USGA Ruining Golf - Tour Players Should Use Spec Ball

[azflying]

First it was the new groove rule, now it is high-lofted wedges (no 60+), what's next, 460cc drivers, graphite shafts, ball dimples...

Why make these rules apply to everyone? I know you can use your u-grooves until 2024, but just try to buy a new club in 2011. Manufacturers are not allowed to make them after 1/1/2010.

If the USGA does not like seeing Tour players drive the ball 300 yards and hit spectacular iron shots to tight pins then why don't they change their ball. Every other sport has equipment specific to the pro game that amatuers don't use and often can not even buy. When was the last time your 12-year-old played with an MLB baseball?

Create a Tour Spec ball. NASCAR has spec tires and fuel, baseball has a spec baseball (not to mention wood bats), etc...

Create a ball that has less spin and less distance or whatever charateristic they think is ruining the game and make the Pros use it. Stamp on the logo from whatever manufacturer so they get recognized. Problem solved, they can adjust the game anyway they want without making it more difficult for the weekend player.

Golf is getting smaller, people have less time to practice and are more impatient about being successful at it. Why make it harder for everyone and drive people away from the game, just to make the Pro game like it was 50 or 100 years ago. Unlike other sports, golf is not remembered against the numbers. No one remembers who has the longest drive ever, fewest putts, more most GIR, they remember tournament wins which is independent of equipment because everyone has open access to the latest technology.

[kfowler]

IMO, one of the allures of golf is that the pros use all the same gear we do, for the most part. What other sport can you play the exact same specs as the pros? I think the groove thing is a little silly but my bet is that 90% of amateur golfers will never notice the difference.

Now you could force all pros to use Surlyn covered balls. That would be interesting.

[iacas]

First it was the new groove rule, now it is high-lofted wedges (no 60+)

Wrong. They're studying the wedges. Don't get ahead of yourself.

Why make these rules apply to everyone?

Because the USGA makes the rules for everyone.

If the USGA does not like seeing Tour players drive the ball 300 yards

I don't think that you can ascribe "like/dislike" to the USGA on that issue. They have the ODS. That's their position on distance.

Every other sport has equipment specific to the pro game that amatuers don't use and often can not even buy. When was the last time your 12-year-old played with an MLB baseball?

12 year olds aren't following MLB rules. NFL rules differ from Little Gridders, which has different rules than NCAA and high school rules.

In golf, the USGA (or R&A;) is IT.

Create a Tour Spec ball.

We have one. Can't weigh more than 1.62 ounces, can't be smaller than 1.68 inches, can't fly over a certain distance, and a few other things create the "spec" sheet all legal balls have to meet.

You want to bring up other sports, well, baseball players wear different cleats. They use different bats. They wear different gloves. Why? It's clear: the golf ball is "personal equipment." It's not something you share with others like you share a baseball, a football, a basketball, a hockey puck, etc. It's yours, and yours alone. No other sport that I know of mandates a certain ONE kind of equipment for personal equipment. Your analogy falls apart once you realize that.

Create a ball that has less spin and less distance or whatever charateristic they think is ruining the game and make the Pros use it.

There you go again, assuming you think: a) the game is being ruined, b) distance is doing it, and c) the USGA agrees with BOTH of those statements.

Golf is getting smaller

Last I saw, golf was not necessarily growing, but not really shrinking, either.

people have less time to practice

People have less time for all sorts of things. They're more active with their children than 30 years ago. The work week is no longer 40 hours. Men are expected to do more at home than 30 years ago.

and are more impatient about being successful at it. Why make it harder for everyone

Why make it easier? And why cater to the impatience of some people? Golf isn't for everyone. But for those who have chosen it, I think we like it the way it is.

Besides, going with a standard ball would likely make the game harder for virtually everyone, not easier. You've got that backwards.

Unlike other sports, golf is not remembered against the numbers. No one remembers who has the longest drive ever, fewest putts, more most GIR, they remember tournament wins which is independent of equipment because everyone has open access to the latest technology.

Kinda contradicts your whole post there, doesn't it?

[Fourputt]

First it was the new groove rule, now it is high-lofted wedges (no 60+), what's next, 460cc drivers, graphite shafts, ball dimples...

Show me where they have banned any currently conforming wedge???? They studied the grooves for almost 2 decades before coming to a conclusion... I'm not going to panic at this point. I'll likely be looking at the grass from the wrong side by the time the final results are published, and they might just conclude that there is no need for change anyway.

We don't need any Chicken Little's running in circles creating a senseless panic over what is essentially a non-issue. BTW, great post Erik!

[azflying]

Erik,

My account does not allow multi-quote, so I can not rebut your reply item by item. You seem to have categorically missed my entire point. I suggest having the Pros use a lower performance ball, everyone else can still use the latest technology. Generally, if you agree with the USGA actions, then you will disagree with everything I said. If you like playing golf simply because it is hard and making it harder will make it more fun, then I am not sure you are in the majority. These USGA action are not making the game easier. Amateurs can not generate the spin pros can and now they will be able to generate less. ...and they were only studying grooves a couple years ago. The USGA seems driven to roll back technology. ...Little League is scaled back so the kids can have fun and hit home runs just like the pros. If we apply the same logic you use for golf, they should be playing with 400ft fences and like it because it is exactly the same as the pros. ...on the ball spec, again you missed the point. I suggest creating an additional spec for pros only. ...I'm really not clear on the "personal equipment" thing golf is not a team sport, everything except the course is personal. If tennis pros were limited in the racket string tension to prevent them from hitting the ball 200 mph according to you that is bad because the racket is "personal equipment". How much fun will it be to watch tennis if no one can return a serve? I don't see how simply sharing something opens it up to additional regulation and individual use closes it. You missed the NASCAR statement. Tires are "personal equipment", cars do not share tires. Teams are required to use Goodyear NASCAR spec tires or be disqualified. Titleist, Nike, Callaway, anyone can manufacture the pro ball I suggest, it simply needs to conform to the reduced performance standard. They do it now, Tiger Woods plays conforming next gen ball that you and I can not yet buy. They bring dozens to the range and gather them up afterward so they don't get out. There is no right or wrong in this argument, simply different points of view. I just think there is a better way to "fix" pro golf without impacting everyone else.

Wrong. They're studying the wedges. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[azflying]

You will only be able to buy remaining stock after 1/1/2010.

Show me where they have banned any currently conforming wedge???? They studied the grooves for almost 2 decades before coming to a conclusion... I'm not going to panic at this point. I'll likely be looking at the grass from the wrong side by the time the final results are published, and they might just conclude that there is no need for change anyway.

[Lefty22]

Erik,

You mean the formatting of the board changes on your posts? Even if you don't have the button you can put QUOTE=username in [] + quotedText + /QUOTE in [] to get the formatting you're trying to post

Test number one

And another

Test number two

Finally

Test number three; OK I'll stop now...

[Lefty22]

...Little League is scaled back so the kids can have fun and hit home runs just like the pros. If we apply the same logic you use for golf, they should be playing with 400ft fences and like it because it is exactly the same as the pros.

Have you seen the different color things at the beginning of each hole? Those different sets of what we call "Tee Boxes" are one way golf does manage the situation you reference, except golf cleverly changes the start position instead of the Goal

...If tennis pros were limited in the racket string tension to prevent them from hitting the ball 200 mph according to you that is bad because the racket is "personal equipment". How much fun will it be to watch tennis if no one can return a serve?

No limiting the tension is not bad, just like limiting COR to 0.83 is not bad. What WOULD suck and make the whole sport seem skewed would be amateurs with NO tension restriction hitting the 200mph and then when they go pro it drops to the "standard". That's essentially what you're asking for.

The whole tennis/golf analogy doesn't work anyway in my mine because the equipment used in tennis can directly affect the opponent. What I mean is in golf if someone is using a "hot" driver and can hit the ball 400 yards, the 300 year driver can still hit it 300 years when it's his turn; in tennis if your opponent is using a "hot" racquet (don't even know if that makes sense in this context but we'll just go with it) this DIRECTLY affects your ability to return their shots and compete on a level playing field...

There is no right or wrong in this argument, simply different points of view. I just think there is a better way to "fix" pro golf without impacting everyone else.

See I think there

is a right and wrong here: if you think what the USGA thinks you're right, if not then you're wrong. No one is trying to "fix" golf, in fact I guess I missed the course markers denoting that the game was broken... BTW I only hit the "Quote" button once...

[Elvisliveson]

Have you seen the different color things at the beginning of each hole? Those different sets of what we call "Tee Boxes" are one way golf does manage the situation you reference, except golf cleverly changes the start position instead of the Goal

Well stated. That's the reason the rules are the same for everyone regardless of skill level.

[Fourputt]

Erik,

It's not distance that the USGA is concerned with right now, it's the loss of the penalty that the rough is supposed to create. It should be harder to play an accurate shot from 2" rough than it is from the fairway, and with the current groove technology that just isn't true for the pros. The groove change will have minimal effect on 95% of amateur golfers, but it will again place a premium on hitting the fairway for the professional golfer, and that is how it should be. Instead bomb and gouge, the accurate driver will again have his place on Tour. This is a great move as far as the TV watching crowd, is concerned, even if they don't' realize it yet.

And if you think that they only researched the groove issue for a couple of years you are quite wrong. The USGA has been working on this ever since they lost the Ping lawsuit back in the late 80's, early 90's. They can't really even start to concern themselves with the wedge issue until players start using clubs with the new grooves and they see how that translates to the higher lofted wedges. What has been done so far is good the game as a whole, and I completely endorse it. I also endorse the USGA's policy of continuing to watch, test, and evaluate the effects of any and all equipment changes and improvements to ensure that the game doesn't get ruined by the manufacturer's constant hunt for new ways to make a profit.

[jorruss]

There are some good arguments on both sides of the fence here. I'll attempt to play devil's advocate here and ride the fence a bit.

As far as the equipment being too "hot", we must remember that club companies design clubs and balls mostly for the average player, not the tour pros. Only 1/10th of one percent of male golfers shoot par consistently, according to the USGA. 460cc drivers and longer shafts and bigger sweet spots are there to help the average player play getter. Despite all the advances in technology over the last 50 years, the average golfer's scores have not improved. The average golfer still shoots between 90 to 100. So what does this mean? If I have these great clubs that hit the ball further and straighter why are my scores not getting better? Because the hole is still the same size and people still have to make putts!

On the other hand, we can all see how aluminum and composite bats have changed baseball and softball for the majority of players. The ball comes off a composite bat with much greater velocity and the sweet spot of an aluminum bat is larger than that of a wood bat. Baseball, being a sport of grand traditions like golf, has decided that the Pros will continue to use wood bats, rather than adopt the aluminum variety. Can you imagine what Barry Bonds could have done with a juiced bat? Scary. There is an argument to be made to have the pros play with equipment that limits distance as well, but I don't think that is the answer.

Instead of simply adding length to golf courses to adapt to the modern game, I believe other things could be done to make it tougher without adding length. Playing a course that measures 7800 yards only serves to eliminate half the field from the start. All the shorter hitters are at a huge disadvantage, where the long hitters are mostly unaffected. Rather than making 300 yard par threes and 500 yard par fours, the PGA tour can take a few simple steps to make any course a challenge:

1. Grow the rough. Simple enough, but not always feasible due to the region or weather conditions. Adding an inch to the rough all over the course is enough.

2. Eliminate bunker rakes. Let's make bunkers a hazard again! Make the players smooth their tracks with their shoes or a club and the lies will be unpredictable and difficult. Hitting into a bunker will once again be a scary proposition.

3. Tighten the fairways. Bring the fairways in to 20-25 yards wide. Combined with #1 it will be effective at adding difficulty.

4. Water the fairways! Balls that hit and run 40-50 yards need to go away. Only on the pro tours do fairways run faster than the local muni's greens. When it rains at a PGA tour event, they simply move the tees up to compensate. Lame.

5. Mark more areas as hazards and OB. Remember that tournament when Tiger hit the ball on the clubhouse roof? He got a free drop. I don't know about you but on every course I've ever played on, the clubhouse is OB.

6. Change the pace of play policy. In Florida, the FSGA has adopted a great pace of play policy. You have two checkpoints, on 9 and 18. If you are not at the checkpoint before the predetermined time (based on your tee time) you are given a stoke penalty. No exceptions. Believe me, it works. I recommend a different policy for the PGA tour that doesn't penalize the whole group for one slow player. Use a similar rule as in professional 9-ball. Impose a one minute time limit from the time it is your turn to hit the shot, with the exception being when you are waiting for a ruling or taking a drop.

7. This one is a long shot, but I thought it would be fun for the fans. Play 72 hole tournaments, but start on Fridays and play 36 holes on Sunday. To make the field a suitable size to allow for playing 36 holes, cut the field after the first round and again after the second. That should leave about 36 players in twosomes for the 36 hole Sunday final. Now that would be exciting! Let's bring physical and mental endurance into the game!

[iacas]

My account does not allow multi-quote

Lefty answered this one for you. Yes you can.

You seem to have categorically missed my entire point.

No, I believe I understood your point, as cobbled together as it was.

I suggest having the Pros use a lower performance ball, everyone else can still use the latest technology.

And I'm still against that entirely, and for the reasons I've already outlined, as well as additional ones I left out in the interest of brevity.

I don't want different rules. The USGA, unlike the NFL, makes the rules for ALL golfers. Bifurcation? Not a fan.

Amateurs can not generate the spin pros can and now they will be able to generate less.

It seems to me you didn't really read the study. The grooves rule will affect a very small - and very good - percentage of the golf population.

The vast majority of amateurs? You're not generating spin anyway. Not consistently, and for most, not really at all. The rule won't affect amateurs. And here's where you start to muddy your "point" - why are you talking about amateurs? What's their relevance to a "Tour Spec" ball?

...and they were only studying grooves a couple years ago. The USGA seems driven to roll back technology.

That's not true. They've been studying grooves for decades. The most recent ball study was conducted within the past few years, but they've been studying grooves for 50+ years, and square grooves for 20 or more.

Little League is scaled back so the kids can have fun and hit home runs just like the pros. If we apply the same logic you use for golf, they should be playing with 400ft fences and like it because it is exactly the same as the pros.

No, you'd be playing from the white tees, and with rough that's nowhere near eight inches long, with holes not cut three paces from the edges of greens not stimping at 13, and so on. There's your analogous situation.

on the ball spec, again you missed the point. I suggest creating an additional spec for pros only.

I didn't miss the point. I disagreed with you. I think your idea is BAD.

And if anyone did miss the point, I humbly suggest that it's because it wasn't clear to begin with. The only time you really limited it to "pro golfers" is when you said "TOUR spec ball." Then you talk about amateurs and their spin and their level of enjoyment.

I'm really not clear on the "personal equipment" thing golf is not a team sport, everything except the course is personal. If tennis pros were limited in the racket string tension to prevent them from hitting the ball 200 mph according to you that is bad because the racket is "personal equipment".

No, your logic doesn't work there. The golf ball, too, is limited in distance - but not strictly bound to one measurement in other characteristics.

Here's a tennis analogy: some pros play a racket that isn't strung as tight because their game relies more on spin. Some golfers play a golf ball that spins more. There's your analogy. Both rackets are within the rules, neither goes too far, but one spins more than the other.

I don't see how simply sharing something opens it up to additional regulation and individual use closes it.

My argument works great when you try to say "every other sport uses the same ball." In every other sport, the ball is "shared." Every other major sport allows for a certain amount of latitude to be granted for personal equipment.

You missed the NASCAR statement.

Audience participation time: how many amateurs play NASCAR on the weekends for fun? You know, have a few beers, race around a track in $10M (total guess) cars at 200 MPH? Nobody? Huh? Really?

The analogy fails again. You can't bifurcate the rules when the rules apply only to a small, select group of people. And FWIW, I don't consider NASCAR much of a sport.

They do it now, Tiger Woods plays conforming next gen ball that you and I can not yet buy.

You're about three years late to that party. Tiger plays a stock ball these days.

There is no right or wrong in this argument, simply different points of view.

Nobody's said your opinions were right or wrong. You are wrong about certain facts, but opinions != facts.

I just think there is a better way to "fix" pro golf without impacting everyone else.

And there's an opinion we can disagree on immediately: I don't think pro golf is in need of "fixing," and even if I did, I likely wouldn't agree with "make 'em all play one ball."

[Fourputt]

A counterpoint:

1. Grow the rough. Simple enough, but not always feasible due to the region or weather conditions. Adding an inch to the rough all over the course is enough.

Making 2 inch rough into 3 inch rough would be almost unnoticeable for a pro golfer when he has a wedge in his hands. You would have to go to extremes (5 or 6 inches) to have any significant effect, and then you are getting into US Open territory. It's far easier to make this tiny equipment change (the grooves) and bring almost anything other than fairway back into play, even 1" rough. And deeper rough is more costly to maintain than a more sane and sensible depth.

7. This one is a long shot, but I thought it would be fun for the fans. Play 72 hole tournaments, but start on Fridays and play 36 holes on Sunday. To make the field a suitable size to allow for playing 36 holes, cut the field after the first round and again after the second. That should leave about 36 players in twosomes for the 36 hole Sunday final. Now that would be exciting! Let's bring physical and mental endurance into the game!

This is how it was done at the International except for the 36 hole Sunday.... and that tournament is now dead. Like match play, you run the risk of cutting too many of the most popular players and actually losing viewers. And very few typical viewers are going to want to watch 36 holes of golf on Sunday... there are too may other things to do, like play golf yourself, take the kids out to the park, etc. Most people don't have enough leisure time anyway.... expecting them to spend even more of it on TV golf is probably a losing proposition.

[iacas]

Grow the rough. Simple enough, but not always feasible due to the region or weather conditions. Adding an inch to the rough all over the course is enough.

I've seen convincing arguments that less rough is actually better for the shorter hitters. Geoff Ogilvy said something to this effect too about why it's still better to be a bomber in the U.S. Open than a shorter, more accurate guy. The accuracy gap can't make up for the trouble shorter, more accurate players have hitting from thicker rough.

3. Tighten the fairways. Bring the fairways in to 20-25 yards wide. Combined with #1 it will be effective at adding difficulty.

See also: Geoff Ogilvy's comments. They pertained to this as well.

But in general, let's stick to the topic. Here, it's "the ball," not "how would you fix pro golf in general."

[azflying]

I click on the Multi-Quote button and nothing happens, maybe it's my browser.

If golf does not need to be "fixed", why change the equipment rules? If bomb and gouge is bad and that is what is successful on tour, isn't that broken? I thought that's what the USGA is trying to fix. Again, I think it's a matter of opinion, personally I'd rather watch a Pro wedge it onto the green from the rough, than watch him pitch it to the middle of the fairway and bump-and-run it onto the green. I guess the subtle sophistication is lost on me, how is one golf and the other not.

Yes there are multiple tees, but they have to keep making new ones father back for the Pros, changing the original course designer's intent sometimes. (when they get tired of moving them back, the USGA may take a look at driver specs).

Science says amateurs will not notice the difference and in five years if amateurs are buying v-grooves and not shopping eBay for box-grooves, then the science will be validated. People as least want to think they have an advantage and their equipment is helping them.

Essentially we are talking about the same thing. Every post is against a special Pro ball and for V-grooves. So presumeably if I suggested Pro Spec wedge grooves, you would all be just as angry that you don't get to play V-grooves. I am surprised that the feelings are so strong about amatuers playing the same equipment as Pros, but that explains why I find so many ProV1's under trees 200 yards from the tee. People want to be like Pros even if it is bad for their game.

And you're right about amateurs, on average, not getting better, that's weird isn't it?

[cigarnut81]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I work in the golf club industry and I know what goes on behind closed doors at the USGA and I can tell you that the guys that are making the rules concerning golf have no idea what they are doing to this game, nor are they open to suggestions from anyone about how their rules affect the club industry or the golfing public. I hate to say it but anarchy is not to far off if the "ruling bodies" don't get their #@$! together soon.

[iacas]

I click on the Multi-Quote button and nothing happens

That's not what multi-quote is for. MultiQuote is for quoting multiple posts. You click a bunch, hit Post Reply, and they all appear.

You can do line-by-line rebuttal-style commenting by, as Lefty already explained to you, editing in things like [QUOTE=azflying;259256].....[/quote] where appropriate.

If golf does not need to be "fixed", why change the equipment rules?

Because the USGA decided that one tiny little part of the game needed fixed. What you've suggested is a much, MUCH larger change.

"Needs Tweaked" != "Broken and in need of further changes"

Yes there are multiple tees, but they have to keep making new ones father back for the Pros, changing the original course designer's intent sometimes.

So? Doesn't mean the game is "broken."

And people cited this as rebuttal to your comments about Little League. Don't appreciate the attempt to twist their words (or mine). Fact: distance on the PGA Tour has pretty much remained flat for the past several years. They're done moving the tees back on a very, very small minority of courses. Fact: swing speed's gone up 11 MPH, accounting for almost all of the distance gains from 1989 to 2009.

Science says amateurs will not notice the difference and in five years if amateurs are buying v-grooves and not shopping eBay for box-grooves, then the science will be validated. People as least want to think they have an advantage and their equipment is helping them.

Remind me again what this has to do with you wanting a "Tour Spec" golf ball?

I take that back. Please don't remind me.

So presumeably if I suggested Pro Spec wedge grooves, you would all be just as angry that you don't get to play V-grooves.

Uhm, yep, I'd be angry. I'm not speaking for others, but I'm against bifurcation. I've been playing - and enjoying - irons that meet the new criteria for a year now. I'll switch wedges next spring.

People want to be like Pros even if it is bad for their game.

It's highly unlikely that a premium ball is "bad" for someone's game, simply that the performance gains are not noticeable at a certain level (and thus is a waste of money).

[newnoggin]

I am 65 and the courses I grew up playing are obsolete for me now. I am driving some of the par 4s that I used to hit short irons into. Anyone that says that the ball and the clubs don't need to be dialed back severely, doesn't care about history nor the integrity of the game. Nicklaus and Hogan used basically the same equipment. Now golf courses that were historic and real tests are jokes. Anyone that doesn't realize that the equipment manufacturers' influence on the USGA's collection of double digit handicappers is driving this ruination of old courses and even shot making is naive, ignorant, complacent and uncaring or lying. There are no other choices.