More on "Where's The Balance?"

Ryan Ballangee at The SportsFan and 19th Hole Golf Show looks at Titleist's "Where's The Balance" commentary. After you look at what Ryan wrote, you might want to check out the Where's The Balance comment thread on this site. Fun debate.

Anyway, check out Ballangee's piece. It's short. But just in case it vanishes into cyberspace someday... 

It does not take a very keen set of eyes to notice that the game is fizzling. Further, it is only too convenient that the decline in rounds played and Tour fan base has occurred at a time when there has never been greater technology to allow professionals to hit the ball further than ever. Journalists have put two and two together and yelled "fore" about the bad direction that the game is going because of uncurbed technology. (This serious column needed some terrible humor.)

As it turns out, I am not the only one calling it as I see it. Other golf writers - who I have great respect for - are also calling for stronger regulation of golf technology now before the game gets out of control. Apparently, the golf equipment companies have been taking notice and they feel they are being gipped. Now, they're fighting back - anonymously.


Sahallee Blues

Blayne Newnham, writing about Sahallee deserving another major in the Seattle Times:

There is concern the PGA Championships have outgrown Sahalee and Seattle, that the 27 holes isn't big enough to do the corporate tent thing, that there isn't room for enough spectators, that Seattle has shown less than robust corporate support.

Concern, too, that the course isn't big enough to handle 350-yard drives.

After the PGA in 1998, Kerry Haigh, the director of tournaments, was asked about the tightness of Sahalee's fairways limiting the use of the driver among players.

"It was their choice and it made for long iron shots to the greens," he said. "Some players hit more drivers than others, and none of them, as far as I know, complained."

The PGA of America wanted to expand its horizons, it wanted to bring the tournament to the Northwest.

It found a different and spectacular course, one that could quiet technology with nature.

Or, someone could quiet technology by actually regulating it? Nah, that makes too much sense!

Driving Force: The Anti-Tech Agenda At Play

The Arizona Daily Star's Charles Durrenberger reveals his agenda to bring down the ball companies by writing about the emergence of power thanks to technology.

Despite lengthening the Catalina Course by some 500 yards, the big hitters still have a huge advantage — especially on the par 5s — which yielded a record 54 eagles in 2005.

For example, [Bubba] Watson can carry the bunkers on the redesigned par-5 eighth hole, some 305 yards off the tee. Purdy says he has trouble reaching the green in two.

"It's become a big man's sport," added Purdy, who ranked 131st in driving distance last year. "The technology and equipment have allowed players to hit it further than ever."

See, it was the writer's agenda to put those words in Purdy's mouth.

Veteran Nick Price said technology and equipment have had the biggest effect on the game since he turned pro 29 years ago.
"Younger guys know more about the swing than I did at their age," Price said. "And the sweet spot on these drivers is as big as a plum. You can swing a lot harder without losing it."

See, Nick Price was just spellbound by the swaying stopwatch that Durrenberger dangled before him, repeating whatever Durrenberger wants to spread the gospel of anti-technology!

Where's the Balance?

It's been a while since they posted a unbylined complaint over at Titleist.com, but it's good to know the theme never changes. Yes, that's right, we're back to the golf media's "anti-golf ball technology agenda":

But what is disturbing is when members of the golf media use their position to advance their anti-technology and anti-golf ball technology agenda to golfers without providing their readers the opportunity to learn from an opposing view.

That's right, you cannot pick up a golf magazine without reading that anti-ball technology propaganda. It's stifling, I tell you!

While free speech is a wonderful thing, and the golf media has every right to provide editorial opinions, it is disillusioning to know that the opposing facts are often conveniently overlooked. Where then do the 25 million golfers in the U.S. get exposed to a balanced perspective on the long-standing technology and tradition debate?

I nominate Titleist.com. No agenda there!

And if the PGA Tour is going to measure the perception of the public relative to distance to consider whether additional rule modifications are desirable, and media coverage is imbalanced, then one can hardly expect golfers/fans of the PGA Tour to have an open mind.

It really is all the media's fault. Well, and are they implying that the average golfer is not smart enough to weed through the bias and come to their own conclusions? 

Semantics are another powerful tool used to influence readers' reactions. When referring to the USGA, he uses derogatory terms like "apparently awakened from a Rip Van Winkle-length coma" and a "dawdling organization". He notes that Kenny Perry is feeling "increasingly obsolete" or "something's out of whack when Perry ranked 11th in the world, feels like a Lilliputian." The fact is Kenny Perry will turn 46 this August. In how many professional sports can a 46-year old still remain competitive let alone, be ranked 11th in the world in their chosen sport?

You might want to check out the story that has upset the writer so. Here's what Perry said that Steve Elling characterized as increasingly obsolete: "Skill? That's kind of where the tour has gone. You can hit it 50 yards off-line and hit a wedge out of the rough. They can still fire at the flagstick. That's the way golf has played out the last couple of years."

Those semantics! Not obsolete. He just feels really good about being left behind. 

What is even more alarming is digging behind the scenes to the actual press conference and reading the unequivocally biased "questions" asked of J.B. Holmes:

 Q. John, with the way that you have been piping it out there the last few years, now that you are out here with the big boys, and blowing it past all of them, there has been sort of a negative side to it to, people are saying he hits it too far, they need to rein that in. What's your response to all of that? You can become the poster boy for the USGA making rules changes.

Q. You don't think there has been a lessening of the skill factor because you only have to hit your 3-iron, 4-iron, 5-iron a couple of times per tournament? It's mostly a wedge, 9-iron. These are some of the points that have been raised. You are just overwhelming golf courses.

These aren't questions. They are "leading the witness" statements by a reporter with an agenda.

You know, another S word comes to mind to describe those new Cobra ads where David Feherty, CBS's on-course announcer and member of the Cobra staff, is drooling all over Cobra's J.B. Holmes during the FBR final round and conveniently, his final day raves appear in a new Cobra ad campaign.

Now that's synergy, baby! Of course, you can be the judge by checking the ad out over at Cobra's web site, a company owned by Fortune Brands, the same folks who own Titleist.

After a rant about no one celebrating Arron Oberholser's short driving and great putting en route to victory at Pebble Beach, we get to the heart of the matter:

The game has changed. But that is hardly new as this timeless deep-rooted debate about technological advancement is as old as the game itself. Where is the evidence to support that the game has been harmed?

Uh, how about this: Lousy ratings? Or flat rounds despite equipment that has never made the game easier.

No, I know, the NGF, Nielson, shoot, they're all biased!

The Titleist commentary left out a remark about the enormous financial gains that these anti-technology folks stand to gain from their agendas.

As opposed to the equipment companies, who are in this purely for the love of the game.

The piece also does not explain all these famous golfers like Palmer, Nicklaus, Norman and Woods who are saying something should be done about distance.

I guess they've been bamboozled by the media's anti-technology agenda, too?

47 Inches Too Many

Classic moment on No. 1 today of the WGC Match Play.

Vijay Singh is teeing off, trying out a new driver that looks like something Rocky Thompson once used. You may recall that the first hole (old 10th) has water way off the tee that sometimes comes into play for tee shots finishing in the trees.

Here's what the ABC guys said as Vijay's drive took off and headed for the lake.

PAUL AZINGER: Vijay is another player who is experimenting with a 47-inch driver like Phil did yesterday. And hitting it a mile.

NICK FALDO: It's in the water! Well that extra inch was worth it.

PAUL AZINGER: That is Un-be-lievable.

MIKE TIRICO: That's like 320 to where the fairway runs out on 1.

PAUL AZINGER: That's ridiculous. That is not in play. 

MIKE TIRICO: I remember that from last year, it's about 320 to the fairway running out there, maybe 330.

IAN BAKER FINCH: The center of the fairway is 336.

NICK FALDO (laughing): Well, he gotten good news. The 47 inches worked! 

Titleist Seeks Patent For Reduced Flight Ball

The plot thickens.

Applying for a patent, Titleist is. The product:

A high performance golf ball having a reduced overall distance while maintaining the appearance of a high performance trajectory. The golf ball includes a combination of low CoR core and cover materials coupled with a less aerodynamic dimple pattern that achieves a reduction in carry and overall distance of 15 and 25 yards versus a conventional golf ball, while still providing the look, sound, feel and apparent flight of a conventional golf ball. A high performance golf ball having a reduced distance is also achieved by controlling dimensionless coefficients of lift/weight and drag/weight at certain Reynolds numbers and spin ratios for various CoR.

And here's what Tiger has been suggesting for some time now, slowing down the core:

One golf ball component, in particular, that many manufacturers are continually looking to improve is the center or core. The core is the "engine" that influences the golf ball to go longer when hit by a club head. Generally, golf ball cores and/or centers are constructed with a polybutadiene-based polymer composition. Compositions of this type are constantly being altered in an effort to provide a targeted or desired coefficient of restitution ("CoR"), while at the same time resulting in a lower compression which, in turn, can lower the golf ball spin rate and/or provide better "feel."

Here's where they acknowledge that some ball-driver combos are outsmarting the current USGA testing:

On the new USGA standard: Advances in golf ball compositions and dimple designs have caused some high performance golf balls to exceed the maximum distance allowed by the United States Golf Associates (USGA), when hit by a professional golfer. The maximum distance allowed by the USGA is 317 yards.+-.3 yards, when impacted by a standard driver at 176 feet per second and at a calibrated swing condition of 10.degree., 2520 RPM, and 175 MPH with a calibrated ball. 

Yes, this is probably just a technicality related the USGA ball study.

But I still say that the first company coming out with such a ball and if it finds its way to classic, respected courses, has a better chance of establishing dominance in the "competition ball" or "classic course ball" market. Or even the overall market, should the USGA act.

And if that company is Titleist, they not only solidify their well-earned place atop ball sales, they earn huge points for doing the right thing from traditionalists/purists/above average golfers, a sizeable portion of their Pro V1 customer base.

TGC Talk From Perth

You won't hear a conversation like this on U.S. television this weekend:

RENTON LAIDLAW: You were talking about the difference in equipment and how it has affected the game, Ken.

KEN BROWN: Well the modern ball not only goes a long way, but it goes very straight as well. So the dispersion of your iron shots going to greens, where you were going with 5s and 6s, now your going with 8s. Certainly the bunkerings now a bit remote. 230 yards used to be a big carry with the driver.

RENTON LAIDLAW: Is all this big hitting affecting the game? Is it a detriment to the game?

MIKE CLAYTON: Well I think it is. I think it cost a fortune to change golf courses. And people change golf courses for people people who are never going to play them. At Lake Karrinyup, we had a meeting and we had to explain that there is no point designing a course for Ernie Els. He plays there once ever ten years, and its a members course. And you start seeing ridiculously long courses that people can never play. I don't know how you design golf courses for pros. You need to make them 8,000 yards and if you make them that long--even 7,500 yards--you don't have any great short holes and it seems to me this is why the game is in a mess. They need to do something about it. J.B. Holmes is not going to be the only guy driving it 350 yards.

KEN BROWN: But who is going to do something about it?

MIKE CLAYTON: Well, the people who run the game. Does Titleist run the game or does the USGA run the game?

RENTON LAIDLAW: Kevin Flint for par [laughing].

KEN BROWN: You're very quiet Renton.

RENTON LAIDLAW: [Laughing]

KEN BROWN: An R&A member.

RENTON LAIDLAW: I don't think that really has anything to do with it. It's not at all relevant. [Laughing] 

Callaway Sues Acushnet

Callaway sues Acushnet over the Pro-V1 after negotiations break down.

According to the complaint, the Sullivan patents "revolutionized the game of golf" and "have done more to change the game of golf than any other equipment advance in the history of the game."
Now this is interesting, because Titleist argues that the ball is not the only thing uh, revolutionizing the game. But instead it's the optimization, athleticism, the agronomy (LOL!) and other fun stuff.

 
Yet here is Callaway saying the ball that they created and which they claim Titleist copied has "done more to change the game" than any other piece of equipment. Ever.

So much for these two lovebirds joining hands for a joint lawsuit when/if the USGA acts.

More Tiger Talk

More from Tiger's Masters media day:

Q. I wanted to ask you about moving to new technology, getting more distance, is that a reflection of what was happening on Tour the last couple of years versus what you could see was going to happen with guys like J.B. Holmes and Bubba Watson coming up?

TIGER WOODS: Well, the guys -- I know I didn't use technology, the advances in technology for a couple of years. Guys were sacrificing some of the spins that they would normally have for distance, and they have gone longer and lighter in shafts, bigger, hotter heads and obviously higher launching and less-spinning golf balls. All of that equates to a lot more yardage. What I've always told the guys at Nike is that I've always wanted a golf ball that would spin around the greens. So can I actually hit the ball further? Yeah, there's no doubt about that, if I went to the golf balls that other guys are using. I decided to use technology in the driver only and not necessarily the golf ball. I've got more of an overall-performing golf ball than some of the other guys because my ball does spin a little bit more, but I am able to hit it further than the old golf balls I used to play.

Nugent: Tiger Could Play In the NFL

If you are a Golfweek subscriber, you may have noticed that publisher Jim Nugent has written several columns on the distance issue. Perhaps none of his writers will take his anti-USGA/anti-common sense regulation stance, or times are tough and his staff is spread thin. 

Either way, he has made the unusual move of stepping away from his role as Publisher to write a series of op-ed pieces. And the resulting work would be funny if it weren't actually damaging the credibility of his otherwise fine publication. He writes in an online exclusive:

There is little debate that the ball travels farther today on Tour than it did when Nicklaus and Palmer ruled the fairways. But myriad factors have caused this to occur.

Jack and Arnie were never mistaken for NFL linebackers; Tiger Woods and some of his contemporaries could start for a lot of pro football teams, such is their athletic prowess.

What, as place-kickers? On semi-pro teams?

Yes, this is definitely the better athletes argument gone farther awry then ever before! 

The rest of the piece goes on to talk about how there is no evidence that the game has suffered, the golfers will never stand for it, etc., etc., etc...

Sirak on Long John (Holmes)

Ron Sirak writes about the emerging youth in men's and women's golf, with J.B. Holmes as his prime example of the next generation inspired by Tiger Woods.

While there is no doubt that the occassional power player that comes out of no where and drives it insane distances proves fascinating (as Sirak says), there does not seem to be much consideration for the ramifications that this equipment-aided boom might be having on say, course design or setup.

Nor is there acknowledgement that this phenomenon is in large part the product of improved equipment, not necessarily improved skill.

It would seem the question of skill and what exactly it means is one worth debating. Because if nothing else, it would be an interesting debate. No?

 

True Bomber's Paradise

From an AP story on Justin Leonard and David Toms at Scottsdale:

One explanation for the two's demise on Sunday is that the TPC of Scottsdale course is a true bomber's paradise. The fairways were hard and fast and the rough thin, both caused by 109 consecutive rainless days.

Remember that last comment.

Consider the last six golfers who have won this event: Phil Mickelson, Jonathan Kaye, Vijay Singh, Chris DiMarco and Mark Calcavecchia. All but DiMarco are ahead of Leonard and Toms in driving distance average and are plenty capable of bombing it well past 300 yards.

"I think [length] is a huge advantage," Leonard said. "You can carry the bunkers and the water and avoid the trouble."

Can carry the bunkers and water. Not roll it through the bunkers and around the water. Carry it. Hmmmm...

Toms was resigned to his lack of length, but is concerned that it is starting to overrun the game.

"Some guys have to work between the bunkers like me," Toms said. "Other guys can blow it over. That's just the way it is."

Just blow it over? Wait, what about the roll? The agronomy?

This year's event provided more evidence that long drivers rule in the desert.

The final threesome of the day averaged more than 300 yards off the tee.

Holmes was first in driving distance average at 319.7 yards. His longest drive was 365 yards on No. 13 in round two. Henry was averaging 303.9 yards and was ranked 12th. His longest drive was 353 yards on the ninth hole in the first round. Palmer was the short hitter of the group, only ranking 16th and averaging 301.5. His longest drive was a paltry 340 yards on the 13th hole in the final round.

Conversely, Leonard averaged 284.1 yards off the tee, 67th out of 72 players. Toms was 47th, averaging 290.8 yards.

198 yards...8 iron

caddy01.jpg

Carl Spackler: He's the Cinderella boy...he's got about 195 yards left, he's got about a - it looks like he's got about an 8-iron. This crowd has gone deathly silent. The Cinderella story, outta no where, a former greenskeeper now - about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac - It's in the Hole!

J.B. Holmes, FBR Open, 13th hole Saturday: 8 iron from 198 yards.

Unlock Golf's Stifling Shackles

Jim Achenbach writes in the Feb. 2 Golfweek (no link) that "golf needs two sets of equipment rules" or "simply needs to accept lower scores in pro events."

He says there was a "stupor" at the PGA Merchandise Show because there "was more talk about regulation than innovation."

Achenbach writes that Callaway has long "advocated two sets of equipment rules" while Acushnet head man Wally Uihlein "has argued forcefully for the acceptance of lower scores in professional events."  Actually, if you read here and here and here and here and here, Uihlein has argued forcefully that scores have not changed enough to warrant any discussion of technology regulation.

But here's where I get confused. Achenbach writes:

...the gulf between touring pros and the rest of us has widened considerably in recent years. Touring pros are able to exploit equipment regulations because of their high swing speeds. They can do things with today's golf equipment that the rest of us can't.

So it would seem that changes in the rules to address this last point--this loophole--would be ideal because they would not impact the average golfer. No?

If golf continues to be governed by one set of rules, it will either make the game more difficult for one group (amateur golfers) or make it more easier for the other group (touring pros).

Today's golf equipment is so far superior and easier to use for the average golfer than it was even ten years ago. So how will changes, if properly carried out by the governing bodies, only impact the hack and continue to let the elite player circumvent the rules? 

This would be one of those opportunities for a communications friendly USGA to let Dick Rugge write a letter to the editor. Anyway...

Do we really want the game to grow? Or do we want to preserve the integrity of par in an era of more gifted, more dedicated athletes?

You see, I knew that Hogan was a slacker! Nelson and Snead too. Gary Player...made up all that stuff about working out.

These guys today are just more dedicated and gifted. Why, they fly private jets to the tournament whereas Hogan and the boys took their time, driving in cars, taking in the scenery and you know, lollygagging.

Granted, most of today's gifted and dedicated probably couldn't break 80 with the clubs Hogan used, but hey, they're more gifted and dedicated.

The point of Achenbach's piece is that golf is not growing because of limited consumption possibilities for golfers.

So I ask, is this why people play golf? To shop? 

Are people playing less because the shopping options just aren't what they used to be?