Ogilvy on the State of Golf

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

You argue that somehow golfers "have" changed over the past 25 years and that they've gotten bigger, stronger, more fit, and that ultimately, that's the primary reason why courses today are becoming outmoded.

I can't agree with you, my friend.  We're pretty close to the same age (50ish) and I hit the ball further and straighter today as a once a week, paunchy, soft, round belly than I did when I was a lithe, athletic, 4-5 time a week player in my early 20s.  I sometimes go to visit my parents and play courses I played in high school and find that I drive the ball to places I never could back then.

All and all, it's a wash, because I'm less consistent of a ball-striker, and don't have the touch and finesse and confidence I did when I was younger and didn't go 12 hours without touching a golf club, but the fact is that something has changed and it's not me...except perhaps worse for the wear.  

I can vividly recall the first time I played with someone who used a metal headed driver...a Callaway Big Bertha, circa 1988 or so.   He was a short, pudgy guy who didn't have much in the way of extension, or strength, or leverage, yet he consistently drove the ball 25 yards past me and his playing partner as we toured around Hog Neck golf course on the eastern shore of Maryland.  

Things have only progressed further in that direction in the intervening 20 years.  Long driving contests back in the 70s and 80s used to have very athletic guys winning with a poke of around 310 yards, distance and roll.   Today, those same contests have guys carrying the ball over 360.  

To me, that used to be a driver, eight-iron.  

[Lou_Duran]

"I agree! I tried to point out earlier that those with the bifurcation agenda seem to have missed the point of the article. However, they continued to push their agenda."

T. Pitner,

It was Garland Bayley who made the charge.  I only asked in my earlier response if it was you who had.  And I reiterate, if you don't think Mr. Ogilvy's comments had much to do with the technology/distance issue, then I think it is you who is missing the point.

Regarding rough, I agree.  Most of us would benefit from less rough.  However, heavy, unplayable rough is something I seldom encounter and I typically play 100 rounds annually (at 85 different courses this past year alone).  One reason besides emulating the courses of the PGA Tour for narrowed fairways may be lower maintenance costs (labor, water, fertilizer, chemicals, equipment).  BTW, it is an unwritten rule on this site that what people want is to play more golf not pay more.

I am unaware of golf courses who grow rough to be known for that.  There are some courses like Winged Foot West, Oakmont, and Berverly (ultra fast green speeds for highly undulating greens) whose memberships seem to derive special pleasure from being tough as nails.  They are their courses and people who like different conditions have some 16,000 other choices to spend their time and money at.

Mike Cirba,

"Lou, You argue that somehow golfers "have" changed over the past 25 years and that they've gotten bigger, stronger, more fit, and that ultimately, that's the primary reason why courses today are becoming outmoded."

I never made that argument.  I give this as ONE reason why golfers, primarily the good, strong ones, are hitting the ball further.   I then ask if we should put limits on the several other factors I noted as we would on balls and equipment.

A bit over a year ago I played golf with a PGA Tour player who had just come back from Ping's Tour facility in AZ.  He claims, and I have every reason to believe him, that after several days of hitting all types of balls and clubs, he settled on a driver and a ball (ProV1x) which instantly gave him an additional 15 to 20 yards of carry (something to do with optimizing the launch angle and maximizing clubhead and ball speeds).  Clearly, this superb athlete benefited greatly from technology, club fitting/diagnostics, instruction, and exercise and diet regimes.

We have not played for a long time, so I can't comment on your game.  Despite hitting an R7 and both types of ProV1s, I am definitely not hitting the ball nearly as far as I did just five years ago with my driver and long irons.  Using "old" blade technology, Apex irons and steel shafts, I am hitting my 6-W about the same distance as I always have.  Go figure!

Like life, golf is just unfair as hell.  Those who don't need it (the help of technology) get it in spades.  The rest of us are left to hunt and peck for anything that gives us a glimer of hope.  Acknowledging that it (technology) is not having a meaningful impact in the quality and my enjoyment of the game, I am generally against applying uniform ball and equipment rules which would roll back the distance the ball travels to pre-ProV1 days.

If the pros and elite amateurs hit the ball too far, make them play a modified version of the Cayman ball.  The Merion's of the world should not alter their course to benefit the tiniest of minorities.  They should do it only when their members see a need and demand it.  I suspect that you may have a problem with my last position as well.  Vive la differance (sp)!