Trolling through the fine insights from our web world, we offer the following for your perusal:
From our friend, Chuck, who pretty much thinks we're idiots. Really makes you feel proud of your work.
"Yes, you guys are right about these kinds of rules seeming to be incomprehensible to the average golfer. And yes, you guys are right to worry about the confusing effects of this kind of 'bifrucation' of the rules, in grandfathering older model clubs for 10 years or so. And yes, you guys continue to miss the boat on coming to the realization that better regulation of golf balls would probably avoid both of the aforementioned problems.
"Fix the problems with the golf ball regulations. Period."
GOUGE responds: Chuck. You are the ultimate one-note song. Changing the ball regulations is a pursuit only justified if you think it important that we keep certain major championship courses relevant. I don't care how far the ball goes. And I'm never going to care until I hit 400-yard drives. At the PGA Championship, there are nine players under par at the shortest major championship course of the year. What do we do? Roll the ball back 10 percent, 15 percent? What does that accomplish other than letting us go to Merion and a bunch of other courses that time has passed by. They don't run the Indianapolis 500 on bricks. They shouldn't play major championships on venues that don't demand the ultimate skills from the competitors. But I'm bored by this argument. Roll the ball back. See if it makes you pedantic luddites feel better. I know it won't make a dang bit of difference to anything that happens in the game at the elite level, but you'll feel better and superior. Great. Let's see if we can get everybody to hit it no farther than 285, what does that accomplish? Reduces the game to a second shot exercise, big deal. Take 15 percent off every tee ball? What does that do other than shift the same rank order down 30 or 40 yards? Why, why is that better off? So we can go back to Myopia Hunt? So we don't have to stretch old courses outside their current boundaries, destroying the charm of these layouts? (Boy, do I miss my tweed jacket.) But keep banging your shoe on the table, Khrushchev. I'm sure you'll get your way for a cause that makes just as much sense as his.
More refined is 86General's response to dear, sweet Nikita:
One of the ironies of today's era is that it appears that the shorter the course is, the more difficulty the "bombers" have with it. This is a non-scientific, anecdotal observation, but this is how it seems.
The ball flying straight and the fact that the modern grooves make it easier for the pro to predict and therefore control the distance of iron shots have more to do with low scoring today, I think, than does raw distance. It has been said that "I'd rather have a wedge from the rough than a 7 iron from the fairway." Maybe so, but I think the relevant comparison is that a 7 iron from the fairway (and often from the light rough, too) is probably equal to a 9 iron from the fairway from 20 years ago.
People are obsessed with distance.
The rhetoric over all of this has the potential to cause more damage to the game than the actual distance does.
We need our pensioner champions to step up to the plate and support the game, and stop urinating in everyone else's canteen.
86General also throws in his 87 cents on the groove update:
"Nice review, boys. You both make good points...I like Bomb's questioning about whether the groove change will affect scoring patterns, and I wish they would do a couple of years of PGA Tour field testing before deciding on a rule change. But this would aggravate the equipment makers even more, I suspect, than they already are, having to make 2 types of equipment for a temporary period.
Gouge's point about "past sins" of the USGA is well-taken. I'm not saying "The Franks" were not doing their best and acting in what they thought was the best interest of the game, but I believe the crux of the equipment issues today (mainly length, and "easier" control of spin by elite players with modern sticks and balls) are traceable to decisions by Thomas and Hannigan on the ball/ODS in the 70s...theirs or their successors' handling of square grooves in the 80's was similarly short sighted, I think.
There may be alot of funny business going on at the USGA today, but the equipment woes--for those who care to see it as such--are a gift from our forefathers."
GOUGE: Once metal woods and non-wound balls were allowed, we were pretty much headed down this path. It's not been all bad. In fact, it hasn't been bad at all. Those who decry modern technology can let me know how it's going with your hickory shafts and hobnail boots.
Curious contributor "Coverlack" mentions that long hitters seem to be dominating. Interesting premise. But wrong.
"I do believe though, just as you do, that length is not crucial. Golf is a numbers' game - get it in the hole in the least number of strokes, not hitting the ball a long way. However, courses, especially for the majors, seem to have been lengthened dramatically in recent years. I remember Nick Faldo saying a few years ago that he did not see a remote chance of winning the Masters because the Augusta is simple too long for him now. He was never really a long hitter, but he won the Masters in 1996, about 10 years ago, and was definitely not much longer then. The longer hitters seem to have an edge in the majors these days."
GOUGE responds: Newsflash. Length has been a key element to success since Young Tom Morris outdrove his pa. Furthermore, I believe while Faldo wasn't long for his era, he was long enough to be able to reach 13 and 15 at Augusta National in two. And, oh by the way, the correlation between driving distance and success on the PGA Tour remains about as significant as the color of your courtesy car. You can look it up.
And finally, BobbyJohn wants his 60-degree wedge back. Cry me a river. As our namesakes on ESPN Radio say, "Man up."
Why do you two argue against a 60-degree wedge while being just fine with a 56-degree version? Most of the guys I know carry a 60-degree, and if you forced me to choose between them then I'd take the 56-degree out of my bag instead. (I carry four wedges: 48, 52, 56, and 60.)
Maybe we ought to limit the loft on drivers while we're at it.
This seems totally out of whack with where you guys typically come from. Lob wedges have been around for at least 15 years (I think Tom Kite was the first Tour player to use one on a regular basis), and I see no reason to bad mouth them.
GOUGE responds: Dear Rocket Scientist: 60 degrees of loft is more than 56 degrees of loft. Get it? Why not force the best players to hit greenside wedge shots with less loft? Tom Watson doesn't carry a 60-degree wedge and he chipped in at Pebble Beach to win. This would be a change that again, by the way, would have no impact on average golfers. Probably would force them to get a little better with their short games. Again, it's another mistake the USGA made in the era of the 1980s and 1990s. For some reason, that group did not have the ability to envision a future that was as obvious as a prediction that Eldrick Woods might do something when he turned professional.
And your idea about limiting driver loft is wonderful, too. Nothing less than 11 degrees of loft, how about that? Let's see you optimize launch conditions with 120 mile clubhead speed with one of those senior citizen lofts.
Rating
Comments
Archived Comments (6) Click to expand
Post A Comment