DMoriarty writes:
If I recall correctly, when it comes to walking, you are concerned for the greater good of the game, and think that the rampant use of carts is damaging golf architecture. Yet, when you discuss length and technology, you don't ever seem to consider the threat that ever increasing length poses to past and present architecture.I don't see the connection. I've also never said that their needs to be some sort of Draconian rules change to deal with the cart-ball problem. I think it is in the process of taking care of itself.
One of the things I'd like to see is a more distinct separation between the pro game and all the rest. I keep hearing that it is important we keep one set of rules, but I've never heard a convincing reason why. I hear a lot of wannabe pros who like to compare themselves to their heroes, but other sports have handled the separation fine with no loss of fan interest.
The need for length is fictitious. It is a very small percentage of golfers who have outgrown most courses. From what I've seen it is much less than .01 percent of golfers who are hitting the ball out there more than 280 yards.
If I want to build a recreational baseball park I have no reason to worry about Barry Bonds or Randy Johnson. If either were to ever stop by and play they are going to demolish the park. I can live with that.
There are numerous easier, cheaper methods to fix the pro game. I'm amazed that so many people are obsessed with the ball with no consideration for other fixes.
The people on this group pushing for a reduced-distance ball haven't done any studies or made any attempt to get any information beyond the anecdotal. I challenged people concerned about the ball to go out to any course and count how many people are hitting it past 280 yards. Nobody has made any attempt to gather numbers. Supposedly there is this huge problem with people now so long that courses have lost their challenge, but yet there is no data to back it up.
But, unfortunately, very few architects, developers, and greens committees are building or renovating courses with you or me in mind. They are building tracks that they hope will be "championship" courses to challenge, in theory, the best of the best.And with the economy now in the toilet, there is a damn good chance they are going to go under along with the cart-ball courses. It's Darwinism at work. There have been a lot of stupid ideas in golf over the years, luckily the USGA and R&A haven't had knee-jerk rules changes every time someone comes up with a new stupid idea.
I wish I was a master of quotes like you, so I could pull up a certain MacKenzie quote from Spirit of St. Andrews.See below quote.
While discussing how increasing technology and distance were damaging the gameDuring Mackenzie's life time there were no ball restrictions. Now there is. Mackenzie's wish came true. Yet we are playing rounds that are taking a heck of a lot longer than three hours.
Doug Siebert writes:
Whether the average player on tour today has more clubhead speed is irrelevant to Pohl's point that some of the SAME GUYS that couldn't reach that hole in the 80s are doing it today.If there swings changed, why would it be irrelevant? The PGA Tour® has made their course setup much more consistent since the 80s. Players can swing away with little or no fear. They get consistent rough and consistent sand in the hazards. They have wedges that can bail them out of any sort of
trouble they might get into. Pros used to lay up to specific distances, now they can swing away and choose from one of their four wedges.
Instead of taking their 85% swing most of the time, maybe they can take their 90% swing now and hit the same number of fairways.And if they don't hit the fairways and greens, it's no big deal. The rough and hazards are identical every weekend. If the hazards are reduced and they have enough clubs to not have any distance issues, why would any pros now hold back?
If the concern is the pro game: make the course setup more inconsistent; reduce par; reduce the number of clubs they can use; be specific about lofts they are allowed to use. All of these solutions are cheaper and easier to implement than changing the golf ball.
I'm still wondering what would be so terrible about eliminating the concept of par-5s for the pros? Who is going to miss the second-shot lay up?
Dan King
"Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours."
--Alister MacKenzie