Bomb & Gouge Blog

Point-Misser's Parade

We're sure Geoff Shackelford is a nice man. He is certainly an accomplished writer and contributor to the design of a golf course. But personal attacks on our integrity are a sign of weakness and low self-esteem. And, of course, point-missing. One of his latest musings suggests that our recent posting on attacking the issue of u-grooves was somehow motivated by a desire to promote the golf equipment industry and defend the USGA's equipment decisions. At the same time. A neat trick. His overused lament is that the golf ball—that ongoing source of sturm und drang among the assembled panic-stricken, progress fearing golf Sanhedrin—needs to be dealt with in some draconian rollback, retrograde fashion.
It's a tired solution-less solution to a problem that does not exist. First of all, we're dealing with the issue of spin, and the fact is that old balata balls spun more than current urethane balls. The USGA is concerned rightly about whether the new grooves on irons and wedges offer some unique and growing advantage, but even its brighter minds are not certain it's an issue that requires corrective action.  But the bigger issue is what exactly are the Shackelfords of the world afraid of? That Myopia Hunt won't be able to host another U.S. Open? That Wannamoisett is too short to be appreciated by today's players? That the subtle beauty of the gently lofted mashie-niblick and the stymie are lost to eternity? The game is a living, growing thing, and just as I assume Mr. Shackelford, despite his bleating cries, no longer wears diapers, the game too must leave behind the things it no longer needs. We may be afraid of distance and the golf ball, but fear is borne and festers out of ignorance. Knowledge and rational thinking keep it in check. In my conversations with officials at the USGA and the R&A, average driving distance of average golfers has maybe increased 10 or so yards over the last 15 years, to a whopping 210-215 yards. If 215 yard tee shots are obsoleting your golf course, it might be time to pick a new venue. An ultra-elite group of players may be hitting it farther, but 99 percent of the rest of us aren't. And when we roll the ball back next year or the year after, how soon until we have to do it again? And which of us is ready to play a shorter ball? And if the insanely easy to play golf equipment were such an advantage, everyone would be shooting 59 every day. The game finds a way to win.
And because there is no need to bog this debate down with an endless dissertation, let's just mull some facts.
1. Currently, there are just two players on the PGA Tour who are averaging more than 300 yards in the tour's statistics that measure all drives. Two.
2. In the tour's driving distance average statistics, 20 players are averaging 300 or more yards. But here's the thing, only half of that number have ever won a tour event—EVER—and a third of that number (Woods, Couples, Love, Mickelson, etc.) have always been among the longest hitters. And here's one more thing, the number of 300-yard hitters is down from a year ago.
3. Driving distance has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. But it's flattened out in the last five. It's up about half a yard this year over last year. 18 inches. That's an increase of 0.17 percent. Is that the sky falling, or maybe something else?

The game survives when it chooses to grow. Equipment isn't making anyone a dominant player. And when it chooses to test elite players in the way we average golfers are tested on a regular basis, the game will be stronger because it has the power to consistently find ways to turn back all threats.

Categories:

Comments

Archived Comments (10) Click to expand

Agreed. Shackelford perpetually misses the point and pushes the agenda that there's a massive problem for which the ball and the ball alone is to blame.

I for one don't even agree with the premise that there is a problem, and if there were one, that it encompasses a LOT more than the ball.

One wonders if Geoff even plays golf

Posted by Erik J. Barzeski October 24, 2006 9:55 AM

What a lot of nonsense from Bomb and Gouge.

If the average guy has gained so little form the last fifteen years of technology advances, it is obvious that he has little or nothing to fear in any equipment rollback.

Indeed, the average guy ought to welcome any equipment rollback that brings Tiger Woods' game closer to that of the average Joe.

There IS a technology problem in golf. If there were no technology problem, then there wouldn't be all of the weird, awful trickery that tournament officials now need to impose on courses that host elite players. It is as simple as that.

You guys, Bomb and Gouge, have got it wrong. And you should both expect that the debate is not going to go away. Most of the most exalted names in the game all think that golf ball technology needs to be reined in. Meanwhile, who is it that opposes any rollback of driver distance? The main opponent appears to be Acushnet/Titleist/Mr. Uhlein. And, that entity is one of your advertisers. Those are the facts. I'm happy to let your readers decide, as long as they have all the facts.

To the extent that you guys want to pursue this debate openly, I say, Bring It On!

GOUGE responds: First, I'm not employed by the Acushnet Company. Second, neither Mr. Uihlein nor any of his charges have any impact on editorial content at this space or any other legitimate journalistic enterprise. Third, The staggeringly prohibitive majority of those complaining about the golf ball are short hitters, decades past their primes. I'm not sure which facts are being disputed, but those facts above cannot be denied. You might want to stop technology, Chuck, and certainly, any rules organization can revise the rules anytime it wants. No matter what, though, it's not a tragedy, whether they make massive changes, stay the course, or go back to hickory and featheries. No rollback or rampu-up in restrictions, however, will be easy to enforce or worth the effort anyway.

Posted by Chuck October 24, 2006 12:07 PM

You guys make your living touting new equipment. Of course you're going take the line that equipment isn't the source of growing dissatisfaction with the pro game and consequential loss of interest in ordinary play.

When ordinary courses start narrowing fairways, growing rough and emulating the boring penal approach that the pro game has adopted to defend par, that causes ordinary guys to get discouraged and hang it up.

That is what has been happening out there in the real world. You guys should wake up to the fact that you hang out and work in a world that has no real relationship to the world that 80% of golfers inhabit. Your eye-candy pages and hot-list reviews are amusing the same way hotrod pics or Maxim girls are, but are generally useless when it comes to buying decisions, where feel, fit and look in the hands always trumps something you read in a zine.

GOUGE: Ordinary guys get discouraged and quit because golf is boring and penal? Interesting. I'd think average players are attracted to the game because of its challenge, the same for the truly elite. The Golf Digest Hot List isn't about making the buying decisions for the reader, it's about helping the reader make sense of a confusing marketplace. We would hope feel, fit and look in the hands trumps what appears in our pages. The last thing a smart consumer would want to do is buy a new piece of golf equipment without trying it first.

Posted by F. X. October 25, 2006 7:07 PM

Chuck responds to GOUGE:

1. I understand and accept that you are not employed by Acushnet.

2. I accept that it is your absolute right to claim that Titleist CEO Wally Uihlein has no "impact" on your editorial content. All I can do is to point out the "apparent" conflict of interest. Let's face it, Golf Digest is not the New England Journal of Medicine. It is a commercial enterprise and Titleist is one of your commercial advertising partners. A better argument on your behalf, as Geoff Shackelford rightly and correctly pointed out on his excellent website is that GD Editor Jerry Tarde has himself spoken about problems relating to advances in equipment technology. The fact of Mr. Tarde's comments is both good for your credibility on any issue of bias, and bad for your stated view that "there's no problem" with equipment-related distance gains.

3. As for disputes about facts and stats, let's be clear. Stats about who is winning (long hitters versus short hitters) are absolutely meaningless. This debate is not about competitive advantages for different groups or types of players. This debate is about fittng the game played by elite players to the present courses. And there, we KNOW there IS a problem, because of all of the changes that are being forced upon older courses.

Nobody on my side of the debate wants to "stop technology." What my side of the debate wants is sensible regulation, that fits the wonderful game of golf as played by the best players, on to the best and most historic golf courses. We want that, instead of nonsense regulation that only encourages the defacing of those great courses. That, I think, is a clear, credible position. And, as you must admit, it is the one position held by the most people with the most knowledge of the game, who have the least financial stake in selling equipment under current regulations.

GOUGE responds: It is unfortunate that some people like yourself continue to believe that journalistic integrity is dead. But so be it. I have no financial stake in the equipment debate. As for Mr. Tarde's statements in print, well, they are his, they are not always mine. That is the beauty of a public forum. That is the beauty and strength of our enterprise as a magazine. And the only thing I must admit is that the game must adapt. I have no impractical affinity for maintaining the relevance of venues of the past. If a great course from the past is no longer a sufficient test for the .0001 percent of the universe of golfers, that is not a tragedy. We move on. If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears. That leaves those majestic venues for the 99.9999 percent of us who can still appreciate their greatness.

But thanks for your thoughts. The discourse shows the game itself still has meaning.

Posted by Chuck October 26, 2006 12:32 PM

So what do think is challenging about golf? Playing a wedge out of rough? Placing shots precisely? Sinking putts?

You missed my point completely -- I said that as courses tend to mimic the kind of setups we see on TV -- narrow fairways, heavy rough, superfast greens -- average golfers have more difficulty enjoying their rounds. Instead of facing strategic challenges, such as getting in position on one side of the fairway instead of the other to open up the approach, they tend to start facing more penal challanges, such as stay out of the rough. Penal golf = boring golf = why TV audiences fade when Tiger isn't playing.

Again, my point is that the pro game impacts the amateur game mainly in course setups and in instigating a desire to go out and play. But when the pro game is nothing like the amatuer game, and the amatuer game takes on the scoring protection techniques equipment changes have forced on tournament courses, you have negative feedback that kills interest in golf.

But back to what the challenge of golf is (or ought to be). Isn't it mainly to provide an opportunity for healthful recreation? And if rounds and participation declines, isn't that challenge being lost?

I think we can all agree that we want more people playing and enjoying the game. I just don't see that happening in a world where the pros play 8000 yard courses hitting 350 yard tee shots, and you do.

GOUGE responds: The pro game instigating a desire to play? That desire better exist independently of watching television. An opportunity for healthful recreation? To put it politely, that's claptrap. You play golf because you're intrigued by the challenge. If the challege gets too great, you adapt or you quit. And I submit if you quit because you can't adapt, the problem lies with you, not the challenge of the game. Certainly, the challenge should match the level of the participant. The ladies 9-holer league shouldn't be forced to negotiate their way around East Lake as it is set up for the Tour Championship. And they aren't. No superintendent is making his or her golf course impossible for the members to play, but he or she ought to have the option to ratchet up the difficulty for select championships. This isn't about some grow the game initiative, it's about challenging elite players. The game grows independently of its difficulty. If it didn't, no one would ever get past his or her first topped tee shot.

Posted by F. X. October 26, 2006 2:58 PM

I'll just remain quietly on the sidelines until the flying dishes have settled down...

Now that that seems to be done with, one question I would like to have answered is simply this: when is the game broken? I'm not attacking anyone, so please don't get hot over a simple question.

Lots of commentators take one of two stances: 1) the game is already broken, or 2) it will break if things go unchecked. I have yet to see anyone say that unregulated distance and equipment advances are a good thing. So, when does it break?

I am not exactly one to run to regulation as the end-all solution to everything. If anything, complete lack of regulation with unchecked distance and lengthening and toughening (that's a word, I think...) of courses will no doubt bring about, eventually, a revival like we see in the audio world of old-time technology (vacuum tubes, and everything) and "values". What people will gravitate towards is not clear (the golf of today, or of 20 years ago, or even further back), but I doubt many will genuinely think distance (and cost, and length of courses, and time required to play, etc.) unchecked is a great thing.

So, again, simply: when does the game brake?

BG respond: Unregulated equipment advances? Perhaps we should review some of the equipment regulations already put in place by the USGA. The initial velocity standard for golf balls has not changed in more than 30 years. The spring-like effect standard has not changed since it was instituted in 1998, shortly after its discovery. The head size rule has held constant at 460 cc. Moment of inertia has been capped. Equipment performance is regulated. What is not regulated is human potential. Certainly, any performance enhancement is best utilized by the more elite player. Swinging the club faster can't be stopped, and it is just pure physics that a 65-gram graphite shaft at 45 inches will result in significantly more clubhead speed than a the 130-gram 43-inch steel shafts of yesteryear. When does the game break? When it refuses to move forward by mindlessly clinging to the past. Amazing how Dr. Naismith let his game advance beyond the peach basket.

Posted by Scott S November 6, 2006 4:52 AM

Gouge you are quite right to point out that the main concern in the current ball-regulation debate is in relation to .0001 percent of the elite players. I say again as I have before; the rest of the world of recreational players hasn't gained all that much from technology advances, and consequently has little to lose with any new regulations.

But then you stated:

"If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears." That's an appalling thought. You really can't be serious about functionally turning St. Andrews into a museum, or moving the Masters to the TPC at Southwind, are you? Maybe you are.

But more to the point, why should that happen at all? Why should our great championships be taken away to places like the K Club or the Belfry, instead of the historic links? Why adulterate the designs at Winged Foot or Oakmont or Oakland Hills or Merion just to accomodate the length of urethane-cover balls on steroids? Why not just regulate things so that the elite players play a game that we can all relate to? A game that fits those courses? Wouldn't that be BETTER than doing nothing at all? We already agree, I think, that all of this has no bearing on the 99.999% of the other golfers that you mentioned. Most of them would never know the difference in re-regulated equipment if we gave them a blind test. So we can leave them out of the debate altogether.

As for the tour pros, just be honest with all of us for a moment, okay? Setting aside the pros' ball-endorsement contracts, isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of people on tour, from Tim Finchem to Slugger White to Geoff Ogilvie and everbody in between, all would like to see better and more realistic ball regulations from the USGA? Who doesn't want better regulations? Be honest.

BG respond: The USGA has changed its ball regulations as recently as 2004, and if you read the rule carefully, it may have even been more restrictive. But to your concern over the great venues, I can only offer this:

Myopia Hunt

Newport CC

Garden City

Prestwick

Musselburgh

Chicago GC

We've had the courage to move past these venues as sites for major championships because for reasons of length, and sometimes more importantly, infrastructure, they stopped being relevant as a site. They didn't stop being relevant as significant golf courses. Are their places in history any less secure for not being part of any major championship rota today. No. But holding onto the Winged Foots, the Augusta Nationals and Merions and even the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly. Let's remember that Merion didn't host a U.S. Open until 1934, nearly 40 years after the U.S. Open began. They had the courage to do new and different things back then. Where is the courage to do the same today?

Posted by Chuck November 6, 2006 6:13 PM

What does "courage" have to do with anything? The path of least resistance, the road that requires no courage whatsoever, is to let the equipment manufacturers dictate to all of us that the kinds of courses that will be used for championship tournaments will be mostly unlike the courses we know and love.

The two of you have really done a good job of avoiding many of the most basic questions posed to you among the numerous replies. Maybe if I number them, you'll be forced to be more direct:

1. You have stated twice that you would not care if Augusta National were rendered obsolete for tournament play. What is your alternative, and what benefit do you think would come from equipment that made Augusta obsolete?

2. I asked if you knew of anyone in the upper levels of the game, as a player, a golf architect, or an administrator, who thinks that there is really no problem with technology and that balls don't need any re-regulation. Do you? And if you do know of any such people, are any of them NOT financially associated with Titleist/Acushnet/Fortune Brands?

3. Third and last; What is the basis for any concern that the average recreational player's game would be significantly changed by new golf ball regulations. Let us stipulate, as you answer this question, that the average player hasn't been helped much by technology over the past 20 years or so, such that the average player is still challenged greatly by courses that the elite players would make obsolete. Still, the question remains -- What exactly does the average player have to fear if tomorrow there wer no more Pro V1's?

(cc: G. Shackelford)

GOUGE: 1. If Augusta National becomes no longer an adequate test of elite players (something, by the way, that is in no danger of happening), then we move on to more fitting venues. It doesn't cheapen Augusta National as a golf course, nor did it cheapen Augusta National when Jack Nicklaus shot 17-under in winning the Masters 41 years ago. FORTY-ONE.

2. The administrators at the USGA and the RA have expressed no formal colossal terror over the future of technology. In short, the measures they have enacted, particularly in recent years under the guidance of Dick Rugge, have boxed in the technology race as much as it needs to be boxed in. And Dick Rugge is not employed by Titleist/Acushnet/Fortune Brands. As for the re-regulation of golf balls, don't forget that the Pro V1 is still shorter than the current Pinnacle, which is probably no closer to the Overall Distance Standard today than it was 20 years ago. I don't think any top college player who thinks technology is ruining the game, and I can guarantee you there isn't an LPGA player who wishes she wasn't hitting it so far.

3. The average player would not be hurt by a rollback, not because he would be losing 20 yards (though there is evidence to suggest that he is hitting it about 15 yards farther than he did in 1990). No, he'd be hurt by a rollback because you'd be taking something away from him and everybody that has no reason to be taken away.

Posted by Chuck November 10, 2006 3:20 PM

Okay, Gouge, now the battle is joined.

First, you say:

"If Augusta National becomes no longer an adequate test of elite players (something, by the way, that is in no danger of happening), then we move on to more fitting venues."

Can you tell me, simply and directly, why we shouldn't "move back to more fitting equipment" instead?

You also mentioned Nickluas winning at 17-under many years ago. Again I say to you that the ball rollback proponents don't care, by and large, about scoring. What we do know is that if tour players played the Augusta of 41 years ago with today's balls and drivers, it would be a terrible mugging of that golf course with drivers and wedges. And I wouldn't even care what the score was.

Then, you stated:

"The administrators at the USGA and the RA have expressed no formal colossal terror over the future of technology."

Huh? What was the Joint Statement of Prinicples, if not a formal expression over concern about equipment-related distance gains?

I think you are simply and clearly wrong. The USGA and the RA, in their one and only formal joint statment DID express concern. If they are retreating from that, shame on them. But the Statement is there for you to review it on the USGA website.

You didn't answer the direct question as to who among the elite players in the top ranks of the game does not think that the USGA could/should do more to regulate equipment-related distances. We know that the list of people who favor such a rollback is too long for this forum.

As for the average player, you say:

"[H]e'd be hurt by a rollback because you'd be taking something away from him and everybody that has no reason to be taken away."

Could you explain that part? Either the average player has experienced a significant equipment-related distance gain (a dubious proposition) or not. If there is something tangible being lost, what is it and what is the eveidence? If not, what exactly is it that he is losing, if not something tangible?

Heck, I'd go you one better, and say to you that if re-regulation of golf balls cost me 15 years, and it cost Tiger Woods and Ernie Els 35 yards, I'd say that is a very, very good development indeed. It would mean that I have gotten closer to the big dogs. And that courses that host the big dogs in championship events won't have to be defaced quite so badly as they have been in recent years. And that new courses are less likely to feel the need to build themselves to 7,900 yards.

GOUGE fires back: I've reviewed the Joint Statement of Principles. It is not an expression of terror. It is an assessment of where things stand, and it is the roadblock to future equipment advances that you've been demanding. "More fitting equipment" means what exactly? Great Big Bertha drivers and Titleist Professional golf balls? TaylorMade Burner drivers and Titleist Tour Balatas, or why not go back farther to hickory shafts and gutta percha balls? The game advances and we deal with it.

Augusta of 41 years ago would not be a test for today's players. Well, we don't exactly know that, but let's assume that it wouldn't be a test. Big deal. It's changed to become more of a test. From its championship tees, it is a ridiculous experience for all but maybe 500 players in the world. That group of players is not a threat to the game. That group is to be tested on special venues that must be adapted to their skills. That is my point. I don't attempt to ski the Olympic downhill venue during the Olympics because I would be killed. But I certainly might be able to ski that mountain when it's not groomed for the Olympics. That's exactly what championship venues should be. Not unnecessarily preserved relics.

Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks.

As for the average player, there is evidence that average driving distance for average golfers has increased approximately 15 yards since 1990. The RA has studied distance of average golfers since the late 1980s. In addition, the USGA has studied average handicaps and those have dropped a stroke-and-a-half since 1998. The USGA has also studied the new drivers vs. the old drivers. Misses three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face travel almost 20 percent farther than they did off a mid-1990s driver. Now, in none of those cases is that distance harming the game (nor does it harm the game at the elite level, as you can't win tournaments hitting it three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face), but taking it away would remove some of that potential for someone actually getting around a golf course. You would take that away all in the name of preserving some tedious anachronism. Good job.

Posted by Chuck November 20, 2006 4:52 PM

This debate is so interesting. There really doesn't seem to be a compelling answer. On the "Gouge" side, there is the basic "slippery slope" argument, that if you roll back technology (the ball, some aspect of the clubs, etc.) in order to make an improvement in the game, you are met with the unanswerable question of how far to roll it back. If the 260 yard PGA Tour driving average of ca. 1984 is better than the 285 or whatever it is today, then isn't the 245 yard average of Byron Nelson's era better still? Where do you stop, at the featherie?

On the other hand, Chuck's argument seems to be that there is a genuine fear in turning golf into some other-worldly exercise where the ball goes so far and so straight that we end up losing classic golf courses and turn the game into a mockery. The thought of "losing" courses like Augusta and St. Andrews does seem like something terrible.

I started golfing in the late-1980s, and now, almost 20 years later, I hit it longer and straighter. The improvement is probably about equal measure of increased skill and better equipment, but the fact is I hit it better. Do I want to go back to using the equipment I did in 1988? Not on your life. I don't care what any purist says, or how much they think they are defending "the game," I don't want to go back. Golf was always fun, but I must admit it's more fun for me today, with this equipment, than it was 20 years ago.

One of the things that's always chafed me is how people appoint themselves as spokesmen or guardians of "the game." What exactly is "the game?" _I_ am the game just as much as Hootie Johnson, Bobby Jones, Chuck, Wally Uhlein, Tom Morris, Geoff Shackleford, or Tim Finchem are. In fact, since the overwhelming majority of golfers in the world are alot more like me than anyone on TV, in a sense I am more "the game" than any elite person, past or present is. Why does the defense of "the game" always involve defending the form of it played by a select few? Even the argument about preserving our golf cathedrals, like Winged Foot, Augusta (which I admit, is a compelling argument), often boils down to defense of a tiny, tiny elitist group. In many cases, it's the same wealthy people who own these exclusive clubs. Why is it so fashionable to attack rich corporate people who make and sell golf equipment, while the rich people who own the exclusive clubs have everyone in line defending them? If any of these elite organizations--PGA Tour, Augusta National, Winged Foot, etc.--are concerned enough, they can mandate their own equipment regulations for their own tournaments. But that's another whole debate.

Golf is _not_ in trouble because of equipment. If it's in trouble in the US--and I'm not sure it is--it's because we work so much we don't have enough time to play, and the public courses are too crowded. I'm a decent golfer--about a 12 hcp--and I can honestly say that I don't think the equipment today has forced course set ups to be too difficult at any courses I regularly play. I don't think the courses are really any different than they were when I started in the 80s, except that they may be a little better conditioned overall. That's probably due to some sort of technology--better agronomy, etc. Hmmmmm.

One final point--as to the question of Golf Digest being shills for their advertisers: pointless attacks on "the media," like this one, will never cease. People in the media cannot win. If they express an opinion, they are attacked, for any number of reasons, including the common one of being a shill for someone or something. If they express no opinion, they are weak and spineless. I think the magazine does a great job, and I don't think for a minute that any editorial opinions are influenced by the advertisers. If anything, I'd think that the meager pay of journalists, compared to guys like Uhlein, might give them a bias _against_ the equipment companies, rather than for them, but who knows. The point is, I don't think there's a shred of evidence anywhere that the magazine is sucking up to equipment companies, no matter how cool it may sound to suggest it.

LD

GOUGE: Well stated. Thankfully, cooler heads like yours should prevail.

Posted by LD November 21, 2006 9:47 AM
Post A Comment

Equipment Videos

Subscribe today
Subscribe today