The Future of Golf - How Golf Lost Its Way & How To Get It Back by Geoff Shackelford
An interesting read in my opinion.
Now some will read the title and think here we go, another person that is anti-technology, while other may grab it up and say ‘Yes’ another person that recognizes the evil technology.
Well there is something in this book for both and it is quite possible both types of readers may change some of views and opinions.
The author offers a good review of some of the history on golf regarding
- Equipment
- Golf Course Design
- USGA and PGA
- Golf Industries
Now if you are a USGA lover and believe that they have the best interests of golf in mind, then you may be in for a wake up call. He is very hard on the USGA.
Clearly he makes the case that Golf Business determine what golf will be.
From Bobby Jones in the 20/30s to Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Woods and a number of other well known pro’s he finds that they are in agreement with his conclusions for the most part.
Clearly the idea of the pro’s having one ball and everyone else having another, same for equipment is not a popular idea or desirable idea by most. Clearly if things don’t change in the near term, there are two organizations that may make the change. Augusta which is the front runner since trying to sue them will be like shouting into the wind. The other who is reluctant but may be forced too, is the Tours. The idea of competition ball is sort of a last resort for those who are on the hot seat.
The author provides some good insight into golf course design, playability, and Fun Factor.
One must remember that as far back as the 20’s to 30’s there was concern on what technology was doing to the game, the ball in particular.
The conclusions are worth consideration. For those who don’t believe there is a problem the author would have you review Tennis and the impact technology of the 70’s/80’s. The game is a mere shell of what it was back before the new technology. Interestingly enough, there is unfortunately a parallel to golf as he points out.
Hint, one solution which is not his alone, would have minimal if any effect on majority of golfers but would bring back more fineness and shot making back to golf as opposed to the power/gouge game. I believe it is referred to as a multi-dimensional game.
I would recommend every golfer read it. There is something for everyone and who knows maybe more golfers will have a different view of the game. In fact I will read it again in the near future.
Curmudgeon Geoff Shackelford is an excellent author when it comes to Golf Course Architecture. He has written numerous books on the subject that are well worth a look if you like golf course design.
While I am familair with the book you mention, I have not read it as yet. When giving his opinion on the "One Ball Rule", does he say which manufacture's ball would be used and which launch conditions would determine which "one ball for all' should be used? Sounds dangerous to give certain players and advantage because their launch conditions match up to the "one ball". Fred Funk and Tiger have different conditions. Should they play the same ball ?
Curmudgeon Geoff Shackelford is an excellent author when it comes to Golf Course Architecture. He has written numerous books on the subject that are well worth a look if you like golf course design.
While I am familair with the book you mention, I have not read it as yet. When giving his opinion on the "One Ball Rule", does he say which manufacture's ball would be used and which launch conditions would determine which "one ball for all' should be used? Sounds dangerous to give certain players and advantage because their launch conditions match up to the "one ball". Fred Funk and Tiger have different conditions. Should they play the same ball ?
btw- Shackelford has a GREAT Blog- witty, and smart. Better written than any weekly golf publication and on a daily bases. Golf Course Architecture is just a small part of what he is about these days.
Well there is no going back unless the change starts in Jrs, through College and then the Tours over a 10 year period and that is not going to happen.
Tiger and Nike started the designer ball thing. Matched drivers followed. The monster is complete. I think the "one ball" idea by many is just a roll back distance ball- a vague idea at best because the Monster is is alive and well.
I do not like a lot of deep rough and narrow fairways- Seve would have never delighted us because Heroics and attacking the green is out of the question in that stuff. You can stop making bunkers save haven- fallow a few of them. A force shot making and let good ones pay off.
Curmudgeon Geoff Shackelford is an excellent author when it comes to Golf Course Architecture. He has written numerous books on the subject that are well worth a look if you like golf course design.
While I am familair with the book you mention, I have not read it as yet. When giving his opinion on the "One Ball Rule", does he say which manufacture's ball would be used and which launch conditions would determine which "one ball for all' should be used? Sounds dangerous to give certain players and advantage because their launch conditions match up to the "one ball". Fred Funk and Tiger have different conditions. Should they play the same ball ?
Actaully he in the end is opposed to the competition ball. But he notes that both Callaway and Nike have both supported the idea that something has to be done and that it probably has to be the ball.
His conclusion is that the USGA needs to lock the ball down, move it back to 1995 distances. As Tiger noted that this could be achieved without impacting the majority of amatuer golfers, it would involve controlling the spin (minimum) and the core engery transfer. This way a swing of a certain mph may max out the ball, all speed above that would in effect not add to the ball's distance. I don't know all the science involved, but it has been noted by mfg that the ball characteristics are not linear so it would be a matter to design a ball that would max out. Now mfgs could still create other balls for slower clubhead speeds but higher clubhead speed would gain nothing. The spin is a big factor in restricting distance, especially at higher clubhead speeds.
Now he does think that if the USGA doesn't make a move, expect Augusta to take the lead and the PGA will support them.
It is possible that mfg will all come to agreement and tell the USGA and PGA, back the ball down, but that is only after they can out how they can position themselves. I suspect Callaway and Nike are actively doing this, probably the other mfgs as well, none of the mfg want to see a competition ball come into play. After all how do you hype your product when the pro's play different equipment than is available to non-pro golfers.
I think it pretty much has to be a ball roll back at this point, to 1990 even, in performance if not in feel.
I'd add to that that grooves need to go back to V shaped. I was truly amazed watching how much the tour guys can spin it out of the deep rough. Hardly a penalty now because you can still control the spin.
Most/all courses are designed with certain driving distances in mind. If something isn't done to bring the average drive back in line with the designs, the true 'art' of playing the game is lost IMO.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
This is true. It's just one more thing that makes em want to bomb and gouge. (which is boring and less of an aquired skill in the true sense of aquiring skill in golf)
If you can BOMB it (cause- ball go far) AND you can still spin it from anywhere...........why would you care whether you are in some rough or in a bad spot/bad angle or not?
?
Linear Mode
