Environmental Sustainability vis-a-vis Golf: Part I - The Ball & Clubs

Doesn't this title sound officious? Dusting off, sir, a failed joint disciplinary doctoral thesis in macro-economic horticulture for the leisure endeavors of an American upper middle class? I should be so lucky, but, nay. Let me explain.

For many years I've made a nice amount of money in the realm of packaging for food companies, so I come at environmental sustainability from a slightly different angle than the typical green-sided, but closet quasi-socialist (just kidding), bear. Unfortunately for Mother Nature, the integrity of the product for food beats out a myriad of sustainable alternatives for fear of potential tampering. Gone were the days of not wrapping food in polystyrene when, under my working watch, some expelled John Bircher dropped anti-most everything not white male (gays, abortionists, lovers of Keynesiasm, etc.) in some tasty frozen cobblers ensconced within cartons. Although firmly straddling the mental right field foul line, our tamperer had the wherewithal to bring a nicely sharpened blade to cut through the glue line and, thereby, slip in his missives of hate. As odious as the verbiage, my fear was that the wack-a-do could have inserted something more lethal. Polystyrene wrap went on all cobblers post haste.

To put more resin-based packaging in the world was regrettable and necessary, but not just from a CYA liability perspective. The environment is supreme, however not allowing an innocent to be hurt trumps the ole gal. That said, there are oceans of arenas where such concerns are not on the agenda, thankfully, and much pro-active work could be done. Most specifically is in the high holy sport, golf, and, particularly, the truly carbon-unfriendly current ball used to the bain of course architects, the average player (albeit unknowingly) and, arguably, the sport's continued cost sustainability. In just this example, a specification modification would spare the game a further downward drift in overall participation, lower maintenance expenses and position the sport at the vanguard of environmental sustainability.

Right now golf is as odiferous as spilt milk in terms of environmental sustainability. Not that it is any worse than most other professional sports. The ironic part of the story is tri-fold. First, unlike other athletic pastimes, spectators of this sport actually still play the game with regularity. Second, golf springs from the most bucolic of inspirations and has a natural lineage with, well, nature. Third, from its earliest stages the game was played in a very environmentally friendly manner which included its necessary implements of balls and the original technology of hickory-shafted plus steel-headed golf clubs.

That courses use pestcides and need vast amounts of carbon-unfriendly equipment for maintenance, will be addressed in a pro-active manner via subsequent posts. The implements of golf - ball & clubs - are the present focus. Lets skip consideration of how the top-knotted 'Featherie' evolved into today's multi-layer polyurethane construction, but, instead, start from a statement made by no less than Jack Nicklaus (seen at right slightly out of sync in his Rockette-inspired celebratory jig) suggesting the throttling back in the flight of the ball as the prime avenue for not prematurely obsolescing many of the finest existing courses. Why so?

Because the ball - along with the clubs & players conditioning - has so improved over the past twenty years, there is literally no room left on scores of the best courses to push back tees so that holes do not become mere pushovers for the game's long-hitters. Approach shots which called for a stiff four iron in Ben Hogan's day are now punch eights. Even the great Augusta National had to buy land from its downscale country club neighbor near Amen Corner just to scoot back one set of tees. Other facilities do not have such luxury due to space limitations and/or monetary considerations. What to do?

"Limit the damn ball!", is a current cri de coeur and one supported by more than just the afore-mentioned Golden Bear. Another tact would be scaling back the clubs. As referenced, the original hickory shafts were prime compost material and the steel heads wouldn't have survived Mao's 1957 Great Leap Forward for want of increased production numbers as they easily could have been re-smelted. True enough, but hickory shafts required, also, a different type of swing that has not been taught since Harry Truman still played Rummy with the remnants of the Pendergast gang. Returning to such - although done presently by some hardcore enthusiasts - might prove too much of a shock to the system in the short term. Nice idea, but not viable.

An environmentally friendly plus flight-limited ball, however, is a veritable - to mix sports metaphors - home-run for all concerned. Point A: Less distance does not mean necessarily a change in trajectory, but it does prevent a number of great courses from entering the endanged species list for continued high level play. Point B: Courses, to be considered PGA tournament worthy, would not now have to be stretched-out beyond 7000 yards. So what? The amount of yards you have, Mr. Club Manager, directly impacts your maintenance budget. Less space means you have to cut, seed, weed, spray, etc. well, less, and that saves mucho dinero in the long run. Point C: Just because professionals are obligated to play a flight-limited ball doesn't mean that amateurs have to throw-out their existing inventory. In fact, this move would be a huge sales bonanza for equipment companies as it would give them their first true line extension since balata went the way of knickers. Even hackers will buy a box or two of the new balls just to see their difference in play. I can easily imagine a world where the existing 'steroid balls' - as I'm sure they'll be known in the future - will still be bought, but their deliriterious impact vitiated through carbon credit surcharges tacked onto the price. Point D: The environment. Shorter courses mean less pesticides, fewer lawn tractor hours spewing exhaust to keep fairways cut and many carbon-unfriendly balls not not decomposing properly at the bottom of hazy ponds.

What would an environmentally friendly but flight-limited ball look like? I don't have the foggiest. It would conform to the rules of golf in weight plus dimension, most definitely. No doubt, also, it would have to be bio-degradable over some half-life considerably less than spent nuclear fuel rods. Hopefully it won't get cut too badly as the old spheres of yore, but somehow I think the equipment folks won't mind making more. Golf companies' ability to find a solution, I believe, is not an issue. My experience with the miracles of medical technological advances is limited to "The New York Times" business section admittedly, but it is still incredible what the similarly-schooled propeller heads of the golf world have done since I looped around moons ago with a set of Powerbilt persimmon woods. They'll figure it out, I'm sure. As well, I'd wager that there will be some bamboo and/or hemp in the new pellet because these two near-nirvana substances seem to have a positive benefit in most everything else one can wear, walk-on and/or sit-on. George Washington grew hemp in his pre-1776 days, so don't be surprised by a potential patriotic tie-in with, say, Gary McCord - in powdered wig + appropriate britches - spanking smartly one of these new beauties down a fairway in the obligatory TV commercial.

The trick to this modest proposal is that it must come pro-actively from the PGA, USGA and Royal & Ancient. There must be a firm implementation timeline; my suggestion is five years from the announcement. The rules for the new ball must be clear and a testing methodolgy for flight limitation plus biodegradability published concommitantly with news of the rule change. Golf always has purported always to hold itself to a higher standard. This is a chance to pour quick-crete around such presumptions.

Lets do it! Write Mr. Tim Finchem, PGA Commissioner, at his Florida office and support this modest proposal.