TOC--Keeping up with the (Rees?) Joneses?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

John Huggan reports in today's Scotsman that "an architect has been employed" to add 6 new tees and 200 yards to the current 7115 yard Championship set-up to The Old Course.  R&A Secretary Peter Dawson says, amongst other things that:  "It's a bit like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.  But the last tee changes have been accepted, and are now part of the course.  It's a shame but some of the bunkering on the Old Course has become obsolete."

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, adding tee length is less offensive to the integrity of a golf course's architecture (only if it can be easily done without altering other holes in the process) than it would be if someone got into altering the features on the bodies of the holes themselves--like bunkers, greens and other features!

But there is a way that is so much better in dealing with these things! Control balls and impliments to the extent it doesn't much need to be done at all!

In the minds of those that control balls and impliments, the integrity of golf courses and their architecture really doesn't seem to matter very much!

But most everyone that seems to care about golf architecture seems to profess some kind of love for TOC!

Maybe, then, the last lines of Oscar Wilde's "Ballad of Reading Gaol" are applicable;

"All men kill the thing they love,
By all let this be heard,
Some do it with...."

[Jeff Mingay]

It's amazingly sad, that the game's governing bodies clearly recognize the problem and continue to fail to properly address it for "the good of the game."

The R&A hiring an architect to lengthen the Old Course... the USGA hiring an architect to reconstruct and lengthen Bethpage Black and, more recently, Torrey Pines for their annual Open championship... when the solution to the problem is much simpler: control the ball.

Sure, there'll be a few legal battles to fight. But, clearly, what's best for the game in the long run, lengthening the Old Course to 8,000 yards? Or controlling the golf ball?  

Smart thinking boys...

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

I've heard time and time again from people here on GCA and elsewhere about controlling the ball and club improvements within golf. Let's be clear -- has any sport really rolled back once these elements have been introduced and accepted into the mainframe of those playing? I also would like to know what specific game plan has been put together that itemizes for the key club and ball companies how it is in their "interest" to do so?

It's really easy to get on a soapbox here or anywhere else and say what's wrong. What is the game plan that's built around meaningful consensus. I say that because if anyone believes any of the key equipment companies are just going to unilaterally disarm then you must be smoking some wild weed!

The time for much of this was years ago -- i.e. when metal clubs were introduced. The USGA slept at the switch and as a result we've seen plenty of aspects come forward. Is all of this bad?

Take for example the announcement of Torrey Pines to host the '08 US Open. I have not played the "new" Torrey but the old South layout was nothing more than a basic muni with a few holes of note. Is the course worthy of an US Open? I don't know that -- I'd like to play it and make up my own mind.

I do agree that adding length as TEPaul mentioned is not such a bad aspect because it keeps intact the bunkering, green contours and other areas of importance. I also agree that tinkering with the classics is something that should be approached with great care because of their pedigree and historial significance.

What many don't realize is that we move deeper into the 21st century there will be likely new courses that serve as host for major championships. Logistics are one major part of that as well as having courses with the wherewithal to really test the world's best. I think that's great. I also believe the improvements that were carried out at Bethpage Black were well done -- I only hope they allow the Black to return to a more "wild" look instead of everything be combed so perfectly.

What we have in golf is the very elite players and then the masses. Does golf create a structure that deals with each or do we continue with what we have?

It's time for a real meeting of the minds to take place and I believe a party that can play a major role is the PGA Tour. The Tour can serve as broker between the USGA and the equipment companies on the other side who depend upon the Tour to showcase their hardware. It's time Tim Finchem moved away from the always "play it safe" role and one of bringing together some sort of consensus that will avoid the kind of contentious and distrusting climate we have today.  

Does Finchem see the situation of continued ball and club improvements in the same way as a number of others do on GCA? I would urge the major publications within golf to have an in-depth Q&A with the Commissioner and ask him point blank -- what is his role in this ongoing debate? Does he see this issue as being one of central importance to the Tour and to the overall game?

Unless there is a move on the part of major players to form some sort of consensus it will be really useless for the USGA / R&A to issue edicts from Far Hills and St. Andrews. Persuaion not bromides is what's needed now.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I don't think the blame, if any, rests on the shoulders of the USGA or the R&A. They have B&I rules in place now that suffice for the vast majority of golfers on the planet. They are taking steps to limit COR and are updating their measuring devices for balls. If think that if the status quo remains, golf for everyone will survive.
I think this issue rests squarely on the shoulders of the professional tours. They could/should institute self imposed limitations on equipment/balls or stay away from courses that no longer meet the yardage requirements for their events. Their participation would make it easy for the USGA/R&A to limit the ball for their major events, making it unnecessary to futz around with layouts.

[Bob_Huntley]

From the gutta percha to the Gammetter wound ball, to the latest Pro V1, purists have always complained that the world was coming to an end. To try, at this late stage,  to regulate the current distance enhancing properties of golf balls, is rather akin to placing the genie back in the bottle. It can be done but only by resolute action of the governing bodies of the game. The USGA and R&A are not up to the battle.

It would seem that the folks at Augusta would have the best chance of dictating the change needed. However, their troubles with the fairer sex are probably in much more urgent need of attention than picking a fight with the manufacturers.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

Jeesus, that's quite a post of yours. You say the contributors on here are standing on a soapbox complaining only about what's wrong when they should be offering constructive game plans for how to make it better! Haven't you noticed the constructive game plans that have been put forward here on this very site for a few years now? Some of them are in minute detail and possess some really good long range thinking and solutions, in my opinion!

I don't even know where you think you're going with that post. You start out by asking what other sport has ever rolled back the technology of its equipment! Is that supposed to mean that it's impossible to do in your opinion? Does any other sport have playing fields remotely like golf does that are as much in jeopardy from equipment advances as golf's are?

But later in your post you say you think Finchem and the PGA Tour should be the motivation behind any constructive change. We've been over that before on here--how it might happen that way and also how that might not work very well!

There's nothing wrong at all with contributors on here mentioning what's wrong! And it certainly would be even better if they offered constructive game plans for solutions to what's wrong, as they already have.

You might be one of those people who thinks everyone's opinion is meaningless except some big honcho like Finchem!

Where do you think oak trees come from? They come from little acorns!

Do you think the USGA is not aware of Golfclubatlas, Matt? They're aware of it alright! They're even pissed as hell at it too! Why? Because they don't want to hear a lot of what's been said on here! They know that much of what's been said on here is telling them to step up to the plate and get negotiating here! And they know they have to do that too!

I think they're pissed at a lot of people who are asking them to get things moving with the manufacturers and the other entities of golf. They're not pissed because they think it's not true and not right, they're pissed because they know they don't have the guts to step up and start things rolling in the right direction at this point!

There're just going to be more and more voices telling them to do it as time goes on and eventually they're going to move! I just hope when they do finally move they do it the right way--and I sure haven't been hesitant to mention on here what I feel that right way would be--and it's a pretty good game plan, in my opinion!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Here is what I don't understand.

For the last 50 years courses have been lengthening their tees, to the betterment of the course, and no one had a single complaint.

Why now, and why so many Johnny come latelies ?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Let me point out something that all the bromides miss here on GCA on this subject. Finchem has a unique role -- he is the center point for the Tour which has a clear relationship with the equipment companies and all the hi-tech stuff that gets recognized when a player does well.

What is his role in this whole thing? Have key parties reached out to him? Obviously, he wants to see some semblance of order because chaos doesn't serve his interests.

Does anyone really believe the USGA has a concrete and well thought out game plan on this topic?

Tom, the only way something gets done is when people understand the motivation of the others involved. They don't have to agree and walk in lock step. But people here on GCA who wax on and on about cutting back the ball and equipment are blowing off plenty of smoke but its realism is just not serious.

The equipment companies are not going to unilaterally disarm because some elite voices on GCA are crying about the effect on classic courses. I would love to find out among the voices here on GCA who ritually complain about equipment and ball improvements -- ask them what THEY USE when playing now? Do they use an oversize head driver that's titanium? Do they really use the old fashioned 100% balata ball like the old Red Max or its equivalent? People talk about it but when they play are the first ones to jump into the pro shop or call a mail house and order the latest and greatest thing on the market.

In closing -- I do agree something must be done. But it's time to realize that someone like Finchem has such a special place in the golf today. He is the man that gives the equipment companies the best showcase one can ever have -- the PGA Tour. He can influence the debate on where golf is headed and what is indeed "good for the game."

Tom -- follow the $$. That's where everything is going to be decided. Just remember the line from movie Wall Street when Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko says to Charlie Sheen -- "remember kid, it's all about money -- the rest is conversation." No truer words were spoken and this issue fits it to a tee (no pun intended).

[Kevin_Reilly]

Matt Ward:

Are you aware of the fact that the NFL uses special balls for kickoffs?  Why would they do something like that?  Because balls were being kicked out of the end zones.  

Did the NFL fall apart because of that?  Have you even noticed it? Do you prefer to watch a return on a kickoff or some guy taking a knee in the end zone.

[Matt_Ward]

Kevin:

Your point needs to be examined.

First, the NFL is the sole entity responsible for bringing footballs to any game contested under its jurisdiction. The individual NFL teams don't bring their own footballs and say we will play only with this one.

I will mention one example you could have used -- the use of aluminum bats at the college level but there prohibition in the Major Leagues. Again, the element of control is easier in a team situation than in one where you deal with independent contractors and where individual equipment companies have any number of players shucking their products week after week.

Look, the USGA has just not handled this situation in a very organized / consistent manner. The solution is not about some guys / gals in Far Hills issuing edicts. The Pope does that in Rome and has limited influence. I just see Finchem as the perfect middle ground guy who could bring the warring factions on the extreme sides to a more grounded long term solution.

The Tour is central to the equipment companies -- it gives them exposure and validates their products for the rest of us who play. I'd just like to know if Finchem sees all this talk about the runaway effect of technology as a serious issue. I've never heard someone pose a direct question to him on this matter.

No matter what -- consensus is needed and the folks in Far Hills had better realize that without it nothing of any significance will be achieved.

[Michael Whitaker]

My Saturday foursome has decided that there are two reasonable suggestions to solving the distance "remodeling" issue:

1) The PGA & European Tours can adopt a standard ball for competitions. This will not involve the USGA/R&A and will not prevent the average golfer from using his favorite ball. Manufacturers will not feel threatened, and they will still be able to hype their latest creations... even using Pro spokespeople in ads, thereby keeping their endorsements.

and/or

2) A local rule can be established for "Tour" competitions that reduces the number of clubs a competitor can carry from 14 to 10, 11, or 12.  Take a few clubs out of a player's bag and watch them try and create shots for the "odd" distances they will face. 14 clubs is an arbitrary number anyway... pros used to carry 30 or more up until the 1930's when the rule was changed limiting everyone to 14. Cut Tiger to 10 clubs - I'd like to see what he would take out of his bag.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

First of all are you aware of the committee that was formed as a result of the Ping/PGA Tour lawsuit settlement? If you're not you should be.

If and when the PGA Tour ever decides they want to get involved in B&I issues there's a process that must be followed for them to do so which would be to consult with this committee which would then investigate why the PGA Tour would need to do such a thing. Presumably if the committee then recommends that they do attempt to do something in this area the committee's recommendation would go back to the Tour's Policy Board for review and approval.

Remember Finchem mentioned about six months ago that if the USGA and the R&A did not do something about unifying on their COR issues that the PGA Tour might need to get involved? Well, about a week later Finchem basically pulled that statement. Wonder why? He apparently found out what the PGA Tour had to do to get involved in something like that, which was basically jump through a lot of hoops!

Anyway, to have the PGA Tour act as a "broker" or mediatior to get the USGA/R&A and the manufacturers to sit down and talk about what would be reasonable for golf's ball & equipment rules and regs in the future is certainly not a bad idea.

My feeling has been that an even better idea would be to regenerate the function of that committee (who is made up of some extremely heavy-weight and disinterested parties--five in all) and get THEM to be the ones to be the "mediator" or "broker" to get EVERYONE, including the PGA Tour, USGA/R&A, manufacturers and all the other important entities of golf to sit down and talk some sense about this ball & impliment issue going into the future and how it relates to things like the future of the world's golf architecture that golf needs to be played on in the future!

I even envisioned that if this committee could get involved as a mediator to do this that a new chairman should be appointed of that committee and that that chairman should logically be George Bush Sr. (he would be the perfect candidate to function in that roll--connected to the USGA though his father (PRES of USGA) as well as his maternal grandfather Herbert Walker of the Walker Cup)! That's his golf connection and on the other side, like his career, his resume ain't too shabby either!).

So I floated that recommendation by one of the members of that committee and he told me to call someone in the PGA Tour which I haven't done. But I did write a proposal to this entire effect and placed it in the hands of one influential person and have not heard yet as to his reaction.

But I agree with you that someone should start to do something to get all the interested parties together to sit down and talk about where golf's balls and equipment needs to be in 1,5,10,50 and 100 years and set some new B&I rules and regs to make that happen!

So there are some game plans out there Matt!

[ChipOat]

People probably bitched when Old Tom made the (BIG!!)changes in the 1800's that made TOC what the world came to worship.

Where is it written that Old Tom had a lock on all the good ideas about TOC?  Or Wilson/Flynn at Merion?  Or Flynn at Shinnecock? etc., etc.

We already know MacKenzie didn't think of all the good ideas for ANGC - why did he necessarily create the unalterable at Cypress or Pasatiempo?

Golf course aren't paintings!!  We do more than just look at them!  We have to play golf on them!!

Mona Lisa is a lousy comparison for a great golf course - golf courses have moving parts and paintings don't.  I prefer to think of great golf courses more like Rolls Royces - fabulous but improvable.

Never a guarantee that the changers won't screw it up, of course.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Appreciate your feedback. The issue in building consensus starts with the USGA acknowledging that the "my way or the highway" mentality serves no purpose.

I would like to see Finchem fill the hole of leadership that exists on this topic. Diffciult to assess why he hasn't made more of an effort to serve as a mediator. Will he do so? I don't know the answer to that, but given the level of mistrust that exists between many of the leading equipment companies and certain hard line types at the USGA I believe it's about time he step forward and get things moving.

We shall see ...

[Dan Kelly]

Shivas --

Make that 4 cents.

All of these "improvements" come at a price, you know!

I second (or perhaps fourth?) your observations.

I would go further: The market is very often wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave & Dan,

It seems disengenuous or at least inconsistent when people suddenly object to the lengthening of holes when that process has been going on for 50 years.  Steel shafts have been around for more than fifty years.  If you look at additional tee lengthening that took place in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's it had nothing to do with high tech.

Perhaps the results derived from the combination of metal woods and the pinnacle ball was the first leap in distance, but tee lengthening had been underway for 40 years before that event.

I think you have to make a hole by hole analysis when evaluating the merits or demerits of added tee length.

Where were these critical voices when:

NGLA lengthened tees,
when Shinnecock lengthened tees,
when Winged Foot lengthened tees,
when Preakness Hills lengthened tees ?  
When Merion lengthened tees ?  
When Garden City lengthened tees ?
When Pine Valley lengthened tees ?

When the 12th at Winged Foot was originally lengthened, they altered the angle of attack dramatically, making the hole more of a dog-leg off the tee, and no one complained.

Again, I don't understand the Johnny come latelies.

[Rick Shefchik]

When Merion and Shinnecock and Winged Foot were lenghtening their tees, it was in response to a modern breed, several generations in the evolving, that had made these championship venues too short for U.S. Opens. Somewhere between the appearance of Jack Nicklaus and the appearance of Tiger Woods, the courses of Ben Hogan's day were no longer adequate to test the best players.

I don't think those changes were made solely as a response to improved equipment -- but the current round of lengthening is a result of technological advancements, nothing more, the next round will be a response to unchecked technology as well, and the next one after that. Humans can't improve as fast as equipment can, especially given the USGA, R&A and PGA's current lack of control or will.

I think the Johnny come latelys are responding not to the lengthening as much as the speed with which extra yards now become necessary. St. Andrews lengthened, what, six years or so ago? Will the next lenghtening be necessary in three years?

I think as amateurs, we also have a decision to make. If the pros will not leave the classic courses alone, then we'll have to identify new classics that will not host pro tournaments. Just because the very highest echelons of the game are going in one direction doesn't mean we have to follow -- and that goes for any classic course membership that chooses to get off the distance merry-go-round.

One other point, responding to Matt's question about what kind of equipment is used by those who most loudly object to the advancement in club and ball technology: I use whatever's legal. My gripe about the equipment has nothing whatsoever to do with how far my ball or Tiger's ball goes; it has everything to do with what St. Andrews decides it has to do to keep up with it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
Rick makes a valid point about those coming late to the party. Time has compressed as it relates to technology.
I also think a heightened awareness of GCA has contributed to it.
It's akin to the stanza in Arlo's Alice's Restaurant ....."And can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."

[ian]

I've seen the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, she needs a moustache!

Isn't the architect Donald Steel and hasn't he been the course consultant for quite some time? The fact that it is "only" tees does not offend me like others. A green, new bunkers, etc. would be the thing to get my back up. Do remember that the old course has 14 par 4's which adds up yardage quicker than a layout with four par threes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

Paintings are static, and the analogy to golf courses, which evolve naturally and with man made assists, is poor at best.

Jim and Rick,

I will agree that the "jump" in distance is occuring at shorter intervals, but I still feel that you have to examine the issue on a hole specific basis, rather than making broad condemnations.

This isn't the first time tee length has been added at TOC.
And, I'm not so sure that the added length won't KEEP the bunkers in play.  Again, the issue needs to be examined and evaluated on a hole by hole basis.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I totally agree with assessing change on a hole by hole basis but I also think that no one involved with GCA at any level wishes to see the "hole"sale loss of the particular values that some of these changes may bring. Did the lengthening of the examples you spoke of, particularly the 12th at WFW, change the inherent values of those holes?
I've seen the wonderful "Leven" hole at our course get disrupted by shortening! The green was saved, with George Bahto's help, and it's now being used as a par 3. It is totally serviceable and has become accepted but it was meddling with awell loved hole. So it is that the antennae become raised when talk of change is spoke of, especially at someplace so rare as TOC, even if it is "just" lengthening some tees.
 
  

[Mike_Cirba]

The Old Course is sort of a conundrum.

What to do?  No one wants to see her marginalized to the point where she is taken off the Open rota, yet this pushing of the tees back every five years is getting not only silly, but bordering on sacriligious.

Yes, of all possible design changes, pushing tees back is preferable, but...

With the geography of the land that course occupies, with it's very narrow out and back routing, you begin to hit the point where one group is forced to tee off over the green of the preceding hole, leading to exceptionally lengthy rounds (already a problem with the double greens and parallel routing), as group after group is forced to wait for play to finish elsewhere.  

Also, the continuity and intimacy of the course is compromised with each "extension", to the point that one has to wonder if all the fuss is worth hosting the Open every five years.  

It's like the nuclear arms race where each side would build enough missiles to ensure mutual annihilation 12 times over, except in this case, there are no winners.  Does anyone believe that the course gets better with each change?

Technology unabated in golf only leads to destruction of courses that have survived as the avatars of the game for generations.  Do the USGA and R&A really believe this is all for "The good of the game?"

[Tom Doak]

Has anyone in the history of sport ever rolled back the equipment?

Well, yes, the R & A rolled back their 1.62-inch golf ball back in 1979, phasing it out over ten years.  The golf ball was also actively changed several times in the first thirty years of the last century, although it was not "rolled back" so much as controlled in its forward progress.

The Old Course has been lengthened several times, and will probably survive even if lengthened again.  Some of the last set of back tees are extremely dangerous, but since they're only used in championship play it's not much of an issue.  

The Old Course has the advantage of keeping all the spectators on the outside of the course.  On a lot of courses these requisite new back tees crash into other holes, and leave no room for the galleries to get around.  

[ian]

Pat, that was a joke in referance to another post.