I agree, John.
This is very interesting.
John Solheim, like his father, is an engineer. That means he is a
problem solver. I think this is a good attempt to solve a real problem.
The difficulty is that the USGA and R&A tend to solve emotional
problems first, then real problems if there is time to work on it.
(Sorry guys, but you have been upholding the appearance of
"tradition" while giving away the store for the past decade and a
half; can't take you seriously any more.)
Personally, I think there are LOTS of pluses, and Solheim expresses
them very well, so I won't dwell further on them. Instead, let's look
at the minuses, the problems, his proposal introduces.
(1) Real: Every golfer will need three different sets of yardage
distances for their clubs. It's hard enough with just one. Before
thinking about how much of a problem this poses, we need to have a
concrete proposal on what the gold, silver, and bronze yardages are.
(2) Real: Testing. Is the USGA's "Overall Distance Standard" a
satisfactory test, and we merely change the threshold distance for
conformance? Or do we need a new test, as long as we're overhauling
the standard?
(3) Emotional: Solheim states, "This is not bifurcation," knowing
that bifurcation has in the past doomed reforms designed to limit
distance. What is "bifurcation"? It is having two different sets of
specifications, one for the tour pros (and, presumably, elite
amateurs) and the other for the 99% of golfers with lesser skills.
Bifurcation sounds like a great idea to me. So I was surprised when I
had a chance to discuss it with Alastair Cochran in 1998, during the
COR debate. Callaway had silently introduced spring-face drivers at
that time, and the discussion was whether to allow them, disallow
them, or allow them but prohibit them as a condition of play for tour
events and USGA or R&A championships. The second choice, disallow
them, would have been dicey since they were in the hands of hundreds
of thousands of paying customers by the time the rules breach was
discovered. The third choice is BIFURCATION. Cochran, then the
specifications chief for the R&A, said that a membership survey
showed overwhelming support for all golfers playing to the same rules
-- that is, a strong sentiment against bifurcation.
So is Solheim's proposal bifurcation? In spite of his protests to the
contrary, I believe it will end up so -- or perhaps even
trifurcation. (Yes, that's a word; I looked it up.) It is hard to
imagine everyday golfers using the bronze balls (the
short-distance-rated balls) on any but executive courses. But those
are the balls that the elite players will have to use on the sort of
courses that we play. Solheim may insist that bronze balls will be
used only to use older, classic courses for elite tournaments. But
those "older, classic courses" are still pretty long and difficult
for the 99%; they're just short for the pros. The courses where the
pros could use silver balls would be an absolute safari for the 99%.
If Solheim's proposal actually happens, my usual crowd, myself
included, will wind up buying gold balls (maximum distance), learning
our clubs with those balls, and never looking back. As I said, I
think bifurcation is a great idea. But the traditionalists still rule
the USGA and R&A. And I suspect they will see this as bifurcation and
nix it. I hope I'm wrong on that.
Cheers for Solheim.
DaveT
At 10:48 AM 12/20/2011, [email protected] wrote:
Thought this was interesting..
John
shoptalk
PHOENIX (December 19, 2011) - John Solheim, Chairman & CEO of PING,
is proposing that golf's rule making bodies consider a "Ball
Distance Rating" system (BDR) that would replace today's single golf
ball limit with three different ball distance limits - one that is
the same as today's standard, one that is shorter and one that is
longer. Solheim's "A Long Term Response to Distance" explains how
including a BDR system with a new "Condition of Competition" would
give professional events and golf courses an efficient way to
address future concerns about distance.
"A BDR Condition of Competition would create a simpler way to
control distance at the tour level - and keep the competitive design
of the world's great courses in play," said Solheim. "This concept
addresses the unique talents of the top 0.1% of the world's golfers
without hurting the other 99.9%." Solheim also noted that a key
aspect of the idea is to give players who would benefit from it the
option of using a longer ball, a choice many golfers may appreciate,
especially when taking on today's longer courses. "The distance
rating of the ball used would factor into handicaps, just like slope
rating or choice of tee box does today."
Solheim recently sent his BDR idea to golf's governing bodies, and
suggested it could be a positive factor in helping to sustain and
grow the game. "I appreciate the challenges faced by those who help
govern the game," said Solheim. "I am hopeful they give my idea
further consideration and use it as a starting point to address some
of the issues the game is facing. The positive impact golf has on so
many groups requires that we explore a variety of ideas to improve
the health of the sport. I hope others have suggestions to offer as well."
John Solheim's "Long Term Response to Distance" follows:
A Long Term Response to Distance
For as long as I can remember, golf has been challenged by concerns
over driving distance. Unfortunately, over the past dozen or so
years, many actions taken in response to that challenge have often
been short sighted, costly and/or controversial - such as altering
some of golf's most revered courses and adopting restrictive golf
club rules. Now, we learn average driving distance on the PGA Tour
just had another increase - it broke through 290 yards for the first
time (and with so many dynamic young golfers working toward a Tour
card, who knows where it will go from here). So, once again we are
hearing the question: "what, if anything, should be done about it?"
With so many other challenges facing the game, we need to be sure
any "distance discussions" focus on the long term - on solutions
that can quickly and easily respond to future increases in distance
(no matter the cause); on ideas that give professional events and
courses a tool that allows each to best address the distance
concerns unique to their venue; on proposals that recognize it is
far simpler to adjust the ball to the course, than to adjust the
course to the ball. Finally, we need a response that will resolve
this issue once and for all. To get this discussion rolling, here is
how I think we can do just that:
- Replace today's single golf ball distance limit with three
different "Ball Distance Ratings" (or "BDRs") - one that is the same
as today's limit, one that is shorter and one that is longer.
- Adopt a "BDR Condition of Competition" - each event could apply
the BDR appropriate for its course design and yardage, and for the
skill level of the golfers competing at the event.
- Include BDR as a factor in calculating handicaps - just as "slope
rating" or choice of tee box does today, the BDR of the ball you use
will factor into your handicap.
BDR golf balls should have similar flight characteristics as today's
ball (trajectory, spin rates, etc) with the only variable being
distance. Some details may be challenging, but I have no doubt the
USGA and the R&A are up to the task. With distance as the only
variable, an example of what could be done would be to adopt a color
code for the several BDRs (just like we do with tee boxes), perhaps
using "gold, silver and bronze". A "silver dot" rating could apply
to balls that conform to the current distance limits, a "gold dot"
rating to balls that are longer (perhaps 30 yards longer), and a
"bronze dot" rating for balls that are shorter than today's ball
limit (again, maybe 30 yards shorter). More BDR levels could be
added, if needed, to address future increases in driving distance by
Tour professionals.
If the game adopted a "BDR Condition of Competition", I believe the
vast majority of events would choose to allow the same balls (and
ball limit) used today. Most courses hosting professional tour
events were built with, or have added, sufficient length to
challenge the world's best golfers. Perhaps a small number of
tournaments, those played at some of the game's classic courses,
would find it exciting to put the original design elements of the
layout back in play by requiring shorter rated golf balls. These
events may even generate a lot of interest, and TV viewers. A key
point of this idea is that it puts control over those decisions with
the event itself. It also gives each venue a new "long term" option
for responding to future increases in driving distance - bring in
the bull dozers, or simply adopt a new BDR.
I recognize asking tour professionals to occasionally switch to a
different rated ball creates a new challenge. However, rising above
golf's toughest obstacles is what they do best. These skilled
athletes likely realize that imposing equipment limits on tens of
millions of amateurs - a group that is critical to golf's future -
is not the best way to resolve issues unique to competitions played
at the highest levels. I think the most talented professional
golfers in the world would be willing to switch to a shorter ball
once in awhile, if that would benefit the remaining 99.9% of us.
Giving amateurs the option of playing a new, longer rated, ball is
another key aspect of this idea. Many golfers find it very difficult
to play today's longer courses. Using a longer ball should make that
experience more enjoyable. It may even bring some ex-golfers back to
the course. Perhaps this idea could even reduce the time needed to
complete some rounds, a goal shared by everyone.
There will likely be occasions when amateurs tee it up with a
shorter rated ball. Some golfers may choose to do so when playing
some classic courses, ones that cannot add yardage, in order to
bring out the competitiveness of the original design. Others may
choose to do so because it has a positive impact on their handicap.
Some courses might even recommend using a shorter rated ball. Higher
handicap players may find it easier to play alongside more
experienced golfers - from the same tees - when using different
rated balls. Each of these choices gives some control over the
distance issue where it is needed most - with the golfer and the course.
This proposal could also help the USGA and the R&A. The handicap
system may benefit from adding "ball rating" as a factor. This
solution is also consistent with the Joint Statement of Principles
announced by the USGA and R&A in 2002: it provides an immediate and
an efficient way to address future increases in distance, and it is
not bifurcation - amateurs and professionals will still play to a
ball limit, just not necessarily the same one on the same course.
Adopting a few new ball distance ratings is basically the same as
adding a few more tee boxes - and adding tee boxes is not bifurcation.
In order to fully evaluate this idea, the constructive input of golf
ball manufacturers will be needed (PING currently does not sell or
manufacture golf balls, but we did for over 20 years). I realize
this suggestion presents challenges, but a BDR system brings with it
new opportunities as well. Adding new categories of "conforming"
golf balls should lead to exciting new ways for golf ball companies
to competitively innovate, and it could increase golf ball sales. If
it were as simple to develop a club rating system that included a
similar opportunity to innovate longer drivers, I know I would
welcome it. However, if golf once again chooses to address driving
distance, it needs a practical long term solution, and I believe a
BDR system would do the job.
All of us, including those in the manufacturing community, have a
responsibility to offer new ideas and appropriately work with the
rule making bodies to help improve the game It can be done, as
demonstrated by the positive results from the November 2010
Vancouver forum, and the solution PING provided in resolving the
Eye2 controversy on the PGA Tour in early 2010. I will continue to
do what I can, and I believe others will as well. The game has seen
many positive changes over its long history, changes that
appropriately recognize the relationship between the challenge and
the enjoyment of the game at all skill levels. I believe a BDR
system would provide a way to continue do just that - for a long time to come.
John A. Solheim
Chairman and CEO of PING
--
Thanks!
John Muir
skype: jhmuir
AIM: [email protected]
810.923.7396
http://clubmaker-online.com
http://gripscience.com
http://clubmaker.mobi
http://thedriverstudio.com
Golf equipment updates at http://twitter.com/golfcast
Facebook--
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clubmaker-Online/181867993392?v=wall&mid=20b6914G6046d421G0G66
sponsored by the new Aldila RIP BETA
http://www.clubmaker-online.com/products/aldila.rip.html
--
Shoptalk ** Sponsored by the new Aldila Voodoo.
Learn more at http://aldilavoodoo.com/
