Technology, Tradition, and ‘The Facts’

If you want to get people riled up, try using “technology” and “tradition” in the same golf conversation.

TitleistLast week, Titleist posted an opinion piece on the brand’s website on the ever-contentious subject of technology vs. tradition. Geoff Shackelford responded with point-by-point dissent, which touched off a flame war of comments, and another story on sportsfanmagazine.com has covered some of the same ground.

Shackelford’s piece and the companion piece on sportsfanmagazine.com both claim to be rooted in “the facts.” There are plenty of opinions in both, but actual facts are hard to come by. Let’s take a closer look.

The main thrust of both response pieces is similar to what the USGA would like golfers to believe: that golf is headed to hell in a handbasket because of technological advances in golf equipment. One of the “facts” cited is that the number of rounds played is flat, TV golf ratings are down, and someone named Ryan Ballangee thinks “the game is fizzling.”

The only real facts here are that rounds are flat (uh, the economy hasn’t been so good in the second Bush dynasty) and TV golf ratings are down (like nearly every sport on TV in the age of TiVo, hundreds of cable channels, etc.). The game “fizzling” because professionals hit the ball a long way? That’s not “calling it as I see it.” That’s plain silly.

Ballangee would have you believe that there are legions of golfers standing sadly in the parking lots of their favorite courses, sadly eyeing the courses they used to play before Bubba Watson or Tiger Woods or John Daly started hitting the ball a really long way. Oh, they want to play golf, but the game just isn’t the same now that someone, somewhere occasionally drives the ball 350 yards. Therefore, golf is damaged.

Old Tom MorrisThe only cure? Rolling back the ball and clubs “before it’s too late.” Well, rolling them back to what? 1996, before Tiger was on tour full time? 1990, before John Daly won a major? 1950, before Arnold Palmer was bashing his way to Masters victories? 1880, when Old Tom Morris was winning British Opens at 20 over par? Oh well, I’m sure Shackelford and Ballangee will apply the facts to determine the correct date.

The Dynamic Duo (as I’ve taken to calling them in my head) contests that we can’t trust Titleist or other equipment companies because they’re out to make a profit. Gee, they must be the only ones sullied by money. When Ballangee holds up Jack Nicklaus as an example of someone wanting to curb technology. Nicklaus – who owns an equipment company, a huge course-development business, and several other ventures – surely can’t be motivated by money, right? At least Shackelford and Ballangee don’t have profit as a motive. Sure, their websites have advertising, and they’ll make more money if stirring up some controversy brings more traffic to their sites. But they only care about the good of the game, according to, well, them.

Everybody in this has an agenda. Titleist wants to express its corporate opinion on a hot-button issue, Shackelford et al want to respond. The more opinions the merrier, I say. But let’s remember that these are opinions, not facts. There’s no need for Ballangee to assert that Titleist’s position is tainted because it is “anonymous.” It is on the company’s website in plain view, meaning it is a statement from the company. Just because it doesn’t carry a byline doesn’t mean you have to guess where it came from.

So let’s all step away from the flamethrowers and try to look at the real issues. Does technology that influences how the game is played at the highest level have any impact on recreational players? Would Titleist or any other equipment company sell more or less equipment if there were strict caps on technology, or even if that technology were rolled back? Discuss amongst yourselves. Express your opinion. Just don’t confuse it with stating a fact when you’re dealing with an argument that is hardly black and white.

Photo Credit: © Old Course .com.

24 thoughts on “Technology, Tradition, and ‘The Facts’”

  1. Great points. And to answer your questions at the end:

    No, I don’t think that average “recreational” players — even excellent players at the club level — think that the pros are ruining the game as it is played by the rest of us. Golf is a hard game, period. If I pick up an extra 5 yards with a new driver or ball, that doesn’t suddenly mean that I’m going to like the game less because it’s less challenging. Quite the opposite.

    Second, would equipment companies sell less stuff if the USGA rolled back performance to lower levels? Nope. Titleist is still going to sell a lot of golf balls. TaylorMade and Callaway are still going to sell a lot of irons and drivers. Why? Because we’re a consumer society. We buy stuff. That’s what our president told us to do after 9/11, after all (not that he needed to). Plus, we’ll have to replace all our high-tech equipment with “new” 215cc drivers, low-MOI putters and golf balls with cores made of wood shavings once the USGA figures out how to “save the game.”

    It’s a vain generation that thinks it is the one needed to draw a line in the sand.

  2. I would have to agree with Donald’s comment. For amateur players, technology has been, for the most part, beneficial and not destructive. The technologically advanced clubs sold today can really help the player that just wants to enjoy a social round without having to spend countless hours trying to hit traditional muscle-back irons.

    But, the ease of hitting new game improvement or super-game improvement (what does that mean?) clubs can also be part of the problem – people don’t practice, but expect the technology to auto-magically provide lower scores like some sort of pill you can take to solve your slice.

    I think if we want to look at the “facts”, we’d have to consider that the average handicap of amateur players has not decreased significantly over the past twenty years or so.

    My question would be – why the hell is the game getting so expensive? If there were more reasonably priced courses that are fair and challenging, I think more people would be inclined to play. Also, why is the length to play a round of 18 ballooning to nearly 6 hours? A round that takes 5 hours seems “normal” now. Personally, I think anything over 4.5 hours is too loong. Maybe people don’t like paying so much and having to spend an entire day to play a round of golf rather than technological advances. But, that’s just my opinion after looking at the facts 🙂

    As for the pros – those guys are not human, so whatever rulse the PGA tour thinks is necessary is appropriate. But, I’d love to see some of those guys try and play on conditions that we “amateurs” have to play on – thick, thick rough and not carpet perfect greens. Let’s see them destroy a course then…

  3. This is a constant issue that seems to always be up for debate. It was a huge deal back in the day to switch from a feathery to a gutty. Technology is a constant, ever-changing device used for the betterment of mankind. (usually)

    My thoughts surrounding this matter are that some may worry that the game will lose its challenge by slowly improving ones playability. Personally, I can’t stand watching PRO tournaments where the winner closes his final round at -25 under for the week. It’s sick.

    The real challenges needing to be addressed are not limiting club technology, but toughening up the courses themselves. Lengthening a fairway 20 to 30 yards? Big deal! More courses need to be laid out for shot-makers, not shot bombers. A long drive is great thing to watch, but let’s make the pros and even the weekend duffer use every club in their bag, not just four or five.

  4. You CAN buy a better game! I’m living proof at 65. I went and left my ego at the pro shop, gave up my steel shafts and went to Adams A2OS irons, a new Cobra 464cc 9.0 degree driver, new Taylor-made R5 3wood and my handicap has come down from a 15 to a 6.7 now. Playing 3 times a week since retirement has helped MORE than the new better equipment, but I’m not going back to the “old” sticks. Until I shoot my age.

  5. there was a interesting stat shown during the latest “This is the PGA Tour” show on the TGC. in 2005 there was 26 players with 300+ yards driving distance. So far in 2006 there are only 16 and this is after Hawaii tournaments, where long drives are very common. The stat for the fairways hit is exactly reversed (I don’t recall exact numbers). Bottom line – I think we’re doing fine. There is nothing wrong with the game and the technology is not “killing it”.

  6. I for one love to watch and hear about new equipment. I’ve made clubs for the average Joe for the last 20 years. Everyone I’ve had the pleasure to make clubs for has improved their game with custom fitted clubs. has new equipment ruined the game….BULL Just because younger players have increased their strength and work harder at their games is by no means hurting the game. It just goes to prove with better built equiptment and practice we all can improve.

  7. Golf is not the kind of game that technology can ruin. Yes, technology makes a big difference in terms of forgiveness, distance, and enjoyment of the game, but you have to have a sound swing to take advantage of the technology. In other words, you have to be a very good golfer to go low even with the best and most forgiving equipment.

    Technology does not ruin the game for amateurs, it enhances and makes it more enjoyable. Besides the fact that halting technological progress would really hurt golf on all levels, the game is not in ruins. Those who say so don’t play golf at the courses I visit. The PGA is not in ruins either. There has been steady progress in physical conditioning, golf course conditions, swing mechanics, and technology since the inception of the sport (and all other sports) and that should continue.

  8. What is golf ‘supposed’ to be about? Everyone seems to have an idea in their head about what golf is about and anything different to that is ruining the game.

    Ben Hogan decided that putting was the devil and that ball striking was what golf should be rewarding. So they made the hole bigger to help him stay in the game. And he got smoked again by the guys who could putt because it made it easier for them too.

    And so it goes 50 years later. This time it’s the long ball that is the devil and we need to wind it back. It won’t change anything. The long hitters will still be the long hitters. What will change if the long guys go from 300+ when the field is 270 to having the long guys hit 270 with the field around 230?

  9. Golf will not be as much fun, if technology allows us to routinely hit the ball 400 yards. It looks like rules will need to be put into place to enforce this.

    Golf is meant to torment us. We love it and hate it at the same time. We love and hate the challenge. We love and curse the course all the time.

    Is there a need to prevent the next driver from hitting the ball 400 yards. You betcha!

    If you don’t believe me, play the next round from the Reds (if you normally hit from the Blues) and see if you felt the same challenge. You can’t, you won’t. That is what the increases in driving distances are doing.

  10. Andy, we have rules in place. In addition to the overall distance standard (ODS), we have rules on the size a driver’s head can be, it’s MOI, its CoR, etc. I’d accept capping the length of a driver to 47″, too. 400 yards is a HELLUVA long ways off.

    And I have played my home course from the red tees. You know how much better I score? Typically one or two strokes better. But if I drop back and hit irons off the tees to get into the ideal spots (where my drives would be from my regular tees), I score three to four strokes better.

  11. You would be insane to try to “turn back the clock” on golf technologies. Now that the 460cc drivers and the game-improving cavity back irons are here, they are here to stay. For every ‘traditionalist’ that you would make happy by restricting technology, you would make 10 ‘average joes’ angry. There are already rules that place limits on golf technology anyway. Golf clubs will continue to improve, but only up to a certain point. At the end of the day, the golfer determines what score he shoots. Clubs only help to a certain degree. But that is just one of the great things about the game is trying to come up with new technologies. All of these large companies, like titleist, callaway, taylormade, etc, make millions because they sell products that make the game more enjoyable. And at the end of the day, don’t you just want to enjoy the round of golf?

  12. Isn’t the usga supposed to be about growing the game, for 90% of the total people in the world this game is already too tough, you have the guy who works 9-5 monday to friday and has a family and wife to take care of, just wants to take his big draw-biased driver out and wack in all over the estate and have a few beers and some laughs with his friends and relax, if the game on the tour was just a battle against par your ratings would drop because the only people who would enjoy watching it would be the tradionlists who think the game is ‘supposed to be hard’ and you wouldn’t have so many kids starting this game because they see tiger on the tv hitting big drives and fist pumping on the greens after he makes putts, do you think it would be the same if tiger was hitting irons of the tees and lagging putts, it would turn into sunday snooze fests, If the usga really wants to grow the game, then they seem to be goin about it the wrong way.

  13. Come’on… where does it end?

    The ever-widening gap between the tour player and the recreational golfer is the problem. The move from hickory shafts and from gutta (sp?) percha balls provided all golfers more distance, no doubt…but more importantly consistency and relaibilty for all.

    NOBODY can relate to PGA Tour golf. They are becoming a novelty — tractor-pullish, ” hey the circus is in town”. Before the ball and steel heads, as a single digit handicap my distances where where 90-95% of the tour averages.

    Clearly, the ball and club technology combined with the tech-driven tuning (launch angle, spin rates, yada yada) that the pros leverage has tipped the scales in the direction of the professionals.

    Baseball (MLB) avoided the alumimum bat crisis — struggling with the steroid crisis. The USGA/R&A/PGA Tour fumbled the golf tech. crisis — they lack the testicular fortitude to the pressure of the golf vendors (Titleist/Callaway).

    Golf’s heritage, like baseball’s via steroids, has been significantly damaged — does anybody take seriously new course/tournament records?

    My question to those that suggest limiting technology is off base is, “What would it take to change your mind?” — 325 yard driving averages…350?

    Do these folks find the Long Driving Contest on ESPN entertaining? Telephone pole drivers and steroid popping participants. Nobody loves golf more than me but I can’t watch that — reminds me of the WWF.

  14. Mike, I disagree that golf is becoming “tractor pullish.” That’s your opinion, and based on the people I know – regular golfers that both watch and attend tournaments – it’s far from being the prevailing opinion.

    The USGA and the R&A have rules in place. However, unlike NASCAR, they can’t govern the speed of the vehicle. In this case, the vehicle is the clubhead, and the guys swinging it can’t be fitted with a regulator.

  15. I think the NASCAR analogy is apt. By standardizing the equipment. For NASCAR the car and golf the clubs. Wouldn’t the only variable be the individual controlling the equipment. The driver or the golfer.

    If the ball goes farther it’s because he’s able to hit the ball farther. If the driver wins the race it’s becuase his reactions abilty to drive were better. Standardization of equipment is meant to make the athlete the sole variable. Golf’s governing bodies could set standards such that the ability of the golfer would be what makes one golf better than the other.

  16. Yeah, gee, I’d like golf to be JUST LIKE NASCAR! Uhhhh, no…

    You can’t standardize equipment because players have different swings. Batters don’t use the same length and weight bats in baseball, bowlers don’t use the same ball, tennis players don’t use the same rackets, etc. Regardless of whatever standard equipment you chose you’d be penalizing the majority of the players.

    And guess what? We have standards. They’re called the Rules of Golf and they govern equiment too.

  17. This type argument is fruitless. It’s sort of like the 14 club rule; hell, I couldn’t shoot in the sixties if I carried 40 clubs; this rule should only apply to Pros. If you want to make a course tougher, just let the rough grow. Why do we continue to buy golf balls at $50/dozen (suggested retail), Drivers at $6-700, golf shafts at $300 plus etc. Because its just like the man once said. We’ll buy anything. Just think, Gillette has made a fortune off the American Consumer by creating a (more blade) shaving blade; count em, its up to five blades in the new Fusion. How stupid can we get?

  18. How is equipment not standardized if standards exist for the specifications of golf equipment? Wouldn’t standards beget standardization?

  19. There’s a difference between standardized equipment (everyone playing the same specs, etc.) and standards for equipment, DFife. Let’s get back on topic.

  20. very good article. i don’t think golf is being ruined by pros hitting 320yrd drives
    (both male and female), but more by the what is happening with sponserships. tell me what pro you know who has bought a ball since they were in highschool? if we need to ask why rounds played are flat, look at the cost of getting equiped just to go play.
    hell, you could buy a used car for what it costs to get “name brand” clubs, balls, gloves, etc.
    when you buy a bag of potato chips, you pay for packaging, and commercials. when you buy golf equipment, you are pay for these co’s expences to pamper the pros, all for the sake of advertising! the more they pamper, and pay, the more $500 drivers they sell, and $60 balls we buy. stop the maddness!!!!!
    tv ratings are down for one reason. i will say what no one wants to say, certainly the media.
    TIGER WOODS
    is this the only guy who plays golf? if i were from another planit, i would think it was the tigertour, and the rest are just supporting actors in this weekly show. too much tiger by the media!

  21. Rando, golf equipment, adjusted for inflation, costs less nowadays than it did in 1996, 1986, and 1976. You know what costs more, even after adjustment? Greens fees.

    There are still $199 starter sets and there are still 24-for-$9.99 deals on golf balls. And I’ve never paid more than $40/dozen for Pro V1xs.

  22. I think the new equipment is great. When I got my new set of clubs, I could’nt believe how well I was hitting my hybrids. I think equipment advances are great for the not so talented amoung us. I look at it this way: Golf is a way of life….you are outside, active and keeping fit. It is a game we can all play for our entire lives. So it is a great lifestyle. And since it is such a hard game…if I can pay a few extra bucks on some great equipment to help me enjoy this healthy lifestyle more.. then great!
    However it can get pricey. I wish that the greenfees would come down a little. There are some beautiful course that I would never play because they are several hundred bucks a round. That is unfortunate, because it somewhat does favor the wealthy. I would love some of the new drivers out there…but I am not going to cough up $500 for one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *