| FrontPageGolf |
News Commentary Opinion
| Copyright MMXI, Front Page Golf. All Rights Reserved. www.FrontPageGolf.com is a trademark of FrontPageGolf. |
Solheim’s three ball proposal is a bad idea
Not player friendly
By ED TRAVIS
Not player friendly
By ED TRAVIS
 |  |  |  |  |
Just before Christmas PING’s CEO John Solheim
made his proposal public calling for the USGA to
adopt rules mandating three classes of golf balls –
one that would go the same distance as today’s, one
30 yards less and one 30 yards more.
Recreational players presumably would have their
choice (does anyone think they will pick the 30 yards
less ball?) and tournament organizers could specify
which was to be played as a “condition of
competition.” In particular the PGA Tour with all those
long hitting superstars would use the 30-yards-less-
ball in an effort to contain their mighty blows.
Solheim is concerned about the added distance tour
professionals and elite amateurs are able to hit the
ball, supporting his proposal with the point for the first
time the PGA Tour average driving distance topped
290 yards. Further he comes at it with the evidentially
preconceived opinions not only is increased distance
a problem but that golf rules makers will eventually do
something about it which could further hurt golf.
The latter has been opined about by this author on
several occasions as has the former but recapping:
Increased distance has always been railed against by
those who want to preserve the “traditions of the
game,” and they always miss the point. For 150 years
golf technology has continued to change.
The “shorter-is-better” proponents argue the
increased distance makes “fine old courses obsolete”
and that too much land is required for new golf
courses to contain that added yardage of today’s ball.
Well, for the past three years more courses have been
bulldozed than opened, a trend forecast to continue,
so the amount of land being used is a non-starter. The
“fine old courses” argument also begs the question
because operators by this time have either made the
decision to adjust layouts for the longer drives or
decided to not adjust, leaving one to conclude, “What’s
the big deal?”
“Fine old courses” are not an endangered species.
They have been under attack by long hitters since the
late 1800s when the feathery ball was replaced by the
gutta percha ball and subsequently then when the
rubber-cored ball became standard. Don’t believe it?
Read some of the dire predictions of the game’s
imminent demise from back then. The same
arguments are being used today and are as wrong
now as they were then with the ultimate proof being
the game not only survived but became more popular.
made his proposal public calling for the USGA to
adopt rules mandating three classes of golf balls –
one that would go the same distance as today’s, one
30 yards less and one 30 yards more.
Recreational players presumably would have their
choice (does anyone think they will pick the 30 yards
less ball?) and tournament organizers could specify
which was to be played as a “condition of
competition.” In particular the PGA Tour with all those
long hitting superstars would use the 30-yards-less-
ball in an effort to contain their mighty blows.
Solheim is concerned about the added distance tour
professionals and elite amateurs are able to hit the
ball, supporting his proposal with the point for the first
time the PGA Tour average driving distance topped
290 yards. Further he comes at it with the evidentially
preconceived opinions not only is increased distance
a problem but that golf rules makers will eventually do
something about it which could further hurt golf.
The latter has been opined about by this author on
several occasions as has the former but recapping:
Increased distance has always been railed against by
those who want to preserve the “traditions of the
game,” and they always miss the point. For 150 years
golf technology has continued to change.
The “shorter-is-better” proponents argue the
increased distance makes “fine old courses obsolete”
and that too much land is required for new golf
courses to contain that added yardage of today’s ball.
Well, for the past three years more courses have been
bulldozed than opened, a trend forecast to continue,
so the amount of land being used is a non-starter. The
“fine old courses” argument also begs the question
because operators by this time have either made the
decision to adjust layouts for the longer drives or
decided to not adjust, leaving one to conclude, “What’s
the big deal?”
“Fine old courses” are not an endangered species.
They have been under attack by long hitters since the
late 1800s when the feathery ball was replaced by the
gutta percha ball and subsequently then when the
rubber-cored ball became standard. Don’t believe it?
Read some of the dire predictions of the game’s
imminent demise from back then. The same
arguments are being used today and are as wrong
now as they were then with the ultimate proof being
the game not only survived but became more popular.
Want more proof? Go back to the noisy predictions of
irreversible harm some made when steel became the
preferred shaft material replacing hickory wood. The
crystal balls of the view-with-alarmers must have been
cloudy and certainly were cracked since the
conversion to steel was a big part in attracting millions
of people to golf in the 1920s and 30s. All of a sudden
it was easier to get the ball into the air to say nothing
of hitting the ball with more efficiency and incidentally a
lot further.
Sure the pros, and in fact most everybody who plays,
hits the ball further today. Modern technology applied
to club design and space age materials have made
game-changing changes. Shafts are much lighter
since graphite became the predominant material of
driver shafts. It is 50-60 grams lighter than steel and
the current titanium clubheads totally outclass the
previous heads made of persimmon wood. Titanium
is both a lot stronger and a lot lighter allowing the club
face to produce a trampoline-like effect to spring the
ball forward. All this means drivers can be swung
faster which of course produces more distance but the
shafts of today’s drivers are also much longer (on the
order of 2 to 3 inches) giving even more clubhead
speed.
In case you think this makes the case of those
wanting to curtail the golf ball and that we are on the
way to needing 8,000-yard courses, people who know
about these things say we’ve seen about all the
distance gains from equipment that are possible
simply because of the laws of physics.
There will be incremental distance gains for at least
the pros and elite amateurs though probably not for
the rest of us. Pros and elite amateurs have gotten
physically larger with even higher levels of athleticism.
(Anecdotally I understand the average shoe size on
Tour in the 1960s was 9½ and today it is 13.)
They employ more training (physical, video, etc.) and
there is more training at an earlier age. Plus there’s
another reason drives on the PGA Tour are traveling
further, one not usually considered by those who want
to make us use a shorter ball. Modern technology also
produces golf course agronomic conditions not even
imagined in previous eras such as firmer fairways that
give more roll…well you get the picture.
Fans of professional golf want the excitement of
seeing toursters “going low” and if we somehow craft
the rules of the professional game to forget the fan we
are making a huge mistake. Professional golf is first
and foremost entertainment.
irreversible harm some made when steel became the
preferred shaft material replacing hickory wood. The
crystal balls of the view-with-alarmers must have been
cloudy and certainly were cracked since the
conversion to steel was a big part in attracting millions
of people to golf in the 1920s and 30s. All of a sudden
it was easier to get the ball into the air to say nothing
of hitting the ball with more efficiency and incidentally a
lot further.
Sure the pros, and in fact most everybody who plays,
hits the ball further today. Modern technology applied
to club design and space age materials have made
game-changing changes. Shafts are much lighter
since graphite became the predominant material of
driver shafts. It is 50-60 grams lighter than steel and
the current titanium clubheads totally outclass the
previous heads made of persimmon wood. Titanium
is both a lot stronger and a lot lighter allowing the club
face to produce a trampoline-like effect to spring the
ball forward. All this means drivers can be swung
faster which of course produces more distance but the
shafts of today’s drivers are also much longer (on the
order of 2 to 3 inches) giving even more clubhead
speed.
In case you think this makes the case of those
wanting to curtail the golf ball and that we are on the
way to needing 8,000-yard courses, people who know
about these things say we’ve seen about all the
distance gains from equipment that are possible
simply because of the laws of physics.
There will be incremental distance gains for at least
the pros and elite amateurs though probably not for
the rest of us. Pros and elite amateurs have gotten
physically larger with even higher levels of athleticism.
(Anecdotally I understand the average shoe size on
Tour in the 1960s was 9½ and today it is 13.)
They employ more training (physical, video, etc.) and
there is more training at an earlier age. Plus there’s
another reason drives on the PGA Tour are traveling
further, one not usually considered by those who want
to make us use a shorter ball. Modern technology also
produces golf course agronomic conditions not even
imagined in previous eras such as firmer fairways that
give more roll…well you get the picture.
Fans of professional golf want the excitement of
seeing toursters “going low” and if we somehow craft
the rules of the professional game to forget the fan we
are making a huge mistake. Professional golf is first
and foremost entertainment.
There’s a very interesting statistic those who want to
rein in distance are not quoting.
Scoring average on the PGA Tour was higher in 2011
than in 2001, the year the solid-center urethane
covered Titleist Pro V1 ball took the golf world by
storm. Not much higher to be sure - 68.86 strokes per
round versus 68.81 - but the point is scoring hasn’t all
of a sudden gotten out of hand. Golf is still a very
difficult game even if you hit the ball a long way.
Golf is also a business and the equipment makers
such as Solheim’s PING have a vested interest in
what equipment the USGA will allow or not allow.
PING doesn’t make golf balls but those companies
that do most certainly won’t relish trying to market golf
balls in three different performance categories. They
no longer would be able to claim theirs is the longest
since big brother has decreed otherwise. (Maybe the
slogan could be, “We make the longest short ball in
golf!”)
Equipment companies are a major part of the golf
industry, an industry that is not healthy so why would
we want to put up more roadblocks?
And it’s not just the ball. Changing the ball to a shorter
ball for professionals as Jack Nicklaus has proposed
or using Solheim’s idea does one other very bad thing.
It means one of the great beauties and attractions of
golf will be gone; that delicious feeling of comparing
yourself to the professionals. It’s as if we are being
told, “You’re not good enough, so don’t even think
about pounding that tee shot over the water…you can’t
do anyway.”
Change the rules and recreational players will lose
the some of the charm and mystery of trying to
conquer and unconquerable game played with the
same rules and with the same equipment as the
professionals.
rein in distance are not quoting.
Scoring average on the PGA Tour was higher in 2011
than in 2001, the year the solid-center urethane
covered Titleist Pro V1 ball took the golf world by
storm. Not much higher to be sure - 68.86 strokes per
round versus 68.81 - but the point is scoring hasn’t all
of a sudden gotten out of hand. Golf is still a very
difficult game even if you hit the ball a long way.
Golf is also a business and the equipment makers
such as Solheim’s PING have a vested interest in
what equipment the USGA will allow or not allow.
PING doesn’t make golf balls but those companies
that do most certainly won’t relish trying to market golf
balls in three different performance categories. They
no longer would be able to claim theirs is the longest
since big brother has decreed otherwise. (Maybe the
slogan could be, “We make the longest short ball in
golf!”)
Equipment companies are a major part of the golf
industry, an industry that is not healthy so why would
we want to put up more roadblocks?
And it’s not just the ball. Changing the ball to a shorter
ball for professionals as Jack Nicklaus has proposed
or using Solheim’s idea does one other very bad thing.
It means one of the great beauties and attractions of
golf will be gone; that delicious feeling of comparing
yourself to the professionals. It’s as if we are being
told, “You’re not good enough, so don’t even think
about pounding that tee shot over the water…you can’t
do anyway.”
Change the rules and recreational players will lose
the some of the charm and mystery of trying to
conquer and unconquerable game played with the
same rules and with the same equipment as the
professionals.