Conference 7.286::golf

    	I think this is an absolutely ludicrous idea.  After all, not
    all major league baseball players have to use the same weight and
    length bat.  All players, including Nicklaus and Norman, have the
    same selection of clubs and balls to play, as any other touring
    pro does.  Noone has an unfair advantage.  Just because Calcavecchia
    uses square grooved clubs, doesn't give him any advantage over any
    other pro, if they too, use square grooved clubs.  Because Norman
    or Nicklaus choose not to use these clubs, is no ones fault but
    their own.  And balls are the same too.  I would bet that over 90%
    of the touring pros play either Titliest or the balata covered Maxfli
    ball.  And none of them are so poor, that they can't afford whatever
    everyone else is playing. 
    
    Beak

    I wonder if Nicklaus played with the same type of clubs and ball
    as all the other pros when he first came on the tour? I DON'T THINK
    SO!!! What a bunch of baloney. Nicklaus is too old to be competitive
    on the tour anymore and Norman is turning into his rejuvenated clone!!
    I feel that the biggest problem on the tour now is  the all-exempt
    list. Cut the exemptions down to 75 and make the rest of the field
    qualify every week, I think the level of play would improve as more
    players had to scramble for a living. Also, about Mark Calcaveccia,
    I thought that he had quit using square groove clubs so that there
    would no longer be any question about his ability. He sure impressed
    Jack at the Doral Open!!
    
    THE MAD HACKER
    

    
    
    RE 581.0
    
    Could you afford to change your clubs and balls every year if this
    idea was implemented ???
    
    
    Hass...

    I see that there is only one reason why any group wishes to restrict
    the abilities/technoligy of golf. That being that the technoligy
    of gold(design,airodynamics,length,accuracy) are growing faster
    than then golf courses. By this I mean that the golf courses don't
    change,get longer ect, but the ball travels further and more
    accurately.
    
    I say develop a set of criteria ,length,weight,grooves measurement
    and then allow the design guys the ability to design under these
    restrictions and see what they come up with. Nuture will take it';s
    course and dominant designs will rise to the top of the hill. Take
    balls. Most pro's play the titelist. Not because it's the longest
    ball,It isn't but rather it provides them with sufficient length
    to get around the course yet is superior in biting ability.Same
    thing with square grooves. I don't give a dam what shape the grooves
    are. If they fit into the design restrictions as layed out and they
    are better then great they are better. Lets play golf. All
    this pissing and moaning about this or that club,ball,shoe etc stemms
    only from one players/organizations attempts to gain an advantage.
    It's all bull.Everyone puts their pant on the same way. Let them
    put the best club/ball etc into their hands and go play. 
    	I don't think there will veery be a superstar again. There are
    to many good players these days.
    
    
    
    Tom

    What about holding a tournament where all the players use the same
    type of balls and clubs.  After all, they do it in auto racing.
    
                                                    Dean

    I don't see anything wrong with stepping back and reexamining
    sports equipment from time to time, especially with evolving
    technology. I disagree that "it's all bull." I don't think
    the pros need to dig for trivial matters that will give them
    some sort of advantage over golfers who can only make it to
    the professional tour because they have good equipment.
    Rather I think raising these issues is simply a matter of
    making the sport as competitive as it can be. I don't 
    necessarily agree with one club, one ball, but I think
    the equipment used should conform to a certain set of standards.
    I don't know a whole lot about what makes certain equipment
    (that is) what gives golfers an edge by using certain
    equipment, so I won't comment any further on the standards.
    I take it on faith that the professionals know what they
    are talking about.
    
    And as far as not ever seeing great golfers again, that's
    absurd! Never is a long time. No one can predict that a
    body won't be born into this world that has special talents.
    
    Not_ruling_anything_out

    Actually there is an organization (2) who's stated aim is to make the
    players ability and not technology the determing factor in winning.
    The USGA and the R&A test equipment and determine if they adhere to the 
    rules of golf.  Clubs and balls have guidelines to which they must
    adhere if they are to be accepted by the USGA.  In this sense the
    playing field is level.  Players do have the option to choose equipment 
    that has differing behaviors (within the guidelines) that is suited to 
    their game.  Pehaps Norman et al should push to tighten up the
    standards instead of eliminating clubs and balls.
    
    As for the tour.  These guys are trying to make a living.  If they can
    find equipment that helps their game and is within the rules, then they
    should be able to use it.  I don't believe that equipment is the root
    cause of not having anymore superstars.  Rising to the top takes
    nautral ability, hard work and desire.  It seems that that is missing
    in the players I see on the tube today.  Hal Sutton was supposed to be
    the next Nicklaus.  Yeah  right!  He may be rich and have spent all his
    time working but he doesn't have the ability.  Those that do have the 
    ability can make a VERY comfortable living without all the work.  Going 
    back to the rabbit tour and smaller prizes (read more of the loot to
    charity) would go a long way making the cream rise to the top.
    
    
    
    						KO

    RE: .0
    
    Right off, I don't agree with the one club, one ball scenario, however
    I think that your concept about no more super players is incorrect.
    Make everyone play with the same club and same ball and you would
    surely see who the good ball strikers truly are.  Right now, is
    it the clubs and balls, or is it the golfer?????
    
    Tom
    

    
    Having the same club and ball isn't going to accomplish what I think
    they want. They only way it will work is for every player have the
    same length club, which is impossible.
    
    However I would like to see maybe ONE turnement where they use the
    same club & ball. It would be interesting.
    
    Off the subject a little.
    About a year ago around olympic time, US News had an article about
    technoligy in sports. How companies are making Tennis equipment
    better, and Golf Balls & clubs. They also talked about where in
    one sport technoligy went too far - The Javalin (? on spelling Throw. 
    Someone had invented a new Javalin that was so airodynamic the
    athletes were throwing them across the field into the stands.
    
    Mike

    	RE. -1
    
    	Sounds like someone should train the unemployed to be javelin
    catchers. 8^)

    re: 581.10
    
    Mega sick Republican/Conservative d**k-head.
    
    P'haps you'd like to conduct a feasibility study, starting with
    a few demonstrations by yourself ?

    
    OK, ok, so you'll say it's a :-). Oh yeah ???

    getting back on subject after.10 and .12......
    
    
    I said that there wouldn't be any superstars because the training
    for those younger players is so good these days. A superstar to
    me is someone who dominates and wins 6,7,10 tournaments a year.
    
    I just don't see that happening. But I'll agree that forever is a
    long time...
    
    
    I agree that the different clubs,balls,swings add to the game.
    
    
    One interesting point I'd like to make is that the long putter is
    really catching on on the seniors tour. It looked like many/half
    those playing hard that tall stick in their bags. Putting with that
    is definately mechanically different than with the shorter putter.
    I wonder in this would help a guy like Langer or is this putter
    illegal for the Pro tour? I kind of remember something about club
    length being mentioned in the rules but what club(s) I forget.Anyone
    have any info on this?
    
    
    Tom

    Re:< Note 581.12 by WOTVAX::SMITHCO "Live and Dangerous" >
    
    I agree that .10 was of very poor taste and not a joke,  but  I think
    by responding in such manner you make things worse.
    
    RE: All other responses
    
    We are too individualistic  to  let  an  organization tell us what to
    choose for ball and club,  nevertheless, and repeating my comments in
    the base note, the field may  be  TOO levelled  by the game improving
    qualities of some  clubs  and  balls.   I for one, can attest to many
    times that I have been surprised when I hit the ball way with the toe
    of  my  perimeter  weighted club and the  club  turns  in  my  hands,
    nevertheless the ball goes out more or less  straight  and  with some
    distance.  That will never happen with a blade club!
    
    I understand that Norman sounds like a crying baby, so the suggestion
    of only one tournament with that kind of rule will be a great idea.
    
    Tavo

    you hear the same "bull" at most clubs and I've come up with a standard
    answer that also applies to the pro's as far as I'm concerned.....
    
    my answer to all this equipment bull: 
    
    	"but they still have to hit the shots and manage their way around
    the course"....
    
    in hogan's day,in nicklaus day, and today every guy out there can
    play the game, the better ones are shotmakers but what made Hogan
    and Nicklaus/Snead/etc. superstars was they knew how to manage their
    way around a course and win even when they were having a bad day.
    Today they plant a kid on the practice range when he gets to college
    and he hits balls for four years,plays some college golf and graduates
    with a degree then joins the pro tour...but they don't teach the
    things that made hogan/nicklaus/etc. great players
    
    bottom line: equipment may be better but so are the players, if
    someone was getting an edge they'd win everything in sight and noone
    is....leave the game as it is sooner or later someone will come
    alone that will be as good as the superstars of years gone by....
    it always happens....just a matter of time....

    re .12
    
    	Normally I don't reply to assinine rubuttals, but yours is one
    of best I've seen in some time. We got up on the wrong side of
    the bed today, didn't we? From now on, I'll make sure I put 17
    smileys following tongue-in-cheek comments. Okay? I take it you're
    not a Louis Anderson fan, or I take it you've never heard or seen
    his routine about his Olympic participation. 
    8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)8^)
    

    We may not have "superstars" who win everything they enter, but
    there are certainly plenty of "Great" players around today who perform
    consistently well in the big ones. Just look at the Masters. Faldo,
    Ballesteros, Norman, Crenshaw were all there. Look at the other
    majors and you'd maybe be surprised that the same names keep appearing.
    Others I'd include : Lyle, Strange, Langer (when fit again), Woosnam
    (soon). Maybe not so many are US anymore, but there are still the
    big names who perform for the big ones.
    
    Paul
    

      My own feeling as to why there are no superstars on the tour today
    is because of the mental aspect of the game. The players are better
    than before but there are more of them. Years ago, you might have had
    only 5 top line players where today there are 20-30. The chances of 
    winning are less. 
     But, more importantly, the tour players of today are more concerned
    with money than wins. Is this bad ? I'm not sure. Every time the media
    interviews a player said player always equates a good year with how
    much money he earned. You can make alot of dollars if you finished,
    in say the top 20 money winners. 
     A real star will appear again when a golfer values winning tournaments
    more than the amount of money earned. I certainly don't mean to be
    critical of the tour players, since they are only operating within
    the current system. Hey, if it were me, I might be happy earning
    250K per year and never winning. But then again, wouldn't it be great
    to beat some of the records set by Jack or Sam.
    
    
    
                   Ken--
    

    Re .13
    
    Tom,
        As regards those long putters, I was watching a recording of
    the Jersey Open, a European Tour event, played a couple of weekends
    ago, and saw Sam Torrance (Scotland) of Ryder Cup fame, using one.
    Certainly looked strange.  It seemed to be made by sticking the
    top half of a shaft into the top of the grip of a normal putter.
    When addressing the ball he seemed to tuck the top of the "putter"
    under his chin, put one hand down the shaft, and grip the top of
    the club with his other hand, which had the effect of jutting out
    the elbow on this arm.  He managed to sink a few putts okay, but
    I was delighted to see a Galway man, Christy O'Connor Jnr., come
    out on top at the end of the event.
    
    Obviously this club is okay under the rules of the European Tour,
    which are surely in line with the rules of the R.& A.  Maybe it
    did come within the legal length limit, but just looked very long
    next to Sam, who would hardly threaten the place of anyone in the
    NBA.  I wonder whether he would use this club in measuring out 
    two club lengths, when getting relief from a hazard ????
    
    Aidan. (Who_finds_it_difficult_enough_to_manage_a_normal_sized_putter.)

    	re.18
    
    	I think you made a good point about many of the players being
    more interested in winning money rather than tournaments. This is
    typified during the week of the British Open, when many players
    stay home to compete in the Hardees tournament rather than the open.
    There is less money in the Hardees than the open, but the players
    feel they can win MORE money by staying home and finishing higher
    in the Hardees, than going for the prestige of the British Open.

    
Re: .18

>      I wonder whether he would use this club in measuring out 
>    two club lengths, when getting relief from a hazard ????
    
	Yes, definitely, but I bet he wouldn't use it to measure the
	one club length distance for checking to see if anything he
	moved had caused his ball to move ;-)

	I can put fairly well with any type of putter you put into
	my hands but those clubs with the mile long shaft are just too
	weird for me!  I guess you have to be a serious head case
	before a putter like that looks attractive for anything but
	measuring relief!

	Larry

    	The long putters are definitely showing up more and more on
    the Senior tour. What struck me as odd last year during the Senior's
    Classic at Nashawtuc was the putting system of J.C Goosie, who I
    scored for in one round. For putts greater than 3 feet, he used
    a regular putter with the regular stance. Less than 3 feet and he
    used a different putter, Ping Zing I think, but lined up side-saddle
    as you would with the long handled putter. I don't see the reasoning,
    unless he's practicing to make the switch?

    	I'll say one thing about the loooonnnnggggg putters, they probably
    are a blessing to those golfers who have back problems!!!  Not having
    to bend at all using one of those must feel better.  
    
    Beak

>    	The long putters are definitely showing up more and more on
>    the Senior tour. 

As someone with a bad back, I think I know why these putters are 
becoming so popular on the senior tour: you can stand virtually 
upright while putting. The problem isn't so much putting during the 
round, but practicing. If you practice putting for hours at a time, as 
these pros usually do, it can KILL your back to hunch over a standard 
length putter.

>    I don't see the reasoning,
    unless he's practicing to make the switch?

I think I understand this one, too. I used to have the same routine. I 
putted in the traditional way for long putts because I felt more 
confident that would hit the putt with the right touch--that I'd get 
the speed right. I switched to side-saddle for short putts because I 
felt like I could see the line better during the stroke and because I 
had the tendency to yip those little suckers. It's almost impossible 
to yip sidesaddle. The only reason I gave up the practice was vanity. 
My playing partners razzed me unmercifully--which put even more 
pressure on those little putts.

As for the base note...I thinks that equipment standards should be 
tight enough to maintain the integrity of the game and the courses 
upon which it's played; i.e., let the USGA and R&A continue to protect 
the game. That's a pretty loosy-goosy philosophy, I admit, but it lets 
the game evolve with the times. Golf isn't a museum, it's a sport.

    I'm pretty sure that the origin of the long putter was for some
    pro who had a bad leg and couldn't bend down to use a normal
    putter. Placing one's hand under one's chin and then the butt end
    of the club would promote keeping your head still. The movement
    of the putter only happens with movement of the right arm.
    
    
    
    Tom