Would It Bother You to Lose Distance if They Rolled Back the Ball?

[Garland Bayley]

I can show you how to knock 20-30 yards off the average drive and it will save you lots of money.....

Return your fairways to 1970 mowing heights and ease back on maintinance to eliminate consistancy....in other words as the seasons change so would the firmness of the faiways and greens....softer in the wet spring, firmer in the dry summer (unless its a wet summer) and softer in the fall....

Will the mowing height work on links courses (seasonal changes seem to have little effect)? If so, it violates John Kirk's unified theory of golf enjoyment and might cause you to be banished from the site.
 

[Phil Benedict]

Glenn Spencer,

I have always been relatively long regardless of technology.  So your point is valid in that technology hasn't necessarily created a competitive advantage (although I have a high launch so technology may be helping me a little more).

I know it sounds trite but it's fun to hit a 300-yard drive, which I couldn't do today with persimmon and balata.  Of course hitting it 270 might be just as much fun if I had never heard of ProV's or titanium.  The point is I have grown accustomed to the performance characteristics of modern equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Old classic courses needing to be lengthened? Again, for whom? Why?  Are you telling me they are no longer a challenge for their membership? Are you telling me their membership consists of former 15 handicappers that are now 2 handicappers blasting the ball 300 yards because of new equipment?

For the 2 handicappers! Little has changed for the 15 handicappers. The 2 handicappers used to be limited by the technology they used. Now they can hit it as far as the 15 handicappers. NOTE: the 15 handicappers did not make clean contact with the ball and so had little use for a spinning ball. Therefore the stronger 15 handicappers have been blasting their Pinnacles great distances for a long time to no good effect.

[Rick Shefchik]

It would not bother me at all.

I play two kinds of golf: competitive (club events, inter-club events and the occasional state am tournament), and recreational (casual rounds with my wife and my buddies.)

In the first instance, a rollback of the ball would affect all of us, so who cares? In the second instance, nobody checks to see what kind of ball I'm playing. Unless we've got a money match going, I can tee up a Doug Siebert Special, and it's my own business (assuming I don't enter the score for handicap purposes, which I would never do). A ball rollback wouldn't make any difference in that case, either -- and that's probably 75 percent of the rounds played in America.

[Garland Bayley]

Rich,

I assume you realize that you are subverting the handicap system to your detriment by not posting all your scores.

[Rick Shefchik]

Sorry, Garland, I guess I didn't make myself clear.

I don't play with non-conforming balls, and I do put in all my scores. I'm just saying that if I did play with a non-conforming ball, I would not enter a score -- just like a majority of the players I see at my public course every day. They don't keep handicaps anyway, so who cares what kind of ball play with? I don't think they do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can show you how to knock 20-30 yards off the average drive and it will save you lots of money.....

Return your fairways to 1970 mowing heights and ease back on maintinance to eliminate consistancy....in other words as the seasons change so would the firmness of the faiways and greens....softer in the wet spring, firmer in the dry summer (unless its a wet summer) and softer in the fall....

Craig,

That might have worked 30-40 years ago when the prefered ball flight was a low draw that maximized roll.

But, today, it's airborne all the way.

Today, it's all about higher launch angles that produce prodigious carries, and not runout on the fairway.

Mowing fairways higher won't affect carry one iota, and distance will remain the arch enemy of architecture.

You're in fantasy land on this one.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...when I watch good golfer play under conditions that you and others advocate...firm and fast...I see 30-40-50 yards of roll....heck, on the week in and week out PGA set ups I see 30-40 yards of roll unless its been raining cats and dogs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As for courses getting longer I have to ask why? For whom? Do these developers seriously think more than 1% of ALL golfers need to be challenged by 7500 yards?  Do they seriously think that boasting about, and building an 8000 yard course will make them money?

Craig,

That's part of the problem.
It's the perception of the golf course by the golf world and the dilema modern day architects face.

Today, a golf course has to be suitable for EVERY level of player.   If a golf course ignores the long hitter by not presenting a suitable challenge for them, the golf course will be deemed inferior by some, if not many.  You'd be surprised how that can affect perception and marketing efforts.

For better or worse, there's seems to be the need for a "Macho" complex in order for a course to be attractive.
If it's not demanding and difficult, it's perceived as a "cream puff", in need of some beef.

Old classic courses needing to be lengthened? Again, for whom?

For the superior golfer, be they amateur or pro

Why?

So that they continue to present the challenge to the better player as intended by the architect.

And, they have to do this due to the product of hi-tech... distance.  

Are you telling me they are no longer a challenge for their membership?

YES,  that's correct.
The championship course is no longer a challenge for the championship player.   It's that simple.  And, that's why virtually every course has/is lengthened.

Are you telling me their membership consists of former 15 handicappers that are now 2 handicappers blasting the ball 300 yards because of new equipment ?

NO, why do you take that extreme, absurd position.

It's due to young kids who blast the ball a mile.
It's due to the low handicap player who now hits the ball beyond the features on the golf course that the architect intended for him to interface with.

And, it's all due to YOUR friend.
HI-TECH and the DISTANCE it's created.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...when I watch good golfer play under conditions that you and others advocate...firm and fast...I see 30-40-50 yards of roll....heck, on the week in and week out PGA set ups I see 30-40 yards of roll unless its been raining cats and dogs.

Let me see if I understand this.

You watch PGA Tour golf on TV.
You see the ball run 30-40-50 yards.

Did you ever consider that extensive amounts of money have been infused into the golf course and maintainance for months if not the year preceeding the tournament, and that the course has been especially prepared for ONE WEEK in a year at optimal conditions.

Conditions that are impossible to maintain throughout the year.

And, that the golf course has been closed to members for one to two weeks prior to the event to really make it "SHINE" on TV.

And, that most of the golf you've been watching lately is from the DESERT, where water is a scarce if not rare commodity.

And, that as soon as the pros leave, conditions will change.

I want to see you produce firm, fast conditions in the northeast in the spring and summer, especially in August.

I want to see you produce firm, fast conditions in South Florida in the spring, summer and fall.

I want to see you overcome the MEMBERSHIP'S desire to see the course sparkle that nice EMERALD GREEN sparkle that they see on TV every week.

Probably the foremost reason that clubs in Florida and the south abandoned Ormond or Common Bermuda was because it went dormant and turned brownish, and then PURPLE when it got cold.

Due to the PGA Tour on TV, which you've been watching, everyone wants GREEN grass mowed in attractive (to them) patterns.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Today, it's all about higher launch angles that produce prodigious carries, and not runout on the fairway.
...

Old information Patrick. They are now optimizing for maximum roll out at the end of that long carry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

...
Today, it's all about higher launch angles that produce prodigious carries, and not runout on the fairway.
...

Old information Patrick. They are now optimizing for maximum roll out at the end of that long carry.

Garland,

That's the spin issue.

If you look at "distance" CARRY is the critical factor.
The higher the launch angle, the steeper the descent angle. Steeper descent angles don't produce distance.

[Andy Hughes]

It's due to the low handicap player who now hits the ball beyond the features on the golf course that the architect intended for him to interface with.

Patrick, what is your estimate for the percentage of club golfers who now hit the ball beyond the features?  Would you guess that number is roughly comparable for the publinx golfer?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Today, it's all about higher launch angles that produce prodigious carries, and not runout on the fairway.
...

Old information Patrick. They are now optimizing for maximum roll out at the end of that long carry.

Garland,

That's the spin issue.

If you look at "distance" CARRY is the critical factor.
The higher the launch angle, the steeper the descent angle. Steeper descent angles don't produce distance.

Hello Patrick, wake up new information incoming. Now that they have carry distance pretty well solved the are working on the combination. Check out one of the Golf Digests from last year for the specifics. If I remember the article correctly, JB Holmes and Bubba Watson are a couple that have optimized this combined effect.

The are reducing the descent angles!

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's due to the low handicap player who now hits the ball beyond the features on the golf course that the architect intended for him to interface with.

Patrick, what is your estimate for the percentage of club golfers who now hit the ball beyond the features?  Would you guess that number is roughly comparable for the publinx golfer?

The issue is about how distance has affected the interfacing of the features with the golfer, irrespective of the tees they  historically have played from.

However,the issue tends to be focused on play from the championship tees, which are the tees designed to test the BEST golfers.

If you take today's better players, be they 4 handicaps to + handicaps, and let them play Winged Foot West, a very demanding golf course, from the 1959 U.S. Open tees, play from those tees will NOT allow for the interfacng of the architectural features with the golfer as they were intended by the architect.

It doesn't matter if 1 %, 3 % or 12 % of the members are 4 handicaps or better.

And, this is exactly what happened, hence, WFW lengthened their tees such that the features intended for interfacing were restored, back into play.

The same thing has occured from forward tees.
Golfers today are hitting the ball longer and higher than they did 20 and 30 years ago, despite the fact that they've gotten much older, and as such, architectural features are being obsoleted.

Why do you think, when there's no more room at the tee end, that clubs are thinking about moving those features back into play ?

But, let's take this a step further, since many seem to have fallen in love with hi-tech and increased distance.

If a new club would allow good players to drive the ball 400 yards, would it be good for them ?

But, BAD for golf ?

So, do you opt to do what's good for the game ?

Or, what will ultimately lead to the demise of the game ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

...
Today, it's all about higher launch angles that produce prodigious carries, and not runout on the fairway.
...

Old information Patrick. They are now optimizing for maximum roll out at the end of that long carry.

Garland,

That's the spin issue.

If you look at "distance" CARRY is the critical factor.
The higher the launch angle, the steeper the descent angle. Steeper descent angles don't produce distance.

Hello Patrick, wake up new information incoming. Now that they have carry distance pretty well solved the are working on the combination. Check out one of the Golf Digests from last year for the specifics. If I remember the article correctly, JB Holmes and Bubba Watson are a couple that have optimized this combined effect.

The are reducing the descent angles!

To obtain additional distance, you can only reduce launch and descent angles when swing speeds are increased, to extremely high, which is made possible by hi-tech shafts, longer shafts and lightweight club heads.

ie, HI-TECH

Wake up and smell the science.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Patrick, you responded as if I was trying to spring a 'gotcha' on you. I wasn't--I was genuinely curious what you thought the scope of the problem is.

It doesn't matter if 1 %, 3 % or 12 % of the members are 4 handicaps or better.

Well, it might.  If courses are spending millions and potentially ruining what makes them special, then the fact that they might be doing it because .5% of their members no longer 'interface' with certain features as designed could be relevant.  

I asked what I asked because I have not personally seen the effects you speak of. Those I play with clearly have not rendered courses or features obsolete.  That does not mean I disagree with your contention, as I am sure you are correct. But I am not at all clear on the scope of the problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AHughes,

They're not doing it for .5 % of their members, or 2 people out of 400.  It's far more prevalent than that.

An element of the motive may be generational.

Some of the young kids at clubs hit the ball remarkable distances and the older members see how they ignore many, if not most, of the features meant to inferface with their game.

Others see what's happening on TV.

Others, who host events, are astounded at where the players are hitting the ball on their home course.

My father, Joe McBride, William Dear and others were superb golfers, having played in many U.S. Amateurs and U.S. Opens, but, when they were in their 70's they never hit the ball the distance that my friends in their 70's are hitting the ball, and none of them are anywhere near the player that my dad and his peers were.  These are fellows whose handicaps are in the teens.

Many of the young players where I play hit the ball so far beyond the features that it's ridiculous.  And, some of the older, better players are also hitting the ball a mile.
 
The advantage to the long ball hitter is no longer incremental, it's exponential.

There is not a course that I know of that hasn't either lengthened their tees or are about to lengthen their tees in order to present the challenge off the tee as intended by the architect.

[Phil Benedict]

Just for the heck of it I played the back (7000 yards) tees last week at Shadow Ridge in Palm Desert.  Previously I had played the next-to-back tees (6600 yards).  The course has wide fairways, a number of which are bisected by bunkers.   From the 6600 yard tees I can pretty much fly all of these bunkers, so I would generally just aim right at them.  From the 7000 yard tees I had to take the bunkers into account, making target line selection more challenging and interesting.  It was more fun playing the tips, not so much for my ego (although there is that too) but because (to paraphrase Patrick) they forced me to interface with the architecture.

[Adam Sherer]

I like the distance I hit the ball now with modern tools (275 if I hit it good, 235-250 if bad), but if you told me I'd never gain any more distance, I'd be ok with that.

I second that.

Keep it where it is, but it has to be stopped soon (reference previous thread: "drivable par 4")

[JR Potts]

AHughes,

They're not doing it for .5 % of their members, or 2 people out of 400.  It's far more prevalent than that.

An element of the motive may be generational.

Some of the young kids at clubs hit the ball remarkable distances and the older members see how they ignore many, if not most, of the features meant to inferface with their game.

Others see what's happening on TV.

Others, who host events, are astounded at where the players are hitting the ball on their home course.

My father, Joe McBride, William Dear and others were superb golfers, having played in many U.S. Amateurs and U.S. Opens, but, when they were in their 70's they never hit the ball the distance that my friends in their 70's are hitting the ball, and none of them are anywhere near the player that my dad and his peers were.  These are fellows whose handicaps are in the teens.

Many of the young players where I play hit the ball so far beyond the features that it's ridiculous.  And, some of the younger, better players are also hitting the ball a mile.
 
The advantage to the long ball hitter is no longer incremental, it's exponential.

There is not a course that I know of that hasn't either lengthened their tees or are about to lengthen their tees in order to present the challenge off the tee as intended by the architect.

Patrick is 100% right.

Medinah moved all of their bunkers, lenghthened the course and minimized the green complexes because the course was so long.  Someone forgot that 7600 isn't long anymore.

Even a 29 year-old like me remembers the day when most members I knew couldn't reach the 450 yard par 4 4th hole in two.  Even the pretty good players couldn't.  Now, I hit between PW and 7 iron into the green and most guys are knocking it on the front edge with their hybrid.

Medinah had to rebunker and extend the course for probably 25% of the players playing on a given day.  

[Adam Sherer]

AHughes,


There is not a course that I know of that hasn't either lengthened their tees or are about to lengthen their tees in order to present the challenge off the tee as intended by the architect.

Look at it another way:

If Professional Baseball had succumbed to metal bats and poly-core balls, would Fenway still be in existence? Would Wrigley Field still be standing?

Can you think of any other "baseball" than what there is now?  Essentially, baseball is the same (excluding steroids) from what it was in the 20s and 30s. It stopped, it decidedd not to allow the advancement of technology to interfere with the game. You can't go back, but you can choose not to go any further.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
I think these two lines of yours were particularly interesting: "If a new club would allow good players to drive the ball 400 yards, would it be good for them? But, BAD for golf?"

With the advantages that everyone has gained through the new technology over the past decade, and with the (still) wide variety of individual playing experiences/skills, it's probably impossible to reach any kind of agreement on a thread like this: we're all too close to the situation. Or, in the immortal words of Michael Corleone "Senator, we're all part of the same hypocrisy".

But those two lines bring us out of our present situation and, IMHO, force us to see the issue in a very clear light. IF there was suddenly a new club-ball combination that could give a decent player 400 yard drives, I believe every single person on this site would say - "STOP! It's ruining our courses, and the game."  And every single person would be right.

Peter
   

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

When you extend the quest for distance it reaches a point at which it destroys the game and renders the architecture useless.  

Some think we've passed that point, others think we've reached it, others think it's ahead of us and others think it will never happen.

How does an architect design a golf course that can challenge the best players in the world while at the same time accomodate beginers, seniors, etc.,etc. ?

Compression, not expansion is the key to preserving the lure and challenge of the game.

[Doug Siebert]

Phil Benedict,

If you love the game, distance isn't a critical factor.

You'll play the game irrespective of the distance you can produce.

Patrick,

I do love the game and wouldn't love it any less if the technological advances of the past few years hadn't occurred.  However, we don't live in a vacuum and I have to admit I like the distance the new technology affords.  For one thing, it creates the illusion that I am still in my physical prime when in fact I am well into middle age.  For another thing, I have never really considered myself a good player but have always had above-average length.  I would rather be a good player with average length but haven't gotten there yet.

If you have above average length today, they could roll the ball back by 50% and you'd still have above average length.  You'd have to get used to a booming drive going 150, but when the average guy is only hitting it about 120, you are still hitting your approach last more often than not.

Plus, when you went from middle age to old age it might be useful to hit it shorter so you could see where it goes!