[MikeJones]

Dictionary.com informs me that one of the definitions of this word is :

'A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something'

Over the past few years as we've seen the ball become nuclear powered and the driver heads become larger than a buggy wheel, I've been saying to anyone who would listen "Roll back the ball!", "Bring back persimmon!" "Bring on the pro ball!" No one that can make a difference is listening to people like me it seems.

I was just about to pop yet another blood vessel reading yet another thread about so and so carrying it 350 ect etc and then 'it' struck me and a disturbing calm settled over me. Let's call it the 'Bifurcation' of my brain, the realization that I could choose to take a different thought path from now on.

I'm not sure what set this all in motion. Maybe it was the thought of courses putting trees in to stop the cutting of corners on holes when the powerful pro is aiming 60 yards from the centreline (a recent thread here) Maybe it was watching desperate attempts to raise scores in the majors over the last few years by narrowing fairways to ribbons and letting greens dry out to the consistency and speed of my driveway. Maybe it was reading Doak stating that it was very difficult if not impossible to design and build courses that would be enjoyable for the average player and testing for a tour pro.

Whatever the reason, I started thinking alien thoughts, why on earth should we care if the pro tours play mainly on 7500+ yardage courses. Are we spectators or players?

Why would we care if we saw par 4's on tour rapidly expanding well over the 500 yard mark? Bring on the 550 yard par 4 I say so long as they don't change the yardage/par guides for the rest of us.

Why would we care if a hundred new 7700 yard courses pop up to host the latest and greatest PGA tour tournaments? There are plenty of older and shorter courses that we can play.

Why would we care if my most beloved old courses build competition tees 40 yards behind the previous back tees? We can still play from the tees we used to play from.

I'm sure most of us will always find golf difficult and there are a lot of truly great courses already out there to challenge our brains as well as our brawn. So long as we are not forced to all make 300 yards carries or forced to toil away from the back tees, what difference will all of this make to us?

Am I just bending over or am I on to something?

[Paul Payne]

Mike,

I've always had mixed feelings about this, but I possibly side more with you on this issue. I see Mr Mucci is flaring up on another thread about this very topic but more on the side of "reeling things in".

Here is my problem. I agree with the idea of controling the long hitters through design elements in any way possible, but I don't really agree with the equipment tactic.

The reason is that even if the USGA or PGA or both decided to limit ball flight, it will only fractionalize any results thereafter. People will always compare a shot with the "short" ball with what might have been with the "long" ball. We forever be shifting mentally between the two.

Could you ever doubt that there would soon be a tournament where players would appear on a long course and play the old "long" equipment. I would even be willing to bet it would become a hit with fans only generating more of these special events.

I just don't see the fascination with the long ball ever going away. I think golfers have been fiddling with equipment ever since the first shepherd customized his crook to his advantage.  

[Jordan Wall]

The reason why we should care is becasue we do not want length to ruin architecture.

That matters for everyone and is why we care.

If a course is 7700 yards long and sacrifices length for architecture then what good has it done??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Payne,

Is that what happened when the R&A adopted the American Ball ?

I didn't hear anyone compare shots once the American Ball was adopted.   Do you hear those comparisons today ?

Mike Jones,

Adding tee length only addresses one aspect of golf, the drive.

It doesn't address the second shot or the approach shot.

If a golf course was designed such that the drive would leave the golfer with 160 yards to the green, moving the tee back, provided there's room, can still do that.

But, when the architect intended the golfer to face a 160 yard shot, he probably did so in the context that the approach called for a six (6) iron, and therefore designed the green and its surrounds with that shot in mind.

When today's golfer, playing from a new back tee, is now left with 160 yards in, he can be hitting a wedge, with totally different flight characteristics then the intended six (6) iron, and therein lies the problem.

You can address it at the tee end if you have the land, but, you can't address the approach end without unduely penalizing the lesser golfer.

Controlling the ball and the equipment addresses all of the issues.

[Mark Arata]

I guess if we could count on the caretakers of the more beloved older couses and their memberships to leave the places alone and not try to destroy their character in order to try and get their place on the Open rota, then I would agree with you totally, let the PGA play their 7800 yarders who really cares? But as we probably have all seen, most of the old guard courses feel some need to keep up with the Joneses so to speak, and they end up ruining some classic courses.

It also helps if people dont get caught up in the games the PGA players play, no one that plays once a week or so at most can have the game that those guys do, and to try to judge your scoring ability against theirs is completely futile, and yet, every time you go to a top course, there is always some 18 handicapper that insists on playing the black tees because "That's where the pros play from, I have to play the same course to test my game".....the 100+ score that they end up posting just ruins everyone's day.

[MikeJones]

Pat, I don't disagree with you in principle that it would be better all round if the ball and club's were as they were 'pro-v1' Hell, I've had that exact mind set for several years.

There is no doubt at all that the game has changed significantly at the highest levels. If I were playing competitive golf at the top level I would be very worried about my future livelyhood as I'm sure some of the shorter hitter on tour are in light of the current trend.

However has the game changed that much further down the scale where lower CHS players really can't take full advantage of the new technology? Even if the amateur hits a few clubs less into the green, does it compromise the architecture so much? If so, does that not mean that the course was unbalanced in the first place because there have always been longer players in relation to other players?

[Dave Bourgeois]

Mike,

The other issue is that developers will want to make new courses "championship" length, and some owners may want to refirb theirs to get to that point. To Tom Doak's and others points, how many courses at 7,500 yards are enjoyable for both the pro and recreational player.

It seems much easier to market a course as a "stern test from the tips" then trying to explain the nuances of internal green contours to the general public.  Golf is a business and unfortunately sometimes to be successful one needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I hope the trend changes as I would love to see more new public courses in the mold of National and Merion than a stretched out course on steroids!  

[MikeJones]

Mark, I've seen a few alterations to the length of championship courses around here (NW England) but not many have added bunkers or features that would ruin the architectural merit of the courses in question. Usually the added bunkers are in places that most golfers certainly won't see from the tee no matter which tees they choose to play from.

I agree that if club were to fundamentaly change the course in order to toughen it up or attract major tournaments then that would be a sad state of affairs but does it happen any more often than it has in the past?

[A_Clay_Man]

You can address it at the tee end if you have the land, but, you can't address the approach end without unduely penalizing the lesser golfer.

Pat, Why does a lesser golfer play were the Pro's play?

[Mark Arata]

I see what you are saying, my point is that I dont want anyone messing with the Fishers Islands or Pasatiempos of the world in order to appease the members egos when it comes to rankings or scoring by the pros, etc.

Personally, I like trying to play the par 3's from where the pros play, because normally there is a club in my bag that I might reach the green with. To play 500+ yard par 4's with huge forced carries is beyond me, and I stopped trying a long time ago. Ego gets in the way of a lot of people's enjoyment of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Because you can adjust the position of their tees such that everyone's drives all end up in the same basic LZ.

Mike Jones,

When you look at a hole like the 6th at Pacific Dunes, or basically any angled, well protected green, position used to be a critical element to playing the hole well.

If we take my previous example, where the golfer was left with 160 yards in, the flight characteristics of the six (6) iron were such that the golfer had to try to reach an optimal LZ in order to maximize his chances of hitting the ball close to the hole.  Prefered angles of attack.

Today, instead of a six (6) iron, a wedge can be hit to that same green, effectively negating the intent of the architectural features, and ignoring the prefered angles of attack.

And, if there wasn't the available land to move the tee back, today's golfer won't be 160 yards from the green, he'll be 80-100 or less, and using an L-Wedge from anywhere, fairway, rough or bunker, hence there's little relationship between playing the hole strategically, as intended by the architect and just bombing away, knowing that where ever you are, you're going to hit a Lob wedge into the green and have a good chance at a birdie.

This new method for playing a hole is called "Flogging"

I've said repeatedly, that when I lost a substantial amount of distance, that I still enjoyed the game.  In some ways, more so, because I had to navigate myself around the golf course as the architect intended, thinking as he did on how best to overcome his attempts to frustrate my score, vis a vis his architectural philosophy and features.  

[MikeJones]

Pat, I agree that architecture for the expert player is being compromised and that's why they're welcome to build as many new monster courses as they wish to keep challenging them.

For everyone else though, the 6th at Pacific and any number of other great holes will still be interesting and challenging for most players.

There are a few people like perhaps yourself, good players who now find that their better qualities such as guile and accuracy, the qualities that used to separate them from the also rans are being stripped away and that one dimensional golf is being rewarded. I think that this type of player is the one most affected by the changes in the game brought about by the technological advances. They are very much in the minority though I feel.

[Pete Lavallee]

For everyone else though, the 6th at Pacific and any number of other great holes will still be interesting and challenging for most players.

Mike,

Interesting comment, I wonder how many people drove the 6th green at Pacific Dunes there this year? Anybody care to report back on that?

[MikeJones]

Pete, I don't think anyone will be able to answer your question unless they pitched a tent near the green and had their meals ordered in  

I do think that anyone powerful enough to actually drive a 320 yard par 4 now would have been within 20-30 yards of the green pre hot ball/club. It's not like they would have been hitting a 6 iron into that green previously.

I'm not pro technology by any means I just think it's time for us to stop worrying about what's happening at the game's highest level and focus on discussing and creating architecture that the rest of us, the vast majority, can enjoy. I'm almost certain that this is the philosophy that the best architects have when they are creating new courses.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm not pro technology by any means I just think it's time for us to stop worrying about what's happening at the game's highest level and focus on discussing and creating architecture that the rest of us, the vast majority, can enjoy. I'm almost certain that this is the philosophy that the best architects have when they are creating new courses.

Mike, Here in the states there are approximately 17,000 courses for US.
The real question is...why don't the pro's (and the USGA) just build thier own venues?

[JESII]

The Tour has built their own and the USGA does not need to because we are all to happy to alter our courses to their liking.

[Sean_A]

Mike Jones,

Adding tee length only addresses one aspect of golf, the drive.

It doesn't address the second shot or the approach shot.

If a golf course was designed such that the drive would leave the golfer with 160 yards to the green, moving the tee back, provided there's room, can still do that.

But, when the architect intended the golfer to face a 160 yard shot, he probably did so in the context that the approach called for a six (6) iron, and therefore designed the green and its surrounds with that shot in mind.

When today's golfer, playing from a new back tee, is now left with 160 yards in, he can be hitting a wedge, with totally different flight characteristics then the intended six (6) iron, and therein lies the problem.

You can address it at the tee end if you have the land, but, you can't address the approach end without unduely penalizing the lesser golfer.

Controlling the ball and the equipment addresses all of the issues.

Pat

Almost all courses have evolved, in part due to distance, before this current row over distance ever started.  Trying to play any course as it was when it was built (ie as intended by the original architect) is largely a waste of time because that course hasn't existed for many years.  

I agree completely with you that it would be far easier to have courses and equipment frozen in time so that the originally intended shots could be played for evermore.  It just isn't realistic.  Guys 30 years before your time would have complained about your generation hitting the ball too far and having lovely playing conditions just as your generation complains about the next having unfair advantage.  It seems to be the nature of sport for the old-timers to claim superiority for various vaild and invalid reasons.  

I wonder what the age group of the distance band wagon is?  What do people reckon the breakdown is?

55 and over
47-54
38-46
29-37
23-28
16-22

I would guess that the vast majority of people who think there is a distance problem falls in 47 and up categories, but I could be wrong.  Does anybody know if a survey has ever been conducted?

Ciao

Sean

[James Bennett]

Mike Jones

I think one of the good Doctor's quotes (Alister MacKenzie)from 'The Spirit of St Andrews' is appropriate to your epiphany.  It is a passage that we can easily forget.

"   the chief thing to bear in mind is that golf is a recreation and a means for giving us health and pleasure.      How often have we known committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes wide open in amazement?  It is always difficult to persudae them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number.  Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure."



James B

[T_MacWood]

Golf is a relatively new game. Its universal popularity is only about 100 years old. Is there a sport where equipment advancements have been a constant throughout its history?

Is the game too difficult, was the game too difficult ninety years ago, seventy-five years ago, fifty years ago, ten years ago, ten years from now - will it always be too difficult? Is there a logical reason why the equipment should continue to evolve and the courses should continue to change to keep up with the advancements at great expense?

Is there any reason not to believe the advancements will continue for another 100 years? No doubt the game will look quite different then.

[Peter Pallotta]

James Bennett:

thanks for the excellent MacKenzie quote: it can't be repeated enough these days. It's a 'corporate' time we seem to be living in, and 'fun' is always a good antidote.

Mike Jones:

I think that your epiphany was a sound one, and one worthy of the name, as long as you remember - as we all must when it comes to our epiphanies - that it was YOUR epiphany

Peter

[MikeJones]

I'm not sure the game is too difficult Tom. It's a difficult game for sure and that's why I'd go as far to say that the new clubs and balls have made the game more enjoyable for a large % of players. I don't think this is because of any huge distance increase they have found but rather a result of the more forgiving clubs. I don't have any stats to back that up it's just the feeling I get talking to other players.

People talk about architecture and design becoming redundant with the recent distance increases but what % of players in the real world can carry the ball over 250 yards today? The architecture of the great courses it seems is still relevant for all but the longest players who make up a tiny minory of the playing population.

Do you think that most people care that the ball is going too far for the top players? If they don't care does it effect their enjoyment of the game?

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Is the game more enjoyable today than it was in the 1920s or the 1970s or the 1990s for the majority of golfers? For me the game was just as enjoyable in the 70s as it is today. In some ways more enjoyable...fewer carts, fewer cart paths and less expensive.

Is there a logical reason why the equipment should continue to evolve and the courses should continue to be altered (to keep up) at great expense? Isn't it all relative?

I think most golfers today would enjoy a less expensive game with less expensive golf courses....a game which did not require them to upgrade their equipment regulary (at considerable expense) to keep with the newest advancements.

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

My guess is that there is a difference between the way american fans view the game vs the rest of the world. We are all about faster, stronger, higher, further. I think we would be having this same conversation about COR right now if the brakes had not been put on a few years ago before equipment had saturated the tour.

On the other hand, a thought just came to me and that is;

I'm not sure that I care if the tour plays on the same courses that we do. We keep talking about how they play a different game on another level, then turn around and say things like golf is great because the average guy can go out with the same equipment on the same course and test his game.

That just simply isn't true. The tour plays further back on many holes and in extrememly tougher course conditions. I would not care in the least if we watched them play long and fast on 8000 yard courses I would never want to set foot on.That is not the motivation that draws me out to the course every week.  In fact it could be awe inspiring to see a guy nail a high 180 yard 9 iron inches from the pin.

As amateurs we do not expect to compete at the professional level in other sports, why should we drag the pro golfer down to our level, why not let him play as amazingly as he can?

 

[Paul Payne]

BTW Sean,

I guess I am a distance neutralist, and I am 46. Just about right on the money with your estimate of 47.

[Craig Sweet]

Sean, I don't think the average golfer thinks very much about distance. They certainly don't lose sleep worrying about hitting it to far, or the impacts technology has on the game.

Like I have been saying, new technology makes the game fun. If by chance I "out grow" my current course I have other options.

Let it be....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()