered for 256 meters they are now engineered for 271.35999 meters (or thereabouts). And from what I have seen (there was a book on golf ball distances derived from numerous Iron Byron tests) virtually ALL non balata balls are within a few yards of the limit. And again that discounts variations in swing speed. Balls aren’t tested at swing speeds of 120 or 125 mph, not by the USGA. A ball might not develop sufficient driver spin to perform optimally on the USGA’s test, but with an additional 10-20 mph swing speed, might be "just right." -joseph
Response:
I just heard Phil Mickelson being interviewed on winning the Tour Championship and he was asked about the benefits of hitting the new Titleist ball which produces a very low spin which in turn has helped the leftie drive much longer now, whereas before, he couldn’t help it but to produce a higher spin rate the harder he hit it. It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment.
The exceptions to your list are all the motor sports. The "advantage" is comparative however. If everyone has the same opportunity to use the same equipment, there’s no real advantage (other than over the course itself). I play on a course that is only 5270 metres (5800 yards). When it was built in 1937 it was only 4650 metres (5100 yards). Now there are at least seven holes where I, a relatively moderate length player, hit wedge into the green for a second shot. Technology is making my course redundant for some long hitters. But there are still tens of thousands of golfers who cannot make a lot of its par-4s in two. It’s all relative. (And the course record is still only 67 … it’s tight.) I know the USGA and the R&A have put their foot down on the trampoline drivers
Actually the R&A hasn’t. It doesn’t use the trampoline test. The ERC driver and similar clubs are legal everywhere that is governed by the R&A i.e. everywhere *but* the USA. On a related point, given the Titleist V1238 (I think that’s the ball in question), does anyone know how it was kept within the Overall Distance Standard if it supposedly travels so far? Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
But you’re right. Technology has ruined golf. I don’t enjoy it at all and I don’t know anyone who does anymore either.
Be careful, Joseph–wouldn’t want to see that tongue permanently impaled in your cheek!! Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX RSG Clique-Associate Member http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38 RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
Response:
It’s not that balls like this haven’t existed to date. However, the ball that Phil is playing is apparently one of the first to satisfy his need for soft feel around the greens.
That could be the clue to it … pros simply haven’t used the "maximum distance balls" because they haven’t up until now met their feel requirements. But if the Overall Distance Standard remains the same, balls *can’t* just keep on getting longer forever. There must be some limit. The Overall Distance Standard used to say that when tested on approved apparatus "the ball shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards (256 metres), plus a tolerance of 6%". Now it just says (2000 Rulebook) "shall not exceed the distance specified under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard …". I assume the figure of 256 metres + 6% is still used. Of course if they changed the test so Iron Byron was set up with an ERC driver, that might make it more meaningful. Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
I just heard Phil Mickelson being interviewed on winning the Tour Championship and he was asked about the benefits of hitting the new Titleist ball which produces a very low spin which in turn has helped the leftie drive much longer now, whereas before, he couldn’t help it but to produce a higher spin rate the harder he hit it. It seems clear to me that over any other sport, golf is one that seems to let a player gain an advantage solely on the merits of having a superior technology or equipment. Look at soccer, football, tennis, basketball, baseball, hockey and etc…a ball is a ball, a puck is a puck. You don’t have soccer cleats that helps a player kick the ball with more distance or velocity, nor balls in football that helps quarterbacks throw further or more accurately. Yes, I know, there are gonna be some of you who’ll tell me to consider the bats, the hockey sticks, the balls in baseball these days to the old and etc. But to me, it’s very hard to argue that golf, by far, has been and will the sport in which the equipment will have a significant role in shaping the sport itself. Witness the longer yardages of today’s courses and the constant lengthening of the old, the shorter distances the players are left with when hitting their second shots on a par 5 compared to the past, and etc., etc. I don’t see the height of the basketball rim having been raised over the years. I know the USGA and the R&A have put their foot down on the trampoline drivers, but big deal. I liken that to a customs office letting through hundreds of travelers with illicit reasons when they’re only able to catch a few. I know, I know, it’s not like the manufacturers are slipping a few by the 2 governing bodies, but that’s what it looks like to me. Regards, Steve K. Lee
Response:
I know the USGA and the R&A have put their foot down on the trampoline drivers, but big deal.
I don’t believe the R&A has barred any drivers on this basis. — Ed Dotson-ChordWorshipper Frank Thorne,Cardinal http://members.home.net/ledotson/