Did anyone read this today?

[James Cashmore]

The debate on distance and what it's doing to the game of golf has been discussed here many times already. Personally I feel there should be a standardized ball that just can't travel to these sorts of lengths.  If we don't do something soon, we're going to continue to lose the design intentions of many of our great courses.  Thoughts?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/01/22/sgrook22.xml&sSheet=/sport/2006/01/22/ixgolf.html

[Craig Sweet]

James, here's the thing, athletes in many sports are running faster, jumping higher, hitting harder, throwing farther, etc. etc....

But I don't see people clamoring to make chnages in THEIR playing field.  Nor do I see the rest of us that can't run a sub four minute mile, toss a javlin, jump hurdles or hit a golf ball, etc. etc. being impacted by the advances made by elite athletes.

Techology is a huge part of these advances and so is better nutrition, coaching, strength work, and the fact that good athletes have access to this at a far earlier age. This is now true for golf.

If a sportwriter feels the pro game is ruined by technology, then he should be clear that it is the PRO GAME that is having a problem. The "game" of golf is 95% guys hitting the ball 200 yards off the tee and no matter the advances in technology this isn't going to change the "game" to the point where they have to have diled back equipment and 8,000 yard courses.

[RSLivingston_III]

But don't contemporary peoples have to exercise just to get to the level of activity of peoples of 80-100 years ago? Is it fair to say people today are in better shape? And by how much? Documentation?
Have any athletes today tried to run with an in-era recreated shoe on cinder tracks to see how their times compare? I know the early era golf has not been recreated for a current pro golfer to try to experience.

[George Pazin]

Craig, the more you speak, the more convinced I am of the other side....

Other sports don't have 150 acres playing fields. Yet some do, in fact, take measures to constrain technology. Tennis has slowed down the ball at some events. Auto racing has instituted restrictions so that we see a race dependent on the skills of the driver at speeds that are not insane. Baseball lowered the mounds when pitchers threatened to take over the game. Football moved the kickers back 5 yards in an effort to restore excitement to the kicking game. The list is almost endless.

The pro game has an undeniable trickle down effect throughout golf. At least, undeniable by all but a few gca posters and manufacturing company CEOs.

[John Keenan]

George I fully agree.

Baseball is a good example metal bats are used from little league through college but not in the pros. Just guess how far a MLB hitter fould hit with an Eaton bat!!

[James Cashmore]

Craig; agree with you in most part - it's of course the pro game I'm mainly referring to and I'm sure the sports writer had that in mind as well.  But let's face reality, there are a growing number of old courses being changed today to suit the small minority of golfers who can 'bomb' it into the stratosphere  - tees are being pushed back, hazards are being altered, even greens are being redone just so that the challenge for the low marker is there.  I'm just not a massive fan of it, that's all.

I just came back from a  St Andrews Beach - Barbougle Dunes weekend (great tracks for anyone coming over to Australia with BD an absolute must see).  There were some making a mockery of Tom Doak's 13th at SAB.  At 457 metres, par 4, the hole is a brut (many hitting driver, driver, then wedge) - someone in our group of lads hit driver then 4 iron into a fairly decent wind to the back of the green.  That's getting silly.

[Craig Sweet]

So far everyone responding to my post is speaking about the elite athlete, not the vast majority of us that play church league softball, jog around the block, whack tennis balls at the park and shoot hoops in the over 40 league.

The rest of us, have aluminum bats, huge tennis rackets, nike shoes with giant springs, and a league rule, no one over 6ft....we STILL can't hit one out of the park, we're not going to win a marathon, even the best of us would get smoked by Serena, and we aren't dunking on anyone.

The technology is not going to turn any of us into Tiger Woods. But we might hit it straighter, maintain our 220 yard average a little longer,and play the game a little longer with more enjoyment.

[Craig Sweet]

James, I bet you could stand on the 13th all day and watch, and that "lad" might be the only one to hit driver...4 iron to the green.

And that is the problem. We see someone do something ridiculous and before long everyone is hitting it 300 yards.  Pat Mucci was talking about 57 year olds with 5-7 handicaps hitting it over 300 yards all the time....I'd like to see that.  

[Sean Walsh]

Craig,

I think most agree that the challenge for the average golfer is not diminished to any great extent by technology.  

However, as has been expressed by others they are not making changes to courses to accomodate my 220m drives.  The changes especially those regarding bunkers and the green are being made with the 300m drives in mind.  Pushing the tees back isn't such a problem, I don't have to go back and play from them.  Changes to other structural features of a hole is likely to effect me and in the main (unless done by an extremely competent architect at the direction of a wise committee) this will adversely effect my enjoyment of the game.

As your argument suggests, I'm not getting any better.. But as a result of the tinkering I either get a hole location I can't play to or a landing zone with no real challenge because the hazards are 50m out of my range and have been moved from where they better fit the landscape.

[Craig Sweet]

Sean, are "they" responding to a legitimate threat, or a perceived threat?

The number of golfers hitting the ball far enough to require golf course overhaul is very small. Interestingly, at my course we are moving the tees UP and shortening the course to speed up play and make the course more challenging for an aging population of golfers.

[Dan_Callahan]

Other sports are not obsessively wedded to the idea of a single standard set of rules for all participants. We have debated this topic here before, but until the USGA recognizes that pro golfers are playing a sport that looks nothing like that which 95% of the rest of us play, we will continue to pull out our hair looking for a solution.

There is no need to dial back the ball and clubface for people like me. New technology makes the game more enjoyable for many of us who don't have the time to practice like Vijay. Pro golfers, on the other hand, are pushing technology to the extreme, resulting in a transformation of the way golf is being played at the high end. The average golfer can no longer relate to the absurd distances these guys are hitting their drivers and irons.

[BCrosby]

Craig -

You have made the most persuasive case I've yet heard for a bifurcation of the rules.

If you can bring the USGA and the PGA around on the issue, we would be most appreciative.

Bob

[Craig Sweet]

Dan, we can't relate to how far the pro's are hititng the ball, but when I pick up my Golf magazine 90% of the articles are about how I can increase my distance, or hit shots the pro's hit. Never mind that I might be a 20 handicapper with a snowballs chance in hell of hititng a drive or a lob wedge like a pro.

[George Pazin]

Craig, how are you able to read other people's posts with your head firmly planted in the ground?

They are not changing golf courses because the average golfer finds them too easy. They are changing them in reaction to the pro game. It would be terrific if everyone could ignore the big boys and not continue to build 7500 yard slogs and stretch and alter the classics, but it is just not happening.

When people start building more entertaining 6800 yard courses and people no longer feel pressured to alter their course to host an big event, we can start ignoring the big boys.

[Craig Sweet]

George, the question is, how can we continue to let them modify old courses and build new courses when (A) they will never host a pro tourney, or (b) they host a pro event for one week a year???

The other question is this....why do some (sportswriters, poster to this board) continue to say we have a problem that is ruining the "game" of golf, while admitting its really only about 1% of those playing the "game" that cause this problem?

If Shaq and Kobe were the only players dunking a basketball should we raise the baskets for everyone, just those in arena's where pro's play, dial back the sneaker???

[john_stiles]

Craig,

They are changing courses because of how far more and more golfers are hitting the ball.

It is the young guys,  the old guys, the high school guys, the college guys, etc., etc.  

It is the rather large group of players that is growing and who are hitting it further.

It isn't about scoring;  it is about the fact that more and more golfers are hitting wedge, 9 iron to par 4s.  They may not break 76 but there is a sameness to continuous wedge, 9 iron, 8 iron play.

This need to continue to modify old courses is not based strictly on the pro game.

Just watch the young players at your club.

[Dan_Callahan]

Those young players who hit it so far are also prone to hitting a large number of balls OB or into hazards. On the best day, they do end up with a repetition of driver–wedge. But on the average day, it is more like driver, reload, 2-iron to be safe, 7-iron, 3-putt.

It is the pros who are making a mockery of the courses because they are good enough to minimize their wild shots and/or have the short games to overcome an OB or two.

Reigning in the ball or club face for pros is, in my opinion, all that is needed. The rest of us simply aren't dominating courses the way that they do.

[Brent Hutto]

Dan,

If you had a choice between these two courses to play every week, which would you prefer?

Course 1:

The Par 5's play from driver/6-iron to driver/5-wood with no hole on the course unreachable in two shot after your typical drive. Generally you hit 3-wood to avoid trouble off the tee on Par 5's because you can still reach the green in two.

The Par 4's range from 5-wood/short pitch to driver/7-iron with six of the ten being reachable with a wedge even when you hit 3-wood off the tee.

The longest Par 3 on the course requires a 5-iron.

You typically hit 12 GIR including 2 of 4 Par 5's in two and typically score around 75 with four birdies.

Course 2:

The Par 5's range from driver/4-iron to 3-wood/4-iron/wedge with 3 of 4 reachable with two good shots and the fourth maybe reachable when it's playing downwind.

The Par 4's range from 3-wood/wedge to driver/5-wood with half of them reachable with a wedge after your very best drive.

The Par 3's range from 9-iron up to a fairway wood.

You typically hit 9 GIR including one or two Par 5's in two and typically score around 79 with three birdies.

For a lot of 20-35 year old golfers, most courses under about 6,700 yards fall into the "Course 1" description. They might hit tee shots long-and-wrong often enough to cost them some penalty strokes and their short games may not let them break par unless they hit almost every green in regulation but they don't have to lay up on Par 5's, they don't have to drive it well on the so-called "long Par 4's" to still hit an iron approach shot and the game seriously reduces to: 1) keep the tee shot in play, 2) how close to the hole can you hit a wedge and 3) how good a putter are you.

Many of those players choose a "Course 2" which lets them play at 6,900 or 7,000 yards and play a larger variety of shots and strategy. Therefore, many courses are modified in order to offer this sort of game to the golfers out there who can hit driver consistently 270+ yards and who hit their pitching wedge from 140 yards or so.

[Craig Sweet]

Brent, course one discribes the course I play everyday. I hit the ball about 260-270 off the tee, occasionally cracking a good one 280+. I hit anywhere from a 3 wood to a 5 iron into par 5's and driver/3 wood off the tee on par 4's followed by sand wedge...to 5 iron.

My course plays about 6700 from the mid tees and 7000 from the tips. It is typical of many courses in the Rockey Mountains, fairways are wide and trees are short or thin...thus you can hit driver on nearly every hole with little danger of finding trouble.

When I play from the tips I am not hitting pitching wedges into the par 4's...nor am I hitting 5 irons into the par 5's.

[Dan_Callahan]

Brent,

Just because the yardage says you can reach a par 5 in two, that doesn't necessarily mean it is the wise thing to do. Great risk-reward holes give you that choice. The same is true with a well-placed hazard. A 400-yard par 4 might be a driver-wedge for the kids today, but throw a center-line bunker at about 300 yards and it suddenly forces you to think about laying back and hitting a longer iron to the green.

The pros and very good amateurs are good enough to either avoid the hazrd or recover with minimal damage.

In the two scenrios you describe, it is impossible to make a choice absent context. I played Longmeadow CC this summer after the Junior Am. Based on its yardage, I should have been able to overpower the place. However, the great strategic design and well placed slopes in the fairways reduced my driving distance in some cases and in others forced me to thing about positioning rather than length.

[Brent Hutto]

Craig,

So do you generally play from the tips or up at 6,700 yards?

Dan,

I think now we're moving into discussing the question of whether you can build a 6,700 yard course that challenges today's better collegiate players. Certainly using centerline hazards that can't be reliably carried or employing cunningly designed fairway contours (and judging from TV, Longmeadow seems brilliant in that regard) provides some longer approach shots without requiring a 7,200 behemoth of a course. But if we're talking about an older course either there's room to provide that challenge by building a tee box back about 40-50 yards on a bunch of holes or else the course is of little interest to a decent sized cohort of players.

It might be an interesting architectural topic to discuss what sort of golf-course designs hold up well like Longmeadow as opposed to the courses that either get longer or cease to provide a relevant challenge to anyone longer than Craig.

[George Pazin]

George, the question is, how can we continue to let them modify old courses and build new courses when (A) they will never host a pro tourney, or (b) they host a pro event for one week a year???

The other question is this....why do some (sportswriters, poster to this board) continue to say we have a problem that is ruining the "game" of golf, while admitting its really only about 1% of those playing the "game" that cause this problem?

If Shaq and Kobe were the only players dunking a basketball should we raise the baskets for everyone, just those in arena's where pro's play, dial back the sneaker???

As little sense as most of your posts make (at least on this issue), this one makes less.

How do "we" let anyone do anything about someone else's course?

[Andy Troeger]

Craig,
  The problem here is that the pro game has become basically boring for many golf fans due to the driver-wedge-putt phenomenon that most of the pro tournaments become. I have to admit I don't care if I watch those guys try to drive greens on 350 yard holes. Its not a game I'm familiar with, and I'm a fairly low handicap that can hit it a long way (in the wrong direction). They're not ruining the game of golf for you or me or anybody else right now, but they do appear to be causing somewhat of a demise in the pro game (see the new TV contract).
  I never thought I'd say this, but I'm pretty well convinced the tournament ball is the way to go. Keep all of the equipment available to help the rest of us, but for professional competitions make the pros use specific equipment to see who is the best. This would be similar I think to the restrictor plates in NASCAR and wooden bats in MLB. The rest of us can go on with our Pro-V1's and enjoy the game. That's my take.
 

[Dan_Callahan]

Brent,

This is why I believe there needs to be two sets of rules. I am of the opinion that a 6,700-yard course (or even a 6,400-yard course like the Orchards), if designed well, can challenge the good to very good golfer.

I also believe that there isn't a single 6,700-yard course on the planet that can challenge the pros—absent, of course, hurricane conditions or fairways and greens with the square footage of a handkerchief.

The pros are simply playing a different game. But that doesn't mean that I—or any other average player—should have to play with the same distance-controlled equipment that I think the pros should be using.

[Craig Sweet]

Andy, I tend not to watch the pro game when the tournament doesn't have any of the top 5 in the field or when its a course that will give up a -25 winning score.

Brent, I play from both tee's about 50/50...when I visit a course I like to play from the tips.

George, do we not have responsibility to the "game" to get involved?