New and updated, including contributions from Ran Morrissett and Daniel Wexler.
Thursday
23Feb
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?
Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 08:37 PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (47)
First, there's no way you can tie distance to the numbers NGF and Nielsen kick out. You think there's a relationship, but you don't really know.
And second, did you ever believe that perhaps Tiger, Palmer, Nicklaus, and Norman have an agenda too? Palmer, Nicklaus, and Norman likely want to protect their legacies. Tiger likely thinks that a change will simply make him even more capable of defeating those pesky short drivers like Oberholser and Funk. Or maybe they have other agendas, but why is it that in your mind only Titleist has an agenda, while all others are on this quest "to save the game" when there's absolutely no agreement that the game needs to be saved from anything at this point?
You're quickly turning into "that uncle" of the golf world. The one people invite to parties just so they can make fun of him behind his back, and because there's never a dull moment when "Crazy Uncle Whoever" is in the house.
which of the Fortune brands to you work for
Titleist, Cobra, Pinnacle?
Titleist opened up this anti-golf ball technology rant and it is a Geoff's responsibility as a journalist to inform, enlighten, and educate the public on all sides of issue. If you choose to not believe, that is your right.
It's not about "believing" in anything. It's about fact. Geoff isn't a "journalist," and if he was, many of his posts seem to do the opposite of "inform, enlighten, and educate." If this post "informs and educates" then please send your children to me so that I can "inform" them that alphabetical order is actually QWERTYUIOP (etc.).
There's a difference between "spouting off" and "informing." The latter usually involves facts, and from what I can see, they aren't often on Geoff's side. He has an emotional viewpoint, not a factual one. The only "informing" he does is to inform us of his opinion.
I'm always fascinated by the argument that there is no evidence that the game is in bad shape, when it's so overwhelming. Of course ratings and flat rounds are not directly tied to the emergence of technology. The point is, the game has never seen better equipment, and yet it's not growing nor is the professional game's audience growing. Yet we are told by equipment companies that the only way the game will grow is to through more lax equipment rules.
So equipment has been given its chance to "grow the game," and I'm simply taking the view that it hasn't got much to show for it.
As for guys like Tiger and his "agenda," I think it's a stretch to say he's lying awake at night worrying about Fred Funk and Arron Oberholser. Actually, it's quite hilarious. Tiger has tiptoed around the subject for obvious reasons, but he has also indicated that he understands some of the issues that have arisen.
Isn't it possible that these guys who play the game on an entirely different level than we do, and who are involved in course design, have a different perspective that is not motivated by greed? I still do not see how they benefit except in seeing the game they love salvaged.
I would think it was back in 1997 and 1998 when Tiger really came on the scene. Did Tiger's popularity encourage people to invest and build new golf courses? Or was it something else?
I think that interesting players such as Tiger have more impact on the popularity of golf than new equipment. Look at skiing (I know they are different sports but have some of the same issues), skiing has not grown even though there was a breakthrough in equipment with parabolic skis in the 1990s.
We need to look at what sports are seeing growth (I can't think of one) and then look to see what the national governing bodies are doing to help with that growth. Then we can make suggestions so that golf does not go the way of tennis.
Must an industry always be growing to be "in good shape?" Golf courses are crowded, so one could make the argument that growth in the number of players would be bad because it'd lead to even slower rounds and more frustration and crowding.
But more golfers = more desire for courses to avoid crowding, and thus we start to get at your agenda: golly gee, you're a course architect! Coincidence? Nah.
You've failed to establish that flat rounds played numbers is related to technology (or driving distance). Could it not be related to the lengthening of the average American's work week from 40 to nearly 50 or 60 hours and the corresponding decrease in free time? Could it not be related to a thousand other things? Why is "technology" or "distance" the only thing you feel has caused the game to be, in your opinion, in decline?
That we can't play majors on some classic old courses is another entirely different argument. How old is St. Andrews? Did it not host a major last year? Does Merion have the parking capabilities to host a major, or is it solely about the length of the course? I too regret that some courses have become obsolete, but athletes in every sport have always been faster, stronger, and more capable with every passing generation. That's just the way it goes.
And getting back to the original point, Geoff, you've nearly completely misrepresented the original article. You call on readers to sift through the bias, but you know darn well that's nearly impossible for most people. You yourself have gotten caught up in your own bias, and display it daily here. People use facts to get through bias, and that doesn't include "facts" like "flat numbers of rounds played = distance is bad" because you can't correlate the two regardless of how many times you might repeat it.
I not only agree that they have a different perspective, but I insist that they do. However, neither you nor me is any more capable of discerning what that motive truly is: greed, desire to see their own stature kept tall, or something else entirely. Obviously, Tiger is not worrying about Fred Funk at night, but it's foolish if you think that Tiger would support something that makes it easier for him to lose to someone LIKE a Fred or an Arron or whatever. If only Tiger can reach a par 5 in two with a "shorter" ball, he has an advantage. So, again, you probably know what I meant in saying Fred and Arron, but again erected straw men to distract and divert.
All I'm asking for is an actual, honest debate based on facts, not bias, agendas, or emotion. I don't visit this site often, but it's obvious that can't be found here.
As an amused bystander on this debate, and a frequent poster on this site, I am always entertained when folks like Crankpot post. They hurl invectives and use incendiary language, then get more riled up when Geoff responds politely.
Crankpot, you have failed to advance your point beyond tantrum level. Take a moment, re-read your posts and the responses. You throw out some fascinating ideas, honestly. To assume that Merion is obsolete as a major course due to parking is a riot.
Head to sandtrap.com, they're more your speed.
Pete the Luddite is outta here... Time for 18 at the home course this afternoon while the sun is shining in NC...
There's a reason the site is under my name. These are my views and I'm putting my name on them. I'm always amazed that people complain about my opinions and take on things and yet keep coming back.
I'm not trying to subject anyone to this stuff, it's totally free, totally optional and well, an alternative site that hopefully lets people with similar concerns share their thoughts or read things "outside the bubble" of mainstream golf news.
As for the claim that architects have something to gain from a rollback, you have it backwards. Architects stand to gain if the ball keeps going longer because it means more phone calls to remedy safety and strategic situations that arise from changing equipment.
Geoff, your site accomplishes that which you say above - a place to post your thoughts. Where it fails is when you attempt to convey certain things as "facts" when (pardon the pun) in fact they aren't.
The longer a golf course is, the more real estate it takes up. More real estate means it's more expensive for the builder. More room for the golf course means less room for planned communities and housing. All of that makes the whole idea less attractive to builders and that makes it less likely that they'll actually build the course. That in turn makes it less likely they'll need a course architect. And the money to "fix up" a course no doubt pales in comparison to thet money to design a new one.
I'm not an architect, nor do I pretend to know what you know about building a course, but a very reputable course architect related the above paragraph to me quite recently.
Why Does distance (or bashing Tim Finchem) always seem to be the topic here? How about how much our demands for pristine playing conditions adds to the cost of the average greens fee? Even if you can't find facts for this, it seems to be a little more up your alley (is that the bowling metaphor? ha ha).
Speaking from experience, golf on the PGA Tour, up to lately, has always been about strength, technique, strategy, and imagination. I have played Titleist golf balls my entire career. These new distance balls did not start with Titleist, but instead were introduced by Bridgestone. Bridgestone makes Nike's golf balls for Nike. In 2000, Tiger, along with other players playing Nike equipment, were the only players on the PGA Tour playing with the newest generation of distance enhancing, performance golf balls. The truth is players seeking distance always had the option of playing a pinnacle; only it wasn't conducive around the greens like the new Bridgestone Balls. Players on the PGA Tour, as a glorified pinnacle, dubbed this new Bridgstone Ball. It had the distance of a pinnacle, and up around the greens the disc brakes of a Ferrari. Did Tiger have an advantage in 2000 over the entire PGA Tour? No, there were other players on the Nike Staff at the time that had access to the same ball as Tiger. The rest of the players and ball manufacturers in 2000 didn't have a comparable ball to the (Bridgestone) Nike ball on the market until 2001. Ah...La the Pro V 1, along with Calloway and all the rest. The secret to the core of the golf ball was out, and out big. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
Players such as myself have watched these particular distance enhancing balls go through at least 5 generations of enhancements and performance changes. Each time the launch characteristics and spin ratios have changed. What does all of this mean?? It means that I have Drivers from 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005 that are obsolete. The heads moment of inertia (MOI) is not large enough in reducing torque. The CG's are not low enough and far enough back in the head for the latest version of high launching rocks today. Like Ben Hogan said in response to a question about how to play better golf shots many years ago, "if you want to learn how to play golf well, go buy a book on physics". Where has all of this lead?? It adds up to $400 to $600 annually for the average player to stay up to date with a Driver + Ball perfect marriage. And that’s only if you get it right the very first time. Probability is that you will get it right on about the fourth or fifth try. At least that has been my own personal experience.
Now with regard too little pesky short drivers like Fred Funk. There has always been short drivers of the golf ball, but, players that have had a tremendous amount of imagination and skill in playing fairway woods, long irons, irons in general and the short game department. Going way back, Gene Sarazen was the inventor of the current sand wedge today. Without the sand wedge coming from Gene, where would today's big ball bashers be? Especially with players carrying 5 different wedges in their bags today. Bobby Jones comes to mind. Then there was Paul Runyon who defeated many big men in his day, which involved winning a Major over Sam Snead for a U.S. Open victory. Sam won every major except the U.S. Open. Gene Littler was an awesome iron player. Gary Player had a complete game, with an exceptional short game. Lee Trevino played a cut shot off every tee, that is the ultimate short drive. Come to think of it Hogan played a cut shot too. Hogan said the most important shot in golf was the tee shot. He said it was important to gain the right angle from which one could attack the pin. When I see guys shoe laces poping, and finishing on their tippy-toes it doesn't appear to me anyway that they are trying to gain an advantage of attacking the pin by being in the right part of the fairway. It's as Geoff has been describing it, it's Flogging. Hogan was just another short stature player with a complete game. Maybe Ben and Lee thought strategy was more important than distance? If my memory serves me, they both hated hooking the ball because there was no control over the ball when it landed. Trevino said you could talk to a cut shot but a hook wouldn’t listen. Chi Chi Rodriguez, hell, he practically re-invented the short game. What about the bull-dogg, Corey Pavin? Look what he did at Shinnecock in 1995. Wow!
Personally I don't watch golf on TV because it isn't golf anymore. It has become a Long Drive Contest Scramble. Greg Norman was the Tiger Woods of the late 80's and early 90's. Why didn't Greg win everything?? Because the course set up's then, and the golf ball created parity, week in and week out. If they had stretched out golf courses, and given Greg a rock that would stop, he would have moped up. He would be the first to tell anyone, that's not what golf is about.
It's about having a complete game. When you wished you could slip in one extra club to cover every shot required for that weeks event. Today players could drop their load to 12 clubs in the bag and still cover every shot facing them for the week. Strength, technique, strategy and imagination, all of this would hold true today if courses were set up at 8,300 yards and there was a 6-club limit. Only then would you begin to see parity again in the sport, now it’s all about strength. After stretching out the courses to 8,300 yards with a 6-club limit, my guess, the little pesky guys like Fred Funk would conquer the world again.
With all the nepotism going on between the PGA Tour, USGA, R&A, PGA of America, and Augusta National, I applaud you Geoff in enlightening many others to what Kenny Perry and many other professional golfers know all too well. The golf balls, at the professional level, are completely out of whack. No pun intended. Geoff, where you do the most service is in your statistics evaluations. Stats out of the rough don't lie. Grooves out of PGA Tour rough don't cut it either. It's the high launching rocks, with instant trajectory, cushioned by soft watered greens of today that have catered to this Long Drive Contest Scramble that is still called golf. The driving disparity between John Daly in 1991 and the shortest driver on the PGA Tour could not have been more than 30 yards difference. I'd be willing to bet, and Geoff you know where to find the statistics, that there is over a 60 yard disparity between the longest and shortest drivers on the PGA Tour today, and it all started in 2001, and has grown more and more disproportioned since.
As a professional golfer in my 18th year, thank you for your continued coverage on this topic. Players like Palmer, Watson, Nicklaus, Norman, and even Woods have expressed their views briefly on how the ball has and is changing the game at the professional level, and not in a positive way. Only these players have so much to lose personally on this topic with all of them being distinctly inserted in the selling of equipment. You and your statistics are a welcoming topic in the lockerooms today. Keep it up Geoff!!!
That's a new one to me about longer courses making developers less likely to build one. I would LOVE to hear about a developer that passed up doing a highly lucrative project because golf courses are just too long these days and it just cost too much to build, or take away too many lots from Phase II. That would make a great story. Somehow though, I have a hard time believing there is someone like that out there.
This site (if you read the description linked in the lefthand column), was started to follow up on my books, and in particular, The Future of Golf. That book looks at the distance issue and the state of professional golf. That would be why the subjects you don't like reading about are focused on.
Again, if you don't like it, I highly recommend the blogs sponsored by Titleist. I think they are more up your uh, alley.
And well said Smolmania.
I am awaiting a tour player to come to Crackpot's...er...I mean Crankpot's aid.
And as for you, Mr. Crankpot, thanks for getting everything so riled up on a Friday (except for that rat Pete who's decided to hit the links. . . the sun's shining here in Chicago too my friend, but it's about 40 -- gonna be a cold day on the links tomorrow).
Do you really expect us to believe that the comments of the legends -- Messrs. Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player -- about the ball going to far are based upon their desire to "preserve their legacies?&q