Ruination ?

[Andy Hughes]

When I look at all of the record books,  I don't see your name.
On the other hand, I see Hogan's name quite frequently.

For shame Pat. How can you really judge the merits of a course, err player, by reading about it in a book?  

How do you think Inwood would fare if a U.S. Open was held there this June ?

How would it fare? Do you mean, how would the players do in relation to par? I think they would go very low, US Open record low.
But, well, why does that matter?  The fact that Tiger can destroy a course has no bearing on whether it is a fun course for me to play or its members to play.  
But all of that is besides the point--I hit a shorter club into 18 than Bobby Jones did, and the course was an enjoyable and challenging one for me anyway.

Then you need to make a choice Pat: play the game for fun, for the joy that you eloquently wrote about in your post several weeks ago, for the thrill of interfacing with the architecture. Or play it so you can win a $2 nassau from your buds.
The two SHOULDN'T BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
But, high tech has made them so.

But they shouldn't be, not at all. You and your friends have chosen so.
Look at it this way---you want to ensure that the architecture remains relevant, that the golfers are forced to engage with what the architect created.  You believe (and I agree) that the game is more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting that way (your ode to 'the joys of hitting it shorter' spoke well to this).  Now, do your playing partners agree or disagree with you?  
If they disagree with you, if they prefer to be able to blast past the bunker echelon on the Bottle Hole, then what does that tell you?
Conversely, if they agree with you, and they find the game more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting when they need to engage with the echelon, then why are all of you playing with clubs that enable you to hit past it?

Hell, I play with a ten year old driver, that's no big deal
Try getting four guys to play with persimmon or laminate from 40 years ago.

C'mon Pat, if the game is more fun/thrilling/etc without the distance gain of the last few years that you are worried about, and your friends agree with you, then it would be a simple issue. If nothing else, just use your 3 wood.
But I'd be more than happy to help you get 4 persimmon drivers if you need the help (I'd be willing to bet that between us we have 4 persimmon drives laying around).
The problem is, do your playing partners want to hand over their newest driver?

So I should compete with equipment circa 1966 while others compete with equipment circa 2006.
Surely you jest.

But why would your playing partners not want to use older equipment, if the game is more fun and interesting with it?
And stop calling me Shirley.
PS And yes, I would agree with you that if you are playing in a tournament it would not make sense to use older equipment. But  what percentage of rounds of golf played are tournament rounds? I would posit it is a small number.

Sure, I'll be sure to place myself at a distinct disadvantage when I play in the National Singles tournament.  That makes a lot of sense.  And, again, I play with a ten year old driver.

I think it is a little unfair to conflate a national tournament with the vast majority of rounds of golf, just as it is unfair to comment on a shot Tiger or JB Holmes makes and treat it as something that mere mortals do.
Pat, why do you play with a 10 year old driver when there are better drivers made today?

[SL_Solow]

Andy;  its a nice theoretical position you take.  However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture.  There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained.  If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance.  Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards.  Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant.  Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options.  If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros.  To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic.  To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports.  One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges.  As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge.  In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts.  If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players.  Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution.  I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.

[Sean_A]

Andy;  its a nice theoretical position you take.  However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture.  There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained.  If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance.  Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards.  Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant.  Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options.  If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros.  To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic.  To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports.  One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges.  As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge.  In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts.  If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players.  Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution.  I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.

SL

I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened.  Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet?  That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.  

If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker.  I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem.  It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem.  That attitude will leave a long road to haul.  If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"Again I respectfully disagree.  The threat of litigation as a result of rule changes is very relevant to any discussion of potential changes, as is behavior by the USGA which might have made their subsequent efforts to make changes more difficult."

David:

Yes, I most certainly do agree with that. The threat of litigation and how the USGA has positioned itself in recent years due to that prospect is one of the most relevent and central issues of the entire subject of the USGA/R&A as the games ruling bodies in certain aspects of the game.

[Kyle Harris]

Andy;  its a nice theoretical position you take.  However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture.  There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained.  If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance.  Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards.  Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant.  Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options.  If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros.  To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic.  To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports.  One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges.  As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge.  In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts.  If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players.  Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution.  I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.

SL

I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened.  Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet?  That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.  

If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker.  I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem.  It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem.  That attitude will leave a long road to haul.  If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.  

Ciao

Sean

Sean,

I'll take some responsibility. I practice to hit the ball better, part of which is further.

When I worked in a shop, I sold clubs based on their distance merits.

When I teach, I'll teach people how to hit the ball more squarely and therefore further.

I also will be buying a set of persimmon clubs to relearn the game and alternate based on the course.

[Tom Huckaby]

I also will be buying a set of persimmon clubs to relearn the game and alternate based on the course.

Kyle - man if you are gonna go this route, you gotta go hickory - why stop halfway?

I'm here to tell you it's VERY fun.

IM me if you want purchasing details.  It can be done relatively economically.  And good lord are these things cool to look at.

 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have just read this thread...and have to agree that TV and it's piss poor commentators have a huge part to play.
Only Nick Faldo is prepared to tell the truth with regard to course set ups and lack of rough, and willing to complain about equipment getting way out of hand...the rest just keep encouraging the bombers of the game...seriuosly how intersting is it really to see 340 drives all day on a course lay out like the one in Phoenix which shows no imagination in course design...personally no interest at all...no wonder Nascar is the fastest growing sport in America..hell the Nascar ovals are just about as interesting as most of the layouts on the PGA tour anyway!

[Andy Hughes]

Andy;  its a nice theoretical position you take.

Thanks, I'll take whatever praise I can get from this place.

 

If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros.

I have never been on a green committee, but this sounds like you are saying that equipment needs to be pulled back so courses will be protected from themselves.  Or liquor stores should be closed because alcoholics might not be able to walk on by.

To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic.

Shel, I do have some sympathy for this position, and tried to convey as much to Pat in terms of tournaments.  I would not expect anyone to play with anything they thought put them at a disadvantage in a tournament.  But the goals are different in a tournament vs the great majority of rounds (non-tournament).

In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts.

Those who find the game more enjoyable or fun that way will do so. I happen to find the game more fun by bringing half a set rather than 14 clubs, so that is what I tend to do.  I have not found any good course that has lost its challenge for me, nor have I seen it from anybody I have played with.  
With no snark intended, what good courses were challenging and fun for you 10 years ago but not today?

[SL_Solow]

Sean; you are correct; you don't understand. (sarcasm intended).  The issue is not about blame and if we are seeking to place blame I would place it on the rulesmakers.  If Tiger or anyone else wants to win, it behooves him to use the best equipment and employ the best strategy given the current state of the game to achieve his goal.  But it is undeniable that the effect of the manner in which the professional game is being played has impacted the way the golfing public perceives the game and has created new expectations for golf course architecture which has resulted in modifications to classic courses and the construction of new courses which are expensive and less enjoyable.  If this is caused by an "American character flaw" so be it; it is real and it impacts the game.  It doesn't help the game to say "I am above this  and therefore it doesn't matter.  Everyone should act like me."  Even if your view is correct, and if one chooses to compete it probably isn't (as noted by Pat), too many others fail to recognize your superior position and they will cause the game to change taking with it the architectural character that we should try to preserve.  That is why efforts to rein in technology are so important.  Examine the nature of the new courses being built and ask yourself whether they are as conducive to the style of game you profess to play as  are the more classic courses.  They are not and the change in the game at the highest level which is directly related to equipment is a principal cause.

[DMoriarty]

I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened.  Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet?  That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.  

If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker.  I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem.  It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem.  That attitude will leave a long road to haul.  If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.  

Sean, you are correct that we should not blame Tiger Woods or any pro for the distance problem, after all they are simply trying to do what they can to minimize their scores within the rules of golf.  But I dont think Shel is blamining them, nor is anyone else.  Rather, we are just advocating a change in the rules of the game to bring the game and its achitecture back into balance.  

The only one here I see blaming players is you.  You've got this notion that if I just changed my game the problem would go away.  When I play with my hickories, the problem still exists.  When I play with my 50s MacGregors the problem still exists.  When I play with my modern clubs, the problem still exists.  

Could you please explain to me what my club selection has to do with whether the rules of the game are out of balance and need adjustment?    

[Andy Hughes]

Examine the nature of the new courses being built and ask yourself whether they are as conducive to the style of game you profess to play as  are the more classic courses.  They are not and the change in the game at the highest level which is directly related to equipment is a principal cause.

Shel, I am not sure I follow your point.  I assume you agree that modern courses like Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Tobacco Road, Pacific Dunes, Cuscowilla and many more are fine courses that encourage the 'style of game' you allude to.  So in these many cases, the 'change in the game at the highest level' has not mattered--is  your worry therefore more with the currect crop of architects and what they are creating and not with the equipment?

[SL_Solow]

Andy, nice point regarding the outstanding new courses.  Thank goodness that we have the likes of Coore & Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, Silva, Mungeam and the other young architects who respect the traditional values of the game and translate those values into great golf courses (my apologies for an incomplete list). We should also be grateful to the limited number of owner/developers who select these individuals over other more commercial names.  But if you take a look at the course openings you will conclude that the vast majority select architects with a different agenda.  The ads for most of the new resorts, housing developments, and or high end courses stress theie "championship" caliber.  Today that usually means long, water strewn, tree lined with fast greens.  Join me at a seminar for greens chairmen or club Presidents and find out the pressure from memberships to lengthen and toughen up their courses so that they will be "up to date."  That is the reality.  

[Sean_A]

Shel

It isn't my intention to be superior.  I am far from superior in every aspect of my life.  

I liken your argument to the guy who watched an ad and bought the product.  I may not like the idea that this guy bought a product I think is inferior, but that doesn't make it wrong.  If the tours are acting as advertisements for certain types of courses it is up to the consumer to sift through the information and make a decision.  

My argument doesn't hinge on competition so what Pat M says is largely irrelevant.  I have no desire to control how others perceive or play the game.  If little Suzy Whaley or whatever her name is can carry a 300 yard bunker I say fantastic.  The kid has obviously got talent.  I am talking from the perspective of the punter.  The guy who makes the game of golf viable from an economic perspective.  

I believe when enough people think that distance is a problem and ACT on their beliefs, then there is a chance for effective change (not some poxy rollback that manufacturers will find a way around in 5 years).  I think of it as changing the culture of the game much like the effort to change the culture of drinking and driving.  Having the USGA come down with some ruling just means that manufacturers will seek other ways to make their equipment better.  That is what what equipment companies do and they are much better at research than the USGA are.

If golfers (not just the annointed few) are convinced that distance is a problem, then we are starting to get somewhere.  Relying on the USGA and the PGA to dig the trenches ain't gonna get the job done.  It is going to take a concerted effort from a grassroots organization(s) (that probably doesn't even exist yet) to persuade golfers that distance is bad because of A, B & C.

Dave M

When you play with hicks does it solve the problem for you personally?  If it does, then I would say a positive start toward solving distance is underway.  However, if you are gonna just pull out the hicks for a laugh once in a while, what is the point other than just a laugh?

Ciao

Sean
 

[DMoriarty]

Dave M

When you play with hicks does it solve the problem for you personally?  If it does, then I would say a positive start toward solving distance is underway.  However, if you are gonna just pull out the hicks for a laugh once in a while, what is the point other than just a laugh?

Ciao

Sean

Does it solve the problem for me personally?  No, because the problem isnt about me, personally.  The problem is with the overall game and the architecture.  So my choice of equipment has nothing to do with it.  

The point of my playing with hickories some of the time has no other point than because of my own interest and enjoyment.  So I guess you could say there is no other point than "just for a laugh."    

You treat mass protest and grassroots movement as the only viable means for change, and this is just not the case.  We have a body in place that is charged with acting for "the good of the game."  They are supposed to be leaders, and true leaders can do what is right and then use their position to convince the rest of us that what they have done is the right thing.   That is what needs to happen.   If we wait for your mass movement it will be much too late.  

[Andy Hughes]

I got the numbers from an old magazine article where, if I recall correctly, they were recording actual driving distances of a handful of top players.  The 1923 date is mistaken-- it should be 1918.  So in the 75 years after 1918, distance increased about 32 yards.  I used 1918 because it seemed to me to be one of the only sources for driving distance and one that struck me as probably reliable.
I used 1993 because this seems to be approximately where things really took off.
However you look at it, the jump in the past decade or so has been absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented-- at least since 1918.

Dave, interesting. Do you happen to have a link to that article, or at least a pointer to where I could find it?

Do you happen to know if this jump in distance is just for the best of the best, or if it has translated proportionally for all golfers?
I wonder if most people, ordinary golfers, are appreciably longer today than they were in 1993?

[Sean_A]

Dave

Successive generations of golfers have been waiting for 100 years for the USGA and/or the R&A to act in any decisive manner.  Good thing time is eternal eh?

I do think it is important to make personal changes if you personally want more satisfaction from the game.  With many great movements, it started with a few people who wouldn't back down.  

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Sweet]

Dave, you said:

"They are supposed to be leaders, and true leaders can do what is right and then use their position to convince the rest of us that what they have done is the right thing.."

I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.

There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone from playing with a ball, and equipment from any era they choose. And there is really nothing to stop the PGA from setting their own equipment standards for THEIR tour.

However, I resent, and I'm sure I'm not alone, a handful of self appointed saviors of "the game", who couldn't drive a golf ball 225 yards with a 40mph tailwind, claiming there's a "distance" problem and we should have acted on it yesterday.

[Andy Hughes]

But if you take a look at the course openings you will conclude that the vast majority select architects with a different agenda.  The ads for most of the new resorts, housing developments, and or high end courses stress theie "championship" caliber.  Today that usually means long, water strewn, tree lined with fast greens.  Join me at a seminar for greens chairmen or club Presidents and find out the pressure from memberships to lengthen and toughen up their courses so that they will be "up to date."  That is the reality.

Shel, I will of course defer to you on what goes on with greens committees. I have no experience whatsoever with that.  What you describe sounds like there is a need for education for the greens committes at classic courses?
It also reminds of the Augusta syndrom I have seen discussed here--courses trying to keep up with the conditioning they see during the Masters. Unfortunate. And in the end, do the greens committees you are referring to end up with courses the members enjoy more, or less?

I could not agree more re new resorts/housing develoments.  The negative aspects you describe could also, though, have been applied to countless courses built in the 1950s and 1960s I would think, and that was before the 1993 distance explosion that Dave M discussed.
We look at the C&C, Doak, Hanse, Silva et al courses built today, and we perceive that they are the minority and that all the rest have lost their way. I would guess that has always been the state of things, though. For all the classics built in the 1910s-1930s, there were countless other courses built that we would describe as lacking in architectural merit.  All we see looking back are the Pine Valleys, the Merions and the Oakmonts, but surely the majority of courses built then were ordinary at best.

[SL_Solow]

The argument that one can choose his equipment to suit his preferences cuts both ways.  If the USGA limits the ball and there is a demand for the suddenly illegal longer ball, manufacturers will find a way to meet the market.  Those who want to play non conforming balls and obtain the thrill of hitting a ball 250 instead of 230 or 280 instead of 250 or whatever, can do so.  Even now one can obtain nonconforming balls that exceed the current legislative limit.  So the issue relating to one's personal prefernce is a red herring.  The only difference will be that the existing classic courses will once again provide a fair challenge to the best players.  Those wishing to emulate those players will use conforming equipment and suffer some loss of distance, although the data suggests it will be both absolutely and proportionall less than those with higher swing speeds.  Those who believe professional tournaments set the standard for golf courses will now have more reasonable length courses as examples thus allowing for lower acquisition and maintenance costs.  The pros will still be longer and better than the rest of us.  A long drive will still feel like a long drive.  If you don't care about competition as you profess, then you won't care if you use nonconforming equipment.  As Dave Moriarty stated, this argument is not about anyone's individual game, its about the health of the game and the responsibilities of the rulesmakers.

[DMoriarty]

I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.

I admire your democratic sensibilities, but think they are misplaced here.  The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem.  They dont have have the technical expertise, they dont have a complete set of information, they dont have a clear overview of the history or the impact on the architecture.   They are much too caught up in their own lives and own games to intelligently decide such issues.  

Golfers rely on bodies such as the USGA to make the rules and do what is best for the game.  They always have and likely always will.   Having a majority of golfers decide the COR for clubs would be pretty silly, dont you think?  

There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone from playing with a ball, and equipment from any era they choose. And there is really nothing to stop the PGA from setting their own equipment standards for THEIR tour.

That is true.  And their is nothing stopping you from reacting to limits by playing non-conforming "cheater" equipment.  In fact there is non-conforming stuff available now, and you are free to play it.   No one is forcing you to be part of the USGA or to play by their rules.   If they make rules you dont like, then don't follow them.  

However, I resent, and I'm sure I'm not alone, a handful of self appointed saviors of "the game", who couldn't drive a golf ball 225 yards with a 40mph tailwind, claiming there's a "distance" problem and we should have acted on it yesterday.

I am not sure why you feel resentment about this issue or feel the need to belittle the abilities of those who disagree with you.  This has nothing to do with any particular individual's game, hack or pro.  It does have to do with keeping the great venues of golf relevant, keeping a workable balance between the relative advantages of power versus other golf skills, and keeping golf affordable and accessible.  

You may have no concern with these things whatsoever, but some of us do care about them and, believe it or not, our concern goes beyond our own game.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

How would it fare? Do you mean, how would the players do in relation to par? I think they would go very low, US Open record low.

But, well, why does that matter?  The fact that Tiger can destroy a course has no bearing on whether it is a fun course for me to play or its members to play.

It matters because technology has allowed the golfer to IGNORE the architecture he was meant to interface with.

This is the point that you and everyone else on the distance bandwagon constatntly miss.

The architecture no longer has meaning[/color]
 
But all of that is besides the point--I hit a shorter club into 18 than Bobby Jones did, and the course was an enjoyable and challenging one for me anyway.

I would have to see your round in order to comment on that.[/color]

The two SHOULDN'T BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
But, high tech has made them so.

But they shouldn't be, not at all. You and your friends have chosen so.

NO, We haven't.
When I play in a tournament I"m not going there to waste my time or frustrate myself, I'm going there to compete on an equal footing.  The same applies when playing for money, score or ego.[/color]

Look at it this way---you want to ensure that the architecture remains relevant, that the golfers are forced to engage with what the architect created.  You believe (and I agree) that the game is more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting that way (your ode to 'the joys of hitting it shorter' spoke well to this).  Now, do your playing partners agree or disagree with you?

Some do, some don't.[/color]
 
If they disagree with you, if they prefer to be able to blast past the bunker echelon on the Bottle Hole, then what does that tell you?

It tells me nothing other than that they've made a choice.[/color]

Conversely, if they agree with you, and they find the game more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting when they need to engage with the echelon, then why are all of you playing with clubs that enable you to hit past it?

Because there isn't universal agreement.
Because you can't find Blue Max Maxfli's and because I play with a great number of people with diverse perspectives.
And, because I compete with other foursomes, twosomes and singles on a regular basis, for a few quid.

You're living in a DREAM WORLD with respect to isolating and limiting your game to only those people in complete agreement with your philosophy.

But, if you want to continue to engage in mental masturbation, be my guest.[/color]

C'mon Pat, if the game is more fun/thrilling/etc without the distance gain of the last few years that you are worried about, and your friends agree with you, then it would be a simple issue. If nothing else, just use your 3 wood.

I don't like the ball flight on my 3-wood.

And, why do you assume my friends agree ?

And, even if they did, how would we compete with the other foursomes that don't agree with us ?

You're forgetting the greatest influence on distance, the BALL.

Where do you suggest we obtain balls circa 1964 ?[/color]

The problem is, do your playing partners want to hand over their newest driver?

But why would your playing partners not want to use older equipment, if the game is more fun and interesting with it?


You'd  have to ask them.[/color]

PS And yes, I would agree with you that if you are playing in a tournament it would not make sense to use older equipment. But  what percentage of rounds of golf played are tournament rounds? I would posit it is a small number.

I would say that almost every round is for score, ego, money or tournament play.[/color]

I think it is a little unfair to conflate a national tournament with the vast majority of rounds of golf, just as it is unfair to comment on a shot Tiger or JB Holmes makes and treat it as something that mere mortals do.

I cited just one tournament.
I play competitively, in tournaments or otherwise, almost constantly.  Why would I want to cede an inherent advantage to my adversary ?

Do you think that the golf world doesn't play for score, money, ego or in tournaments most of the time ?[/color]

Pat, why do you play with a 10 year old driver when there are better drivers made today?

For the same reason I'm playing with 1985 irons, I tend to resist change.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, I guess I am not sure what your motivations are for playing.  You claim now that they are: score, ego, money and tournaments.
Yet, 2 weeks ago, you talked at length about the joy of playing, of interfacing with the architecture.
If score, ego and money are your motivations as you claim, then really, what difference does it make if you "ignore the architecture"?  As long as you win, your ego gets stroked and your wallet swells (talk about mental masturbation!).  Heck, you should be happy!  By your own words, a few quid is more important to you then the architecture and the joy you spoke of 2 weeks ago.  

I suspect you have a number of friends who agree with, no? If so, do you ever all go play and compete with older equipment, garnering the best of both worlds?  If not, I have to wonder why

his is the point that you and everyone else on the distance bandwagon constatntly miss.

Actually, I am not on that bandwagon. I am not sure where I stand yet. But I am not at all swayed by the positions I have heard hear yet.  I can only go by what my own lying eyes tell me, and that is I have not gotten appreciably longer in the last 10 years, and neither have my friends.  
Though I have a hard time grasping what I see the big boys doing on tour.

Pat, OT to this, but how long is it to carry it past the bunker echelon on the Bottle?

[Craig Sweet]

Ah yes, the benevolent dictator that knows what is best.

"The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem."


The "majority of golfers" pay my way....and they are a lot smarter than you're giving them credit for being.  

[Sean_A]

I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.

I admire your democratic sensibilities, but think they are misplaced here.  The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem.  They dont have have the technical expertise, they dont have a complete set of information, they dont have a clear overview of the history or the impact on the architecture.   They are much too caught up in their own lives and own games to intelligently decide such issues.  

Dave

I find this statement astonishing.  I immediately become suspicious of people who claim they know what is best for me.  Sort of like those guys on gc comms. who make up rules which conveniently fit their view of the world and how it should be.  

Lets say the USGA in a whirlwind of activity gets a 10% reduction on distance.  This effectively is a short term cap on how far the ball will go.  Equipment companies will find ways around these caps, unless of course someone says "the ball is not allowed to carry more than a certain distance".  I hope that day never comes.  

Lets give the benefit of the doubt and the USGA gets the rollback and a few further rollbacks which brings us back to 1980 distances or whatever distance people think was great and good for the game.  What makes you think these boneheads at country clubs are going to stop messing around with THEIR courses?  These country club types have been changing their courses practically since the day they were built.  Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.  It doesn't matter because every successive comm. that comes in wants to leave a legacy and holding status quo isn't particularly recognized as a legacy.  

Having the USGA declare some miraculous rollback is not going to solve the problem.  I will say it again, only golfers can solve the problem and that starts with individual behaviour.

Ciao

Sean

[DMoriarty]

Ah yes, the benevolent dictator that knows what is best.

Did I say that the USGA should be a benevolent dictator who knows what is best?  I did not.  The USGA has no general enforcement power.  If they make changes that are too out of line with the golfing public then golfers will go their own way and the USGA will lose all relevance. There is your democracy in action for you. [Some would say that their inaction has taken them nearly to irrelevancy as it is.]  In the mean time, I want a USGA that is studying the game and making educated decisions, not one that makes decisions based on fleeting popular opinion.  They have been in charge of the rules of golf for over 100 years, and I dont ever recall them basing their decisions on some sort of a general vote.    After all, they are supposed to be leaders, not followers.  

But I am curious . . . Just how far do you take your notions of democracy in golf?  
-- Do you let the golfers decide when, where, and how much to fertilize?  
--Do you let them make their own decisions about when the greens are too frozen in the winter for play?  
--How about frost delays? Do you let the morning golfers vote on frost delays?
--Do the golfers vote on when you run your sprinklers or how low you cut your greens?  
 
I am sure your golfers are smart, after all you work in a college town.  Yet somehow I think you make all these decisions based on your expertise, rather than by opinion poll.