Does Modern Golf Technology have too Much Technology? - Page 2

I'm wouldn't be against what you're suggesting if they could develop a ball that matches the distance, spin and feel of the others.  If they can't how would you resolve the fact that some players will benefit and others will be penalized for the type of ball that is selected?  I'm under the impression that a huge percentage (65% - 70%) of pro's are using Titleist Pro V1's or V1X's so in a sense isn't there already a standard?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

I'm gonna vote "YES" I'd love to see professionals golfers play the same ball and have sticks very closely monitored so there's one standard.  Can you imagine the amount of money the PGA Tour could ask for a company to provide the official ball for the PGA Tour? It would take money out of the players' pockets though, since there wouldn't need to be ball sponsorships, so I can't imagine any single professional player getting on board with that. There's no reason modern technology and materials can't be used to produce a durable tour ball that provides more spin and flies shorter.  I could compare golf to other mainstream sports where all the competitors use the same ball, but in those sports there is interaction between the players with both handling the ball during play. I won't compare it to other sports then, because golf is somewhat unique and personally I don't care for the way golf is routinely selectively compared to other sports or non-golf activities when certain pieces of equipment support someone's personal view of what maintains the "integrity" of the game or is consistent with "how golf is meant to be played". 

 

For me don't limit technology, atleast for non-pros or even certain HC levels.  I'm a 25-30 HC - sell me clubs without any limits on the game improvement technology so I can hit the ball as far as possible and as accurate as possible.  I will enjoy the round with my friends all that much more and maybe play more often.

The technology drive has always been there in golf from the first time the feather ball was made.  You can't stop the technical innovation drive.  It also represents jobs, lots and lots of jobs for people designing, marketing, selling and making the equipment.  I wouldn't want to lose that.  We had a saying when I was racing bicycles that Lance Armstrong could beat us on a Huffy from a department store.  It's the man not the machine.

That being said, I agree with Erik's comment about course design.  Being creative and valuing accuracy and strategy over distance would really help.  Make it so the landing area on par 5's for a bomber drive be only 10 yards wide with 4 inch rough and nasty hazards all over.  Risk/reward would make it more interesting.  Make the pros really consider what happens when they miss.  This would shorten the course so to speak.  They do it for the US Open, so it can be done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

I'm gonna vote "YES" I'd love to see professionals golfers play the same ball and have sticks very closely monitored so there's one standard. There's no reason modern technology and materials can't be used to produce a durable tour ball that provides more spin and flies shorter.  

 

 So my thoughts are "who cares what the average hacker wants to tee up? They're awful anyway and a ball that can be hit harder with a driver without going sideways speeds up the game for everyone. But the pros? There's no reason they can't be held to a different standard."

In a prior thread, we were discussing what it meant to be "scratch," and the vast gulf of talent separating even scratch golfers from Tour pros.  Someone commented (paraphrased), "They're playing a completely different game..." which drew ire from several corners of this forum.

What you are, in fact, advocating is that the pros play a "different game" than the rest of us.

I simply can't agree with that proposition.  There is but one game of golf, and it has a single set of Rules.  Either you're playing by the Rules, or you're not.  I don't think I'm injecting my personal opinions on golf's "tradition and history" or the way it's "meant to be played" when I say that it's meant to be played by the Rules. 

If this were to happen, which ball would you play with?  Would you stick to your Pro-V1x (or whatever you're using), or would you play the "official" ball of the tour?

Let's assume your answer is "the same one they use on Tour."  Do think you can compete with Tour guys?  Or, is it because there can only be one game of golf--that which is played by the Rules?

Technology has been great for the game. More people enjoy playing, more people have the opportunity to play, and more great courses are being built. The public can't get a ball custom made like Tiger can, but we have access to the same technology the pros have. I do have a problem with what many companies try to pass off as technology. They feel the need to offer something new every year, so they change paint color, come up with a new name, or come up with a new material. Most of what the major companies call technology is just a way to get someone to buy new clubs every year. All companies have reached the limit of how fast a ball can spring off the driver.

Having all the options we have today in equipment is great, but people get too caught up in how far they hit the ball and don't pay attention to how enjoyable it is to hit the ball. I personally pick equipment that feels good, and rewards me when I make a good swing. In the end it is about what we put into our game that determines what we get out of it. Technology will not make anyones swing better, putt the ball straighter, or get someone on tour that doesn't deserve it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I'm wouldn't be against what you're suggesting if they could develop a ball that matches the distance, spin and feel of the others.  If they can't how would you resolve the fact that some players will benefit and others will be penalized for the type of ball that is selected?  I'm under the impression that a huge percentage (65% - 70%) of pro's are using Titleist Pro V1's or V1X's so in a sense isn't there already a standard?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

I'm gonna vote "YES" I'd love to see professionals golfers play the same ball and have sticks very closely monitored so there's one standard.  Can you imagine the amount of money the PGA Tour could ask for a company to provide the official ball for the PGA Tour? It would take money out of the players' pockets though, since there wouldn't need to be ball sponsorships, so I can't imagine any single professional player getting on board with that. There's no reason modern technology and materials can't be used to produce a durable tour ball that provides more spin and flies shorter.  I could compare golf to other mainstream sports where all the competitors use the same ball, but in those sports there is interaction between the players with both handling the ball during play. I won't compare it to other sports then, because golf is somewhat unique and personally I don't care for the way golf is routinely selectively compared to other sports or non-golf activities when certain pieces of equipment support someone's personal view of what maintains the "integrity" of the game or is consistent with "how golf is meant to be played". 

 

 

I don't really care if some players had to adjust to different spin and if some people disappeared from the game. I'd personally love to see a game where the ball spun more off a driver with a lower COR. They'd all have to adjust, and based on how they adjusted quickly to the new groove rules, I'd say the best would still be the best and guys like Luke Donald and Dustin Johnson would still be where they are in the world rankings (with the same number of majors).

I agree.  Id be OK with technology being rolled back to persimmon woods and wound balls.  IMO, it would allow us to much better compare players from different eras.  I started out playing blades and persimmon woods and honestly, I dont notice a huge distance difference from persimmon to metalwoods.  Maybe 30 yards at the most.

At the end of the day, someone like DJ with his 120+ SS is going to hit the ball further than someone like Kuchar with his 108 SS.  IMO, lengthening the courses are nothing more than a knee-jerk response, and like Iacas wrote, an unimaginitive one, to combat the length that some of the stronger players are capable of.  There's so many other things courses could do.  For instance, grow that rough up to 6" and over-seed that sucker.  I remember some of the past US Opens from decades ago.  Even the strongest players had to hit SW just to get it out of there.  Deepen the fairway bunkers.  Give them a 5' lip with really soft sand.  Narrow the fairways, plant some trees and make the greens firmer.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by uttexas 

Technology has had significant impacts, some detrimental (ex: Augusta National course layout)
The R&A should follow a similar precedent established by The International Tennis Federation.
In the late 90s, the big servers were dominating the game, notably Wimbledon. Tennis matches were full of aces and rallies were shorter.
In 2001, the ITF voted for three different tennis balls depending on surface.
Ball type 1- Clay, a smaller, faster, low bounce
Ball type 2- Hardcourt, A normal sized, medium bounce.
Ball type 3- Grass, oversized ball, slow,high bounce.
The balls used at Wimbledon are 6% larger in diameter that what the recreational player typically uses.
Due to it's "independent" nature, I feel Augusta would be the perfect place to have a uniform "less hot" ball played by all. Because there is so much money in golf balls, I'd say each manufacturer could stamp their name on the ball depending on player's contract, but everyone plays the same "less hot" ball for The Masters----really don't want to see the course design butchered again.

I think there's some merit to what the ITF did and I think it's applicable to the PGA Tour.  Rather than make a wholesale change-over to a specialized Tour-Only ball, they come up with a different guideline for a secondary ball.  Call the "original" ball, type A and call the secondary ball type B.  Type B will have a limited flight attribute which would bring back some great older courses into the Tour rotation.  Tournament hosts could meet with the USGA to determine which ball to approve for their respective tournaments.  There's an abundance of courses that have already had extensive revsions in light of the distance gains during the past decade.  Given the economic times, it would be difficult for them to redo their courses.  By having two types of balls, more courses could vie to host tournaments because they wouldn't have to do major renovations to make it "Tour caliber".

Also, I don't think it would be prudent to have a single-manufacturer "spec" ball on tour.  Manufacturers spend a boatload of money "pimping" their goods.  Take that away, the brand identity that is, and you remove a huge revenue stream for them because the masses tend to mimic what their favorite pro is playing.  You know the adage, "What wins on Sunday sells on Monday".  Also, IME, golfers tend to relish the comparisons between themselves and pros.  I think part of this is because golf courses are non-standard in size and layout and many are are accessable to the public unlike a lot of other professional sports.  Not too many of us are going to have to opportunity to play in Fenway Park, but any of us can play Pebble Beach--well, providing you have $500 handy.  Because we have the opportunity to play where the pros play, many seem to want to play what the pros play, equipment-wise.  So, by keeping the current ball "valid", it tends to take away the misgivings that we mere mortal golfers aren't playing the same game the pros are.

I do agree that the game has changed a bit for the worse by going to titanium over the persimmon days. Watching the high school kids hit the ball now, the idea of control has been completely thrown out the window. These kids are trying to hit the ball as far as humanly possible, find it and hit it again. The principle of the game is very different. If those kids swung that way with a persimmon driver 1 out of 10 times they might miss the ball. The driver face is SO big now that you cannot miss. A toe hit today can go almost as far as one struck on the sweetspot (10-15 yards). Hit one on the toe with persimmon it is 20-40 yard loss. You had to strive to be precise with the persimmon you can afford to swing out of your shoes now.

That said. I believe the ball fly WWWWAAAAYYY straighter than it did in the days of balata. I find that it can be really hard to hit massive slices or big hooks as I did as a kid. The ball just does not curve as it did before. It flies straighter and is much more durable than it was. A friend of mine foolishly stockpiled balatas when they went on sale after the Pro-V1 craze and every now and then we will go out and play them and even using modern equipment it is very noticeable. 10 yards off my 7 iron I would say. Probably 20 or so off the driver and it hit with any amount of sidespin it seems to go farther off line. 

So I would say the ball would be the place to start.

The ball is definitely the biggest part, particularly as it applies to the pros (who are hitting the middle of the clubface more or less every time).

Does anyone recall a demonstration Faldo did a few years ago during a golf broadcast?  He had a hickory-shafted driver, a modern driver, a gutty, and a modern ball.  There was almost no difference in total distance between the modern driver/modern ball hit and the hickory driver/modern ball (there was some trajectory difference).  Likewise, the gutty was basically the same with both the modern driver and the ancient one.

The modern clubs are great for forgiveness and manipulating launch angle, but if you hit the ball flush in the middle of the clubface, it's really all about the ball.

Anyone want to make the case for the modern ball as a liability?

How about the fact that it doesn't really curve that much?  Guys used to sling their Titleist Professionals around the corner on 13 at Augusta and hit a 7-iron into the green.  Now, most of the longer hitters are hitting 3-woods (or 5-woods) and ending up in the trees right.

Likewise, Harbour Town is a course that requires you to curve the ball quite a bit.  Off the top of my head, doesn't seem like scores there are getting crazy low over the last five years, even though it's only like 7000 yds.  Some of those greens would be pretty tough to hit if you couldn't curve a ball 20 yards both ways with an 8-iron, unless you're in the absolute perfect spot on the fairway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop 

Anyone want to make the case for the modern ball as a liability?

 

How about the fact that it doesn't really curve that much?  Guys used to sling their Titleist Professionals around the corner on 13 at Augusta and hit a 7-iron into the green.  Now, most of the longer hitters are hitting 3-woods (or 5-woods) and ending up in the trees right.

 

Likewise, Harbour Town is a course that requires you to curve the ball quite a bit.  Off the top of my head, doesn't seem like scores there are getting crazy low over the last five years, even though it's only like 7000 yds.  Some of those greens would be pretty tough to hit if you couldn't curve a ball 20 yards both ways with an 8-iron, unless you're in the absolute perfect spot on the fairway.

I'd just love to see shot tracker (or pro tracer - whatever it's called) and a balata like ball that spins more yet doesn't go out of round or cut so easily.

I never played balata when it was king just like I don't play Callaway tour balls now - spinning a good shot backwards off the green makes me unhappy. I often golf in short pants, don't scoff at someone using a groove sharpening tool or adjusting their driver mid-round, a rangefinder or GPS, and countless other things that aren't allowed on the PGA Tour. I would not feel compelled to play their ball any more than I was in the 80s.

Are pros shooting in the 50's? Am I still struggling not to suck? IMHO all the technology has really had no more effect than the fact that they are all actual athletes now who have swing coaches, sports mental coaches, caddies who are coaches, etc, etc... I think the equipment has served to allow total hackers to be not quite so pitiful and for pros to gain a little more distance, which again could be attributed to all of the above just as much. Golfers are just better. Period. Tiger changed the game bigtime. He had the same effect on golf that Micheal Jordan did in basketball. Nobody played like him before he came, but now everyone has him as a model. In basketball everyone plays like Jordan now and in golf everyone plays like Tiger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

Are pros shooting in the 50's? Am I still struggling not to suck? IMHO all the technology has really had no more effect than the fact that they are all actual athletes now who have swing coaches, sports mental coaches, caddies who are coaches, etc, etc... I think the equipment has served to allow total hackers to be not quite so pitiful and for pros to gain a little more distance, which again could be attributed to all of the above just as much. Golfers are just better. Period. Tiger changed the game bigtime. He had the same effect on golf that Micheal Jordan did in basketball. Nobody played like him before he came, but now everyone has him as a model. In basketball everyone plays like Jordan now and in golf everyone plays like Tiger.

There were a lot of great ball players before Jordan. Other than immense talent, the one thing Jordan had was a different set of rules. He never travelled, committed fouls, and was virtually untouchable on the floor. I'm not sure which elements of the game he changed, other than outrageous sponsorship deals. To me, a better comparison or their effect on the game on the playing surface and viewership would be Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky.

Anyway, back to golf. Yes the pros are now shooting in the 50s. Okay, still rare, but they can make some pretty nasty pin placements that can account for any distance advantage. Funny thing is, I don't really care to watch professionals 3 and 4-putt. I'd rather watch them try and recover after a wayward drive or approach.

Maybe I'm biased because my average drive is ~ 40 yards past where it was when I was 25 years old. That should not be possible. Luckily my putting is as bad or worse and I can barely see the end of the teebox, let alone the landing area so I still get to chalk up a few LB strokes every round. Yay me!!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

There were a lot of great ball players before Jordan. Other than immense talent, the one thing Jordan had was a different set of rules. He never travelled, committed fouls, and was virtually untouchable on the floor. I'm not sure which elements of the game he changed, other than outrageous sponsorship deals. To me, a better comparison or their effect on the game on the playing surface and viewership would be Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky.

 

Anyway, back to golf. Yes the pros are now shooting in the 50s. Okay, still rare, but they can make some pretty nasty pin placements that can account for any distance advantage. Funny thing is, I don't really care to watch professionals 3 and 4-putt. I'd rather watch them try and recover after a wayward drive or approach.

 

Maybe I'm biased because my average drive is ~ 40 yards past where it was when I was 25 years old. That should not be possible. Luckily my putting is as bad or worse and I can barely see the end of the teebox, let alone the landing area so I still get to chalk up a few LB strokes every round. Yay me!!
 

 

There were a lot of good ball players before Jordan. Absolutely none that played to his level though. If you are insinuating that Jordan was only good because the refs were told to look the other way (I don't know if you are) that is absurd. Jordan changed the way young boys on every court everywhere played. He put a vision in the head of every hopeful basketball player that had not been there before. Tiger did the same thing for golf. And now the generation who grew up holding themselves to a never before seen standard is on the tour.

The very high 50's have been shot... a couple times. Do they really shoot 50's though? No. Have there been advancements in clubs? Yes. Have they really made that much of a difference? Not really. No more than the fact that golfers work out in the gym, can watch vids of themselves with lines drawn on themselves to show exact spine angles and plane and so on, ungodly practice facilities where coaches can tell them everything they do wrong the moment they do it, and the monitors that give them exact results so they can dial in their fitting until they have maximized their ability to their limit..

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac 
 The guys it would really hurt are players like Luke Donald, Mark Wilson, imagine the advantage guys like Phil, Tiger and Dustin Johnson would have over them if they played the equipment Nicklaus and Palmer did.  

Great thread. I don't think that the short hitters get hurt because a great short game has always been the equalizer. Paul Runyan, Gary Player, Luke Donald, and players of this ilk will always have a place in this game, especially if the the Tour were to toughen up the courses. It would be nice to see some rough that is actually rough. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious 

The downside, from the pga tour perspective, is that many of the older classic courses can no longer be used for major tournaments. Many were built in tight areas, and can not be lengthened to accommodate today's game. That's a shame.

 

I don't see the great advantage that long hitters would have over shorter hitters. Even when Nicklaus was dominant, there were many shorter hitters who did alright for themselves.  I'm thinking Gene Littler, Lee Trevino, Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, Dave Stockton, Tom Kite and others. Today's big hitters would have to scale back on their swings quite a bit to be able to control their balatas using persimmon woods with those relatively tiny sweet spots.

Losing the treasures from a Tour perspective are a shame, but we can still play them as amateurs and be challenged. Agree again with the short hitters theory.  The big hitters can bomb and gouge. They get away with a lot as the driver and ball have really kept the side spin down. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwdial 

I disagree.  I think persimmon woods and balata balls would make things more difficult for the big hitters because they aren't as forgiving.  For all of the angst about hitting drivers, they have become the most forgiving club in the bag.  You don't have to hit it on the sweet spot, and the size of the clubface gives players a much greater margin for error.  The better ballstrikers would rise to the top.

I have to agree. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

Technology has the effect of narrowing the gap in talent/skill. Jack's said as much, and others have said that in regards to Tiger's (few) comments about it.

 

Also, in a world where short par fours (the 10th at Riviera - just look at how that hole was played in the playoff and throughout the week) are often the most vexing, I blame a lot of the "long course" bullcrap on unimaginative course architects. Some of anyone's favorite holes are short. Par threes, too - like the 7th at Pebble.

Excellent point, there is more to a tough hole than length. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

Maybe I'm biased because my average drive is ~ 40 yards past where it was when I was 25 years old. That should not be possible. Luckily my putting is as bad or worse and I can barely see the end of the teebox, let alone the landing area so I still get to chalk up a few LB strokes every round. Yay me!!

 

Funny, I recently played the course I worked at in college. This was back during first/second generation metal woods and balatas. I remember that if you cracked it 250, you were a big hitter and I would take 240 every time with 230 being more realistic. Now 240 is a slight mishit with 265 being the norm. I was in places that I had never been in before 20 years later. I don't want to go back, but it doesn't mean I don't want the pros to be capped a little. I would like to see courses set up a little more penal with a premium on hitting the fairway. I don't think you can do a rollback, but they it would be neat to see a tournament in which they played the old equipment just for nostalgia's sake. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mchepp 

I do agree that the game has changed a bit for the worse by going to titanium over the persimmon days. Watching the high school kids hit the ball now, the idea of control has been completely thrown out the window. These kids are trying to hit the ball as far as humanly possible, find it and hit it again.

FWIW, Jack Nicklaus recommended that kids start by learning to hit the ball as far as they possibly can. IIRC, this is because it's fun (so they'll stay interested) and because they can later learn to adapt their monster swing for control more easily than they can add the power later.