[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

As usual you didn't answer my question:

Not to Mucci you, but could you expand a bit on which architectural features you mean, what it means to be obsolete, and for whom.

I was trying to get you to frame the discussion.  As you've noted I interpreted your premise to be about all features for all players.  But, you could mean some features for the pros.  Just trying to clarify as a lot of your statements come out as gross generalizations.  I wouldn't debate that some features on classic courses are obsolete (vestigial isn't quite right for what you're trying to say)for tour players or even amateur bombers.

In addition, specialty wedges have muted the impact of green side bunkers, as has the modern trend away from DEEP greenside bunkers.[/b][/color]

Specialty wedges have muted the impact of rough around greens as well, not to mention tucked pin positions.  Are you suggesting that specialty wedges be "rolled back" too?

Where do you play, where you see a trend away from DEEP greenside bunkers.  At the modern courses I play in my area there are still DEEP bunkers being built.  And I don't see bunkers at older courses in this area being renovated to be less deep.  Is the left bunker at the 6th at Pacific Dunes not deep enough for you?

Or are you generalizing this trend to make a point?  

Your comparison of a 2 iron vs a 9 iron for 170 yards is not reasonable in any likely scenario of fixing technology.

Then, you didn't understand the point.[/color]

I understood your point.  You're apparently missing mine.  Rolling back the ball 25 yards, for example, might make a one club difference to a tour pro.  That's not likely to make much difference in trajectory, or the way such a player has to work the ball, or not.  Now, if you expect a technology roll-back that leads to pros having to hit a mid-iron rather than a wedge then that might bring more greenside bunkers into play.  (Unless of course they're playing a course like Medinah yesterday where it looks like they could stick any club on the greens and have it stop.)

It is hard to accept your general premise above that all architectural features are becoming obsolete for pros and ams.  

Then, you're out of touch with what's going on in the golfing world.[/color]

Perhaps for pros, the current location and makeup of some architectural features on some courses are rendered meaningless, but for the vast majority of golfers they aren't.  


You've chosen to go to the extreme by redefining the issue.
I never referenced the "vast majority.

I tried to define the issue in a generalization.  If you'd answered my original question above then I wouldn't have redefined your intent.  Perhaps you could define the intent of your premise.  I'd probabably agree with you if you limited it to Pros and classic courses.  Medinah yesterday was depressing.

However, over this past weekend I played with a fellow who was a 5 handicap.  When I would hit a good drive he would be between 50 and 70 yards ahead of me.

Do you think any of the architectural features from the tee to the point his ball came to rest interfaced with him.

Do you think that his approach to 420 to 450 par 4's with wedges diminishes the significance of the greenside features, including bunkers ?

Do you think a sand or lob wedge from 100 yards interfaces with the architecture like a 5-iron from 170 yards.

I've also played with higher handicap players who also bomb the ball, rendering the architectural features less meaningful.[/color]

If technology were rolled back, would these people you play with not still outdrive you by 30 or 40 yards.  Would they still not be able to avoid some features that impact you (and vice versa)?  Would you still play the same courses from the same tees with rolled back technology.

Reigning in technology to make current architectural features meaningful to the Tour player will likely make the game too hard for the vast majority, for whom it is obviously hard already.

Oh really,

Then, why was the game so popular for the vast majority of golfers in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's ?

Obviously you don't understand that architects create features MEANT to be encountered by the golfer, not ignored by them.[/color]

Can architects create features that will be encountered the same way  with the same impact by players as diverse as Tour Pros, scratch amateurs, such as yourself, bogey golfers, women?  Even with the use of multiple tee decks?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As usual you didn't answer my question:

Not to Mucci you, but could you expand a bit on which architectural features you mean, what it means to be obsolete, and for whom.

I was trying to get you to frame the discussion.  As you've noted I interpreted your premise to be about all features for all players.  

Bryan,

What part of the BOLD title did you miss ?

How much clearer can I get.

I answered your question, you just don't seem to get it.[/color]

But, you could mean some features for the pros.  Just trying to clarify as a lot of your statements come out as gross generalizations.  

What's general about: PGA TOUR PROS ?[/color]

I wouldn't debate that some features on classic courses are obsolete (vestigial isn't quite right for what you're trying to say)for tour players or even amateur bombers.

In addition, specialty wedges have muted the impact of green side bunkers, as has the modern trend away from DEEP greenside bunkers.[/b][/color]

Specialty wedges have muted the impact of rough around greens as well, not to mention tucked pin positions.  Are you suggesting that specialty wedges be "rolled back" too?

Evidently you're not familiar with the term "flogging" and the impact that it's had on rendering architectural features obsolete.[/color]


Where do you play, where you see a trend away from DEEP greenside bunkers.  At the modern courses I play in my area there are still DEEP bunkers being built.  
Which courses are those ?[/color]


And I don't see bunkers at older courses in this area being renovated to be less deep.

Why would they be ?[/color]

Is the left bunker at the 6th at Pacific Dunes not deep enough for you?

How deep is it when compared to the land immediately left of the bunker ?

You're confusing the landform in front of the bunker, the hill, with bunker depth.[/color]

Or are you generalizing this trend to make a point?  

Your comparison of a 2 iron vs a 9 iron for 170 yards is not reasonable in any likely scenario of fixing technology.

Then, you didn't understand the point.[/color]

I understood your point.  You're apparently missing mine.  Rolling back the ball 25 yards, for example, might make a one club difference to a tour pro.  That's not likely to make much difference in trajectory, or the way such a player has to work the ball, or not.  Now, if you expect a technology roll-back that leads to pros having to hit a mid-iron rather than a wedge then that might bring more greenside bunkers into play.  (Unless of course they're playing a course like Medinah yesterday where it looks like they could stick any club on the greens and have it stop.)

The 25 yard roll back on the ball is applicable to drives hit at significant mph.  That would relate to at least an additional two club length diminishment with irons.

A 450 yard hole where drives were 275, would now have drives at 250.  Instead of 175 to the hole, they'd have 200, and with a ball that goes far less, instead of a 7 iron from 175 with a hot ball, they'd probably have a 4 iron from 200 with a less lively ball.

In my limited exposure to golf I've noticed that the flight of a 4-iron differs from that of a 7-iron.[/color]

It is hard to accept your general premise above that all architectural features are becoming obsolete for pros and ams.  

Then, you're out of touch with what's going on in the golfing world.[/color]

Perhaps for pros, the current location and makeup of some architectural features on some courses are rendered meaningless, but for the vast majority of golfers they aren't.  


You've chosen to go to the extreme by redefining the issue.
I never referenced the "vast majority.

I tried to define the issue in a generalization.  If you'd answered my original question above then I wouldn't have redefined your intent.  Perhaps you could define the intent of your premise.  I'd probabably agree with you if you limited it to Pros and classic courses.  Medinah yesterday was depressing.

You've asked a question that was answered by the title of the thread.

PGA TOUR PROS is the context in which the thread was framed.  You keep on asking me to answer a question that was answered in the TITLE of this thread.
Do you know what obtuse means ?

Please bone up on your reading comprehension skills.[/color]

However, over this past weekend I played with a fellow who was a 5 handicap.  When I would hit a good drive he would be between 50 and 70 yards ahead of me.

Do you think any of the architectural features from the tee to the point his ball came to rest interfaced with him.

Do you think that his approach to 420 to 450 par 4's with wedges diminishes the significance of the greenside features, including bunkers ?

Do you think a sand or lob wedge from 100 yards interfaces with the architecture like a 5-iron from 170 yards.

I've also played with higher handicap players who also bomb the ball, rendering the architectural features less meaningful.[/b]

If technology were rolled back, would these people you play with not still outdrive you by 30 or 40 yards.  

That's not the issue.
The issue isn't about relativity in the context of my drives, it's about the static nature of the architectural features and the modern day players ability to avoid interfacing with them as was intended by the architect.

Please tell me that you understand that.[/color]

Would they still not be able to avoid some features that impact you (and vice versa)?  Would you still play the same courses from the same tees with rolled back technology.

With rolled back technology many back tees meant to counter technology would probably be abandoned.

As to my selection, I would base my decision upon my ability to interface with the architecture from a given set of tees.

Not long ago I abandoned the back tees at courses that I regularly played them from because I was unable to play from those tees.   Lately, I've been returning to those tees as my length returned.

If the roll back materialized I would make a prudent decision based on my ability at the time of the roll back.[/color]

Reigning in technology to make current architectural features meaningful to the Tour player will likely make the game too hard for the vast majority, for whom it is obviously hard already.

Oh really,

Then, why was the game so popular for the vast majority of golfers in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's ?

Obviously you don't understand that architects create features MEANT to be encountered by the golfer, not ignored by them.[/color]

Can architects create features that will be encountered the same way  with the same impact by players as diverse as Tour Pros, scratch amateurs, such as yourself, bogey golfers, women?  Even with the use of multiple tee decks?

They did it for about 80 years, so I"m sure, with a roll back, that they'll be able to do it again.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()