[Kevin_Reilly]

This what you were thinking?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[A_Clay_Man]

Geoff,

I don't disagree with the premise of the article, at all. Phil Blackmar has to be taught somehow.

On a side note,you asked this of Jason earlier...

Why build new courses when the current ones would work for the Tour players with a simple change in equipment?
Geoff

...Do you honestly fail to see all the positives that will come form the necessity to build newer courses?

First and foremost, your fellow architect's kids, need food on the table. Not to mention the construction guy, the maintenance guy, heck, even the cart guy, all will have gainful employment that never existed before.

IMO, the interesting part of the future expansion argument is the challenge to all of the architects, to intelligently over-come these flog issues, that additional length, and acerage, is not solving. If your universe is not expanding, its contracting, with implosion assured.

The Future of golf in the world will likely look nothing like the golf of today. Similar to the way golf has changed in the last 150 years, only on steriods.

[Jason Topp]

Last night on the Golf Channel Adam Scott and Stuart Cink indicated that they had altered strategy consistent with the premise of Geoff's article.  One of them played with Vijay Singh at the US Open last year in a round where Vijay only hit two fairways but shot 68 or 69.  Both of them held the view that if you are in the rough and 100 yards from the green, that is better than being in the fairway and much farther back.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jason,
You know how I feel about that train of thought.
However, it is really sad that they are allowed to even think that way...punishment for being off the fairway has to be restored to the game, otherwise shotmaking will truly dissapear from this great game.
Who really wants to see nothing but driver and wedge play every week on the tv..everyone playing the same way..it will alienate the viewers from the game, as they will not be able to relate at all.
That has always been the glory of the game, the fact that you can realte to what the worlds best are doing..that is leaving the table.

I think it is sad, I certainly cannot balme the pros..heck they are just finding the easeist way to make a living..but come on..lets start setting up the course a little harder.
IF they still shoot low numbers even better, but lets not make it ho hum to  have somebody shoot 63/64 every week

[JESII]

MWP

I feel defense at the green is the best way to defend this type of play. There is always going to be an advantage to coming into a green with a 9-iron as opposed to a 6-iron, but if Vijay etc... is not able to make his ball act predictably with that 9-iron he would be inclined to try for more accuracy of the tee to ensure the control only a fairway lie can produce.

One approach is to make, and keep, greens as firm as possible day in and day out so that when a tournament at any level is played there the superintendent is not asked to firm up the greens at the risk of losing them to dehydration. Our superintendent and greens committee went through this exercise several years ago and we know have the benefit of firm fast conditions every day that the weather permits.

Another possible approach would be to make architectural changes on and around the greensites. If the basic structure of the green remains intact but contours and terrain are altered enough to increase the real and visual difficulty of the green you can do so in a manner that enhances the advantage of a ball in the fairway.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JES
IF you read my previous threads on this topic, and they are all over this website, you will see you are preaching to the choir

I agree with all the way, firm greens and more intense rough is the only way to go...that combination is the great equaliser.
Everything you wrote, I have to agree with..we are both in the same corner on this issue.

[Dan_Callahan]

Why don't we see more greens slope from front to back? Is that concept universally despised?

I've played a few Ross holes with such greens, and there is a huge advantage playing out of the fairway and being able to spin the ball. Anything from the rough rolls straight through the green and off the back. I think the third hole at Shennecosset has such a green, and it is really tough.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Dan,
With those type of greens...and firm to boot...and more penal rough for the wayward tee shot...we may have something here...

[JESII]

MWP

I do not neccessarily feel high rough should be thought of as a method of defense. My belief is that a course should be altered as little as possible from its day-to-day when hosting any level event. I feel the greens should be faster and the fairways a little tighter, but other than that, as a member of the hosting course, I would want to see whomever is playing the event play the course I play. I feel the green site should provide enough of a challenge from playable rough.

I guess my whole premise is that I think it's a shame to go to the extent golf courses have done simply because of the fear that a top player might shoot really low scores.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I do not disagree with that..when I talk about deeper rough, I mean 25+ offline..nit the stuff just off the fairway..I just hate to see a tee shot that goes that far offline not punished..the shorter and straighter hitter has to gain an advantage somewhere.
Otherwise, again what is happening to the skill level so revered by the earlier architects

[JESII]

Understood and I agree 100%.

Good point in comparing some of their drives to what might happen at PV, absolutely correct.

[Sean_A]

MWP & JesII

Even if they grew rough 25 yards off line, wouldn't the fans just trample it down?  I have seen this several times at the Open.  If you are going to miss, really miss.

Ciao

Sean

[George Pazin]

Are that many top players really hitting it 25+ yards off the fairway? Seems like you're really penalizing us hacks just to nab the occasional stick that wanders off line.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

If the evidence from the last two days at Doral are anyhting to go by...then yes..the two guys who finished one and two each hit tee shot in excess of 25 yards from the fairway on 6 occasions  over the last two days.
And remember these guys finished one/ two

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Sean
I did not say the solution was easy

I am merely pointing out that I feel something is missing from the modern game.
Something that the likes of Flynn and Travis etc..would not like to see, the lessening of skill level to play the game at the highest levels...as far as driving is concerned..

Heck I dont know what the solution is..keep the fans further back perhaps, but of course that raises other problems

[Thomas_Brown]

Sorry Geoff, Michael Wharton-Palmer & I are on the same page.  I walked the course inside the ropes on Tuesday(when the course was drier).  All of the rough on the course was among the lowest levels I've ever seen for the *LA Open*.  The greens were a short side dream - I could have even chipped on them.

Tom

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II & MWP,

The problem with your theory is:

Will memberships accept those conditions on golf courses not designed for that type of play ?

Take any angled or shallow green.
If it is firm and fast how many members will be able to hold it, even with decent to good shots ?

The next issue is:
If greens were to go to the firm and fast route, would it result in alterations to the greens and their surrounds.
Would it cause the disfiguring of the architecture in the name of fairness.

View these questions, not in the context of your games, or the mindset of those on this site, but rather, in the context of the memberships that are entrusted with the care of their golf courses.

What must be identified as the culprit is unbridled length.
That's what needs to be fixed, not the greens or conditions.

Thomas Brown,

That's called ...... entertainment.

The viewing audience wants to see birdies and eagles.

Remember, most of televised golf occurs on the greens, where the ultimate score for the hole is determined.

[TEPaul]

JES11;

In your post #11 you asked GeoffShac;

"Geoff,
Could increasing defenses at the green help the situation?"

Geoff's point for quite some time now seems to have been that there are all kinds of things that could be done in attempts to defend these courses against these long hitting players and most of those things have already been tried. He just thinks it's silly to have to try all these other defenses when the simplest one would be to stop all these tour players from flying the ball around 300 yards be rolling the ball back.

You ask how rolling distance back could be done. The thing I think we all need to understand better is this distance increase has all been acheived basically within the 27 year old ODS rules and regs for THE BALL! I don't know that all that many actually understand or realize that.

When they begin to understand that then the way is pretty clear what to do about it. The regulatory bodies are just going to have to admit that their old ODS Rules and regs for the BALL did not intend for this to happen and that basically they were out-foxed technologically by the manufacturers. And so the thing to do is to write new ODS rules and regs for THE BALL.

Those new rules and regs could be something like "no ball hit at 125 MPH can fly farther than say 275 yards". Another possibility they're apparently thinking about is instituting another "reg" (which apparently would increase the limitations to six from five of those things about a golf ball that's regulated) that puts a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of a golf ball---something they've never done but there's no reason they couldn't do it.

If they did that it would apparently effect the flight characteristics of the golf ball and these guys would not get the carry distance they do today.

Doing either of those things, however, wouild effectively deem every golf ball on the market "non-conforming" but that's what it will take since they've been outfoxed WITHIN their OWN 27 year old ODS rules and regs for THE BALL.

What they'd do is propose these new ODS rules and regs for THE BALL in their "notice and comment" procedure, give the manufacturers something like 2-5 years to impliment balls that conform to the new rules and regs and at that point the new ODS rules and regs for THE BALL would be in effect.

But, again, the thing that has to be understood is this has happened without any manufacturer violating the USGA/R&A's 27 year old ODS rules and regs for THE BALL. That right there tells anyone the old ODS rules and regs were not what the USGA/R&A thought they were and they need to admit that and change them to make them actually accomplish what they want as an ODS for THE BALL.

Simple as that!  

But try telling that to these adverserial manufacturers today!  


Apparently the regulatory bodies can't tell the manufacturers they outfoxed them or the manufacturers might sue them for restraint of trade or defamation!  

And apparently, the regulatory bodies don't want to admit the manufacturers out-foxed them because they think they might look like idiots!  

So the best thing to do is to act like nothing's happened and to find all kinds of novel ways of defending golf courses against tour players who all fly the ball about 300 yards today!  

I think GoeffShac is just saying that the whole thing has gotten sort of silly---and someone should just realize that, pull the trigger and do something about excessive distance in the last ten or so years that's the result of a good old fashioned out-foxing!  

[JESII]

Tom Paul and Patrick Mucci,

All very good points, and you will get no argument from me as to whether or not "rolling back" modern equipment would greatly increase our (yours and mine) enjoyment of PGA Tour golf. There are a couple of things that are vital to this discussion:

1) Is there evidence that the governing bodies will do anything resembling these ODS modifications? I do not claim there is not, however if there is please note it.

2) Why would so many people be so concerned with how the Tour guys play a course? It was mentioned earlier in this thread by Michael Wharton Palmer:
"That has always been the glory of the game, the fact that you can realte to what the worlds best are doing..that is leaving the table."
I disagree with this statement, people have and always will marvel at what the top players can do, but I know of no instance where somebody became less interested in watching Tour events because of the rift between their game and the guy on TV. Do people stop running because their best 100 meter time is 14 seconds? Have people lost interest in any professional sport directly due to the difference between their own ability and the pros?

The PGA Tour plays the courses it does and sets them up the way they do for a reason, BIRDIES AND EAGLES AND 325 YARD DRIVES SELL!![/color] I can not claim an in depth knowledge of the Tour's policies and procedures, but I can relay this story as an example of their mindset towards scoring and "fairness". In 2000 Waynesborough Country Club hosted the SEI Pennsylvania Classic and I managed to Monday qualify into the event. The course had received a bit of rain in the days and weeks leading up, but nothing overwhelming and the course played very well. On Friday morning as I came to the first tee the starter told us we were playing the ball up today. I asked why, and his response was "we're expecting rain this afternoon and there is a chance the afternoon guys would need to play it up so we have to play the same rules for everyone".

3) Patrick asks about membership response to the maintenance practices and architectural modifications I would recommend as defenses to a golf course. I see this approach as an easier and more realistic possibility than the "banging our heads against the wall" with the USGA for equipment roll-backs being discussed by Tom Paul and many, many others. The USGA seems very determined to do what they think right and that is fine with me, in the meantime I think we can find other, more diplomatic methods that could find the same end.

Patrick,

To be clear, I am not recommending a blanket mainenance change for all golf courses, simply the courses that feel the need to lengthen their courses to protect against the Tour players. I have made my position on that clear, I think it's unfortunate that any club feels the need to modify their course, at the possible expense of its membership or customer base, simply to appeal to the forces that be in entertainment golf.[/color]

[Doug Siebert]

JES,

Re: "Birdies and eagles and 325 yard drives SELL!!"

Twenty years ago there were plenty of birdies and eagles being made.  Now it might not be too unusual to see several players eagle a 560 yard hole whereas in 1985 that easy hole might have been 520 yards, but the ball being longer doesn't necessarily lead to more eagles, especially when architects are compensating for the longer ball by making longer holes.

Let's assume you are right, and that fans (and chicks) dig the long ball.  But they surely aren't attached to a particular number.  If we all played with Nicklaus' Cayman balls today, an average golfer might not hit much further than 120 yards, a good tour player 150, and a long bomb would be 165.  The fans would shout "you da man!" at the guy who bombed it 165, because that would be longer than the other players and much longer than the fans themselves could ever dream of hitting it.

If they dropped the ODS the average golfer might be able to hit it 325, but tour players would be hitting it 400 and a long bomber would drive it 440.  If they did that, would we be unable to go back to where we are today because 440 yard drives were viewed as necessary for fan support of the tour?  And hell, if fan support is so wishy washy that making 300 a pretty damn long drive again like it once was caused ratings to drop, are they really fans, or are they just like people who watch NASCAR for the crashes and hockey for the fights?  Should the rules of golf take into account the TV ratings so we can increase the purse sizes just a bit more for pros in case their million dollar paychecks just aren't enough to keep them motivated to show up to work?

I agree 100% with TEPaul on this.  The reason we are in a pickle as far as players not caring about accuracy off the tee anymore isn't because greens are somehow softer than they were 20 years ago.  I don't buy that for a second (not that it might not be better if they were firmer, but that's a separate issue)  Its because back in the day, a good tour drive had a low trajectory and rolled quite a bit.  So going in the rough cost you 30-40 yards, whereas now they hit it very high and get so little roll even landing in the super tight fairways of today that there is very little difference in distance between two equally square hits where one lands in the fairway and one lands in the rough.  Bring back the old trajectory via controlling the spin rate.  This will also have the nice side effect that you can again work the ball, and the wind once again really means something off the tee.  Then even if we decided to allow drives to go the same total distance as they do today, having 40 yards of it be roll instead of 4 yards would mean pros would really have some incentive to want to end up in the short grass, and accurate driving would be rewarded, not just long driving.

Really, as it is today, I think you could mow the fairways 1' wide and you'd still have guys shooting in the 60s, because they'd be hitting wedges at the greens.  Try that with a 260 yard carry with no roll on a 460 yard hole and that 200 yarder from the rough suddenly brings bogey into play instead of thinking "birdie, or at worst, par."

[Pat_Mucci]

JES II,

I wish you could have attended my architectural GCA.com get together last year at Baltusrol.

I don't think I would be overstating the response from the audience by defining it as one of shock, when they heard how Baltusrol was going to be altered in preparation for the PGA.

When members of other clubs see how Baltusrol is altering their golf course, they take home with them the need to mimic, and that need to mimic results in the alteration or disfiguration of their home course, and thus, the cycle is complete.  The damage done.

You'd be surprised at suggestions at green committee and board meetings from members who have been "exposed" to changes at what are deemed, "championship" golf courses.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
You couldn't have said it any better.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Post #44 is a very fine one. I'll tell you right now it's great having you on this website as you certainly aren't hesitant to question what sometimes seems to be a "party-line" on here. Not to say that you appear to be a devil's advocate only that you do question some of the logic and assumptions on here and that's a very good thing. I don't even see you necessarily disagreeing with some of the conclusions just how some seem to reach them. There are a number on here who seem to suggest the sky is falling in golf and architecture. Is that really the case? Maybe so, maybe not, but I like the way you respond to keep the discussion about it on here intelligent.

What I don't like to see on here is the way some seem to suggest they know what the only answer is for golf and architecture, who seem to imply they "get it" and the rest of the golfing public, the fans, club memberships etc don't. One of these days some of those on here with that attitude are going to say that some of those in golf and architecture (who don't agree with them) don't even understand what they like or have no right to their opinion. Of course that's ridiculous and gets none of us anywhere.

To be effective on here we all do have to deal in the real world and that's dealing with plenty of people who may not share our opinions. I think you do that very intelligently.

Keep asking some of those on here how and why they're arriving at their assumptions and opinions---it's healthy for an intelligent discussion.

I don't like using the phrase "get it" but I do know what's meant by it on here. For those of you who do use it I can guarantee you Jim Sullivan Jr "gets it". He's a fairly young man but he's seen all this from more perspectives than most of us have. Growing up in and around HVGC is a helluva head start in "getting it"----that's for sure!  

[TEPaul]

JESII asked;

"1) Is there evidence that the governing bodies will do anything resembling these ODS modifications? I do not claim there is not, however if there is please note it."

Jim:

I assume you mean by 'will they do anything resembling these ODS modifications?' that you mean an actual distance rollback. That is surely hard to say, not the least reason being the USGA is certainly holding their future plans on I&B rules and regs close to their vest right now.

Obviously that both angers and frustrates some people. Personally, I think I know why they are doing it this way right now. Some seem to think and also to propose that they sort of just go for it right now---in effect just use the NIKE slogan "Just Do it". I guess they could do that but to be honest it really isn't quite that simple---although anything is possible, I guess.  

My sense is that they really aren't looking at a distance rollback right now---but what they are looking at, and have sort of said so, is how to hold distance pretty much right where it is now. Some certainly think that's not going to be possible given the evolution of distance increases we've already seen in the last 100 years. But that seems to be what they're looking at. One sort of needs to read the new testing procedures, particularly be aware of this recent $10 mil ball research study going on right now as well as their "USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles" that can be found on the USGA website. When one reads all that carefully it may be possible to detect a positioning or even a future course of action. Problem is they don't seem to be explaining very well right now what they mean with all this recent effort contained in those few things mentioned above.

For those who are proposing something like a "competition ball" though, I'm not sure I'd count on that from the USGA/R&A any time soon. The reason why can be found about 3/4 of the way down in that "USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles" that firmly states they are committed to a unified set of I&B rules and regs for all---just as it's always been---and that includes the golf ball.

However, if some entity such as ANGC and their Masters Tournament actually decided to require something like a "competition ball" for their own tournament, there really isn't anything the USGA/R&A could do to stop them---not legislatively anyway---and I doubt they'd even try. They might even welcome it! The reason why is sublimely simple---eg ANGC would not be calling for anything "non conforming" under the USGA/R&A ODS rules and regs. The only possible thing that might concern the USGA with something like that is a small item to most of us but not to them. That is if ANGC did that the USGA/R&A would have to legislate a "local" rule within the Rules of Golf to provide for that under Rule 33. As of now if a tournament committee actually required their competitors to play with a "dialed down distance" ball there's no provision under the rules of golf presently to provide for that, and so technically the Masters would not be played under the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()