[Jason Topp]

Thanks for everyone's thoughts.  With respect to my "Myth 3 - that increased distance is increasing the cost for building courses" I would be interested in the experience of those with some knowledge on the topic -- have the number of acres necessary for building a golf course, on average, gone up in the last 20-25 years?  As a percentage, has that increase made more of a contribution to the increased cost of golf than increased maintenence costs?  Has it had more of an impact than increased construction costs associated with more extensive earth moving?  Has it had as much of an impact as simple changes in the golf course market (the move towards more expensive daily fee courses?).

[ian]

Jason,

When I started in the 80's, we recomended a client had a minimum of 150 acres for golf, clubhouse and range. We now recommend approximately 180-200 acres, mainly due to the width between holes required for safety. It was 60 metres when I started and now we use 90 metres between holes. This is due partially to our own sfaety margin increasing with additional experiences, but mainly due to technology expanding the envolope dramatically.

You could argue that 30-40 acres have been added, including 20 additional acres of maintained turf, in the last 20 years. This is primarily due to technology.

[John Kirk]

I'm going to offer my detailed opinion, despite my belief it's not very interesting.

Increased distance has not ruined the game for me.  My obsession just continues to grow.  I'm a pretty good player, and the improved equipment is a major reason my handicap has improved from the 3-7 range to the 1-3 range in the last 8-10 years.

We generally play my home course from the 6500 yard blue tees.  Some of my more sporting friends are finding the championship tees at 7000 yards yield a better balance of golf shots.  Some courses do a better job than my home course at giving the player a chance to hit every club in the bag, even at limited length.  Pasatiempo comes to mind.

I don't think the increased distance (and accuracy) ruins the game for the vast majority of players.  We can all just move back one set of tees every decade or so.  That means I can continue to play the back tees until I'm 70.

Professional golf on TV is getting pretty boring though.  Although I don't love Whistling Straits, I thought it provided a well rounded test for the PGA golfers.

I'd enjoy hearing some of the outstanding players in the GCA group, like Michael Wharton-Palmer and JSlonis, offer their opinion of whether the game is less interesting to them these days.

[Ted Kramer]

I just watched Hogan vs. Snead at Pine Valley (Shell's WWOG).

I think that match was in Houston, unless you meant the Byron Nelson-Gene Littler match at PV.

You are right.
That match was in Houston, I got them confused.
I had watched the Nelson v. Litller match with some guys from my club over the weekend and watched the Hogan match afer 24 on Monday . . .
If you guys like to watch old matches, these two are excellent, and they are available on www.shellgolf.com
Thanks.
-Ted

[A_Clay_Man]

 I have not seen hard evidence of length harming the game.  Loads of conjecture and opinion, but no beef.  

Sean, I don't meant to pick on you, I have not read the entire thread, yet.

BUT, Ben Dewar and I had a wonderful back and forth on the Comp Ball issue. One aspect he was able to convince me of was that the lengthening of a course like Torrey Pines south, and the associated increase in costs to maintain the newer version, were detrimental to the future of golf.

No longer will a kid, who has been able to save a few bucks,  decide to spend it on a green fee.  It's going to take alot for him to go out of the house, leave his XBox, and plunk down hard earned bling for the chance to soak up the sport.

The hysterical part of the reality is that courses which have zero to none chance of ever hosting an elite event, have gone on to disfigured their golf courses. And propbably more than once. (Ivanhoe CC in suburban Chicago, for i.e.)

No one would disfigure the Mona Lisa, and it's value is likely priceless. Yet, these well intentioned committees actually come to the conclusion that what they have for a golf course is not art.

Appreciating gca as an artform is the win win.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JM
It is not less interesting for me as a player, because I do not hit it far enough to benefit from all the high tech stuff.
I can honestly say that I do not hit it any further now than I did 10 years ago, and I am in better shape now than then..you know all that high clubhead speed/ball compression stuff..so my ball speed is insufficient to benefit.....
However, I watch much less golf on TV because it is less interesting.

The week in week out course on the PGA Tour is not what I want to look at , and the booming drives followed by wegdes does not excite me..if I can't realte to it, it makes it less enjoyable.
The obvious exception being I am glued to the majors......well maybe not the USPGA!!

[Jari Rasinkangas]

Michael,

I find it quite strange that you don't hit it further than 10 years ago.  

I hit the ball much further than 10 years ago and I have never exercised or practiced so little as last 2-3 years.  I hit it further than 3 years ago.  Last summer I played maybe once per week and practiced hardly at all.  I have never been very long hitter but not short one either.

My driver is a steel headed Taylor Made Burner from late 90's so it isn't the latest stuff either.  It must be the ProV's that are going further all the time.

On our second hole par 5 there is a pond on the inside of the dogleg.  When our course was opened in 1992 I tried to go over it only with downwind.  Now it is always easy drive even with headwind.

Jari

[Jari Rasinkangas]

The post "Greg Norman comments on shotmaking (or lake thereof) and today's clubs" describes quite well where we are today.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=16615

"Last week he struck a drive some 356 yards and was so thrilled with the strike that he paced out the distance himself. Once he could manoeuvre a ball some 60 feet right to left but now the most he can budge the ball in flight is about 10 feet."

In addition to longer drives they are also straighter!

"Norman is using a driver with which he finds it almost impossible not to get a good result. We'll let him explain: "Because of technology my dispersion pattern is down to about 3 per cent to 7 per cent mis-hit. If I hit it out on the toe or the heel by three-quarters of an inch, which I don't do too often, I only lose between 3 to 7 per cent off the shot. Over 300 yards that's not much.

"I know with my old persimmon driver, if I mis-hit it that much I'd lose 25 to 30 per cent. I would say mis-hit shots are rewarded a lot more than they were 25 years ago, no question about it. You probably use perimeter-weighted irons. Take out an old set of forged irons you used 25 years ago and mis-hit it and you'll feel a huge difference and you'll see a huge difference."

Do we need 10 yards wide fairways?

"Technology is also the reason Ernie Els thinks Tiger Woods will never be such a dominant player again. Science has made it very difficult for one player to be substantially better than another. The best players are all squashed together."

It seems that the time when there were few dominant players is over.  Who wants to look at putting contests?

What about then if in 2010 we have 400 yard drives?  You never know what the science lab discovers next.

There is also another danger when the distance is getting too important in the game.  If you can't hit as far as the big guys you may get tempted to use doping.  Does PGA Tour have any tests?

Jari

[Sean_A]

Ah Adam, no harm no foul.

I would dispute the need for maintenance on many parts of a golf course.  I also think parts that are necessary to maintain are over done.  I understand that it may look pretty, but is it necessary?

When I was back in Detroit this past fall, I could not believe the condition of courses.  It was great to play, but unrealistic prices for a once a week player.  I certainly prefer the cheap and cheerful approach for an everyday course if I have to pay!

Ciao

Sean

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Jason,

I see more land being required because of the amount of land that is not usable due to some governmental agency having jurisdiction over the land, ie wetlands, steep slopes, buffer setbacks, woodland protection etc.  The increase in the overall land development costs may be attributable to the additional land needed for a golf course in order to avoid the arduous permitting within jurisdictional areas. The increase in costs of construction may be attributable to difficult site conditions like rock, steep slopes, and erosion and sedimentation control measures.  The increase in green fees is linked to these, however one course I did would have been a good business at $45 green fees, but the market allowed the owner to price green fees at $85 so the increased green fees was due more to market conditions.  

Having said all of that given the land you may be given if you can only achieve a 6200 yard course on it that is all you will get regardless of club technology.  This summer I start constrcution on such a course and I see it as a tremendous opportunity to dig deep and grind out a creative design in the field that takes advantage of such a short course.  And I am very confident there are plenty of people that will enjoy a 6200 yard course.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()