Fred Ridley, the former USGA president who now heads Augusta National’s Competition Committee, must be pleased with himself and his club for turning the Masters into a U.S. Open venue.
But after watching the train wreck that was this year’s event, it occurred to me that we were seeing more than the result of poor choices by the green jackets. We were seeing a consequence of poor choices by the blue jackets at the USGA who have allowed technological advances to change the game.
Would the hallowed grounds of Augusta been so bastardized had not club and ball technology forced it? I don’t think so. And that’s why I believe that while technology on some levels has helped the average golfer enjoy the game a bit more, on the whole I think we’ve lost more than we’ve gained.
The Horse is Out of the Barn
Gary Player in an interview on Monday of Masters week talked about a future where 400 yard drives are not only being hit, as they are occasionally now, but hit regularly. I believe him.
Even freezing equipment specifications where they are today doesn’t take into account the human factor. Golfers are going to get bigger, stronger, and more fit. So with the equipment at hand today we are going to continue to watch courses get longer, more expensive to build and maintain, and thus more difficult and expensive to play.
We’re also going to see more bizarre course setups for events like the Masters and U.S. Open. These are courses that are beyond difficult for the best players in the world and would be impossible for the average golfer to traverse with any satisfaction. In fact, I’m not sure the average player can even relate to or comprehend the degree of difficulty presented by August National this year. I doubt any of us will ever play a course so contrived.
Who Opened the Door?
Clearly the USGA and R&A had every intention of preserving the game… except they didn’t. As I’ve written before, it’s my opinion that the Ping groove controversy of the 1980s and the subsequent fear of litigation forever compromised the game’s ruling bodies’ ability to manage technology.
Along the way, I think they’ve also been incredibly shortsighted and inept in setting equipment standards. The standards set for the golf ball never took into account the possible technological advances in materials and construction that now enable the best players to achieve optimum launch conditions and distance while the rest of us see little real improvement. And while the USGA displays much anguish about grooves these days, they ignore the far greater impact of metal woods with a spring-like clubface.
The grievous errors made over the last two decades have changed the game in ways big and small. And few of those changes are for the better.
The Game Then and Now
Back in the 60s, when I took up the game, clubs and balls were remarkably uniform from average players right up through the pro ranks. There were different ball compressions and shaft weights and flexes, but even a bargain set of irons or woods from Sears Roebuck were essentially the same clubs Arnold Palmer was playing.
So when Arnie hit that prodigious 260-yard drive on the 18th in the 1960 Masters that we saw replayed Sunday, I could relate at the time knowing I had about the same equipment and probably would have been 20 yards shorter.
Today the world’s best players are using clubs and balls incredibly fine-tuned to their personal specifications. Club manufacturers are offering different clubs for “good” players as opposed to “average” players. Tiger Woods plays a personal ball that while conforming isn’t even available commercially. The performance gains the pros enjoy are completely disproportional to the benefits the average golfer realizes.
What this has done is widen the gap between the game’s elite and the rest of us. And because the USGA and R&A choose to measure the state of the game by the performance of the world’s best, this is leading to things like the ridiculous proposed groove rule that will further separate the equipment of the pros from that the rest of us use.
Thus, I no longer can relate to the play and performance of professional golfers. They are playing a whole different game than golf as I know it on courses that approach carnival funhouse conditions. A connection has been lost and I, for one, am saddened by that.
The Little Things I Miss
There’s a great old Donald Ross course near me that I get to play once in awhile. Built back in the 20s, it features his extreme mounded greens. But because the members all now can drive the ball 30 yards further than in years past, they’ve felt compelled to speed up the greens to a point where they’re close to unplayable. They’re protecting par, but they’ve lost the real Ross legacy. It’s not a lot of fun to play. I miss that.
I’m hitting longer and straighter shots. One ball lasts me an entire round without being cut. But I’m not sure that’s worth the changes to the game as a whole that technology has brought with it. I truly miss the feel of persimmon on balata. I miss the feel of forged iron on balata. I miss having a set of clubs I could come to love over several seasons before they became obsolete.
I also miss watching the Masters for what it has become.
In the End…
In his press conference at the Masters Gary Player was asked for probably the zillionth time to compare Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. His response was that any comparison is impossible because it’s a different game thanks to the equipment today. He noted something so simple as plastic spikes have changed the character of greens as they’re no longer covered in spike marks. As if to prove the point, he went out and averaged over 260 yard drives in the second round. At 71. And he was the shortest hitter in the field.
Player also said that were Tiger sent back in time to play with the equipment and in the conditions of Jack’s era, he would no doubt still excel. Obviously, we would still have enjoyed watching him. And maybe that’s my point. We’ve lost our connection to the past and our connection to the game’s best. Did we really need all this technology to enjoy the game more or are we all just slightly better and enjoying it a lot less?
Jack, as you know, my opinion blends with yours in some areas.
I don’t. Driving distances have remained largely flat the past three, four, five years. We have the occasional long-hitting freak like J.B. Holmes or Bubba Watson, but what have they won? Tiger Woods excels where scoring matters – with the flat stick and with his approach shots. And the best athletes are almost always the fastest and strongest in any sport. But c’mon, Zach Johnson just won the Masters. Corey Pavin of all people won last year. As Dave has shown, PGA Tour golf is still about hitting greens and making putts.
There’s no real evidence to support the “400 yard claim” – current rules prohibit ball distance, driver length, driver clubhead size, grip uniformity, CoR, MOI – what’s left? The only thing that remains is athletic conditioning, and the actual long drivers – the “Long Drive Association” – rarely hit the ball 400 yards, and they do so under ideal conditions.
That doesn’t mean that they’re right to set up the course that way. Remove the trees and rough Augusta has added (leave the length) and what would the winning score have been this past weekend? -10 or so? Would the winner have been the same? Would the course have played much more like it did in Arnold Palmer’s day? How about in Bob Jones day?
Just because the Augusta officials saw fit to change the course doesn’t make their changes correct or justified and, given the tournament we just saw, it’s clear they went too far.
Pardon me, Jack, but ten years ago I had a choice between a balata ball that would “smiley” if struck thin, would slice and hook with ease, and would balloon into the wind like crazy. Or, I could play a fairly hard surlyn DT Spin – still a wound ball with a liquid center – that spun a little more than your average distance ball but which otherwise felt like a rock in comparison. I see more than a “little real improvement” with current golf balls.
I wasn’t alive then, so I can’t really say, but I doubt this was true. Even Bobby Jones spent gobs of time cultivating the perfect set of clubs. Ben Hogan made clubs for himself because he was so unhappy with what was provided to him. Arnold Palmer was meticulous in refining the performance characteristics of his clubs. Pro drivers were made from woods with the tightest of grains and with the best materials. There were no Tour Vans back then, but the stars still got preferential treatment.
If the average golfer could repeat their swing with the same level of precision as the average PGA Tour player, they’d be able to “fine-tune” their equipment as well. Instead, any efforts in that regard would be wasted on the average golfer. That Tiger Woods can tell the difference between two drivers whose true lofts vary by a quarter of a degree is telling – the average golfer is happy with a popup or a wormburner so long as it finds the fairway at least 200 yards from the tee. They are fine tuned because it matters to them, not because of some “disproportional” rules. Their skills are disproportional.
Why not choose to see the grooves discussion as a timid testing of the waters, with possible future “retractions” to come? Why choose the dark side of the cloud? Perhaps it is a test balloon? Perhaps clubhead size is next, or something else?
And if what the USGA’s science says is right, what’s wrong with modifying the grooves? It’ll eliminate the need to put pins four paces from the edges of greens and return a little reward to those who choose – or must – hit 7-iron from the fairway instead of 9-irons from the rough.
Besides, that rule won’t “separate” the equipment. You’ll have conforming equipment just like the pros. The twice-a-year golfer might not, but does that golfer know – or care? Is that golfer entering competitions and beating you?
As at Augusta, just because they felt they needed to make changes does not mean they were correct in doing so.
You’re fortunate. I replace mine every few holes, depending on how well I’m striking my shorter irons. If you wanted a ball that lasted 18 holes (or 36, or 54 – so long as you didn’t lose it) ten or twenty years ago, they were available to you. They just had “Pinnacle” or “Top-Flite” written on them. They too traveled a long ways and relatively straight, too. They just lacked the short-game control that modern balls offer.
We share that sentiment, Jack, but again: just because they changed Augusta National does not mean they were right to do so.
I believe the USGA failed to recognize the potential science behind lightweight metals. In the days of persimmon drivers (or even the earliest metal woods), 460cc persimmon or steel clubheads would have resulted in drivers with a swingweight of, what, Y3? The USGA didn’t foresee graphite and titanium, or composite materials with “merged” faces. They didn’t conceive of metals so thin they’d flex, hence their delayed reaction to CoR. They lacked the forethought. Or perhaps they were just too timid.
In that vein, Jack, why not blame Karsten Solheim? After all, he sued the USGA, weakening their position and their resolve. Why not blame Karsten for the modern state of the game and the timid rulesmaking bodies? The USGA has, until the grooves proposal, clearly been afraid to create rules after some real-world performance characteristic had been set. CoR was set after drivers exhibited spring-like effect, MOI rules were set beyond current performance settings, etc. Perhaps Karsten Solheim is to blame for the modern state of the game. Instead of sucking it up and making clubs that fit what the USGA felt was correct, instead of doing something “for the good of the game,” Solheim sued, costing the USGA millions and for the next 20 years damning the USGA to a timid position, afraid of upsetting the “powerful” equipment manufacturers. Who gave them that power? Karsten Solheim.
Jack and Eric both have legitimate positions here. I believe there have been huge advances in 3 areas in the last 25 years. Materials in woods, both shafts and heads, Balls, and agronomy. What concerns me is what comes next? It seems me that The USGA must continue to set parameters not only for measurable dynamic properties like ball speed, spin, grooves, cor etc. but also static properties, club weight and length minimums and maximums. Still there has to be some room for invention. Hybrids and hollow body irons, the use of new bonding agents etc. I am not a fan of adjustable clubs. I know they cannot be changed on the course, but there is a big difference between lead tape and some of the adjustments which are becoming possible. This is the next area which could give a disproportionate advantage to professionals. I believe there should be some limitation of their ability to modify their bag week to week, they shouldn’t be able to change out more than 1 club plus a putter, and club adjustability round to round for all your clubs including drivers should not be allowed for pros.
I don’t know either, but the USGA doesn’t have a very good track record of predicting things. Still, I don’t see much else to legislate, given…
A shorter driver is perfectly legal, and there are already limits on the length a driver is allowed to be. Appendix II, Item 1c says:
Given the “you can’t change them mid-round” rule, I think they’re fine. If anything, they make the days of lead tape obsolete. No biggie there. On the plus side, it saves consumers from having to buy two or more different drivers to suit different conditions or courses.
Pros get no disproportionate advantage because they can have clubs built to their specifications anyway. Movable weights just lets us hacks do it as well (though still not to the same degree).
I’m never in favor of bifurcating the rules. If anything, too, that would be a PGA Tour rule, not a USGA rule.
I think I have the name correct, but maybe not.
Anyone remember the J Driver? The R&A ruled it acceptable, but the USGA banned it (late 80s early 90s). While not overlooking the U grooves situation. I think this rift between the two major governing bodies was an equally important event. It signalled that there was wiggle room, even if equipment manufacturers could only sell something oversees. It also signalled that the USGA would inevitably come under ever increasing pressures from the US market and the members, that make up the organization, to allow more hi-tech products into the game.
I would submit, without any evidence, that the USGA chose what it considered the lesser of two evils (self-preservation and expansion) and only relatively recently realized that they may have not chosen the best path.
I think the big problem, as I’ve said before, comes down to a two-word phrase: “Protecting Par.” Who cares what the scores are? Let’s worry about the competition, and the character of the game, and whether the game is any fun to watch/play.
When Old Tom Morris was winning British Opens at 22-OVER-par, that was OK. If someone wins the Masters at 22-under-par, that’s OK with me. That means they played the best, and they won. Do you think Zach Johnson is kicking himself because he shot 1-over-par last week? Nope. He’s thrilled that he won – a thrill that would be the same at any score. Par is a guideline, a reference point. It is not the magic number.
The USGA and other golf organizations need to focus less on par and more on setting up courses to provide a fair and fun test. That will set an example for the clubs and munis that we play on a regular basis to not feel the need to make courses longer and more penal, making the game even less fun for new players.
I agree, and I think the U.S. Open has long had their name written on the “protect par” championship. The other majors have their own gig and should stick to what made them unique and great.
Erik: That’s a great point. I think each of the majors has a personality and should set up the courses along those lines.
The Masters: No rough, fast greens, risk/reward, chances for spectacular shots.
US Open: High rough, narrow fairways, hard greens, converted par-5s, 270-yard par-3s, test of endurance/patience to “protect par.”
British Open: Links golf with windy conditions, firm turf for low/running shots, slower greens.
PGA Championship: Mixture of the above three styles on courses that are too new or for whatever reason don’t fit the US Open rota (Whistling Straits, Kiawah Island) or have fallen out of it (Oakland Hills), set up tough but not as severe as the US Open.
Erik:
I don’t blame Karsten Solheim at all. Without getting into the gory details, he had a valid point in challenging the USGA’s decision to reinterpret the way they applied the existing rules groove. My quarrel is in the subsquent decisions the ruling bodies made with regard to equipment standards.
In a stare down between manufacturers and the USGA, the USGA has consistently backed off. In addition to the threat of litigation, they harbor the real fear that one day, if perceived too restrictive, the rules will be ignored by the general golfing population and they’ll lose whatever status and leverage they now possess.
Perhaps parallel lines of equipment for “average” and “pro” players was inevitable, if unfortunate, in my opinion. While a future of 400 yard drives is indeed debatable, I can’t help but wonder if the nano technology that’s starting to be employed in shafts won’t one day make that a possibility. I also wonder what’s being done to anticipate and set appropriate limits.
Yes, players like Hogan, Jones, and Palmer worked diligently on their equipment. Jones pieced together his set before there was such a thing as a “matched set.” Later, Hogan and Palmer had to deal with shaft and clubhead manufacturing techniques that resulted in specs all over the place, so they had to pick and choose components carefully. But still, in the end, the clubs they used were remarkably close to those used by the average guy.
Allin:
You make an excellent point when you mention agronomy. I didn’t want to get into that in this article, but it’s certainly fodder for this old man’s rant. Did you see the ragged grass around the bunkers and the shaggy (by today’s standard) greens at Augusta in that 1960 Master’s replay on Sunday? The kind of conditioning we now demand thanks to Augusta National’s example is hugely expensive and a cost we all are paying.
Eric M:
I indeed remember the J driver. Even hit it once. And, yes, that’s a perfect example of what I wrote above when I said the USGA is afraid of pushing too restrictive a set of standards.
Don:
Love your characterization of the four majors. That’s certainly what we’ve come to know and expect. And I also think it’s what we as fans and the world’s best players deserve. We sure didn’t get the expected this weekend and I think we all can feel properly cheated as a result.
Jack: Great points. I think the USGA/R&A have already set appropriate guidelines for the game, not they just need to sit back and understand that every game changes over time.
Think of it this way: If the NBA wanted to “protect” the game of basketball the way the USGA protects golf, you’d be watching Kobe Bryant on a 300-foot court with 20-foot high hoops…
There is one way that all these questions could be answered. Get Tiger or Phil etc to play a televised round with some blades, woods and a balata ball from the 70’s.
Then we would see if the equipment has made that much difference or is it the professionalism and fitness regime of todays players?
I am sure that today’s equipment is longer and more forgiving but as the ad says “these guys are good”
Are you going to give them 10 years to practice with those clubs and balls, too, so that they can develop a swing that maximizes their potential?
I didn’t think so. 😛
We as society advance, everything around us has to advance too. Golf would die if it didn’t advance with us. we have to accept the changes and let golf change with it. This is not to say technologies shouldn’t be regulated.
I believe we are not physically better then humans were 100 years ago. Its the technology that has changed the game.
However, couses should not have to change physically or equipment limited. Par should change. We need to use Par and Hadicaps as our judgement.
If the same course plays 4 strokes short today then before par should be dropped to 68.
Its human nature to resist change, but we need to learn to accpet it.