News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2007, 05:07:12 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2007, 05:07:24 PM »

 
Do not know the new groove rule or understand it.  I thought my TP Y-Cutters had as good of grooves as could be purchased legally.  On this I agree to be ignorant.

I'll take that, albeit on this very limited topic.  I, too, am ignorant, other than a literal reading of the language, which I copied from the USGA website.  A literal reading sure seems like this is only intended to apply to elite golfers, which I read as a bifurcation.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 05:09:26 PM by Powell Arms »
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

John Kavanaugh

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2007, 05:09:03 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

Buildings did not continue to get taller just because people have.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2007, 05:16:52 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

Buildings did not continue to get taller just because people have.

Exactly...



Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2007, 05:17:01 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

I'm not saying bifuircation is the best option, just an option.  

In answer top your quesiotns, maybe a lot of folks would want to use competition balls for their casual rounds.  Myabe they wouldnt.  In any event, they can price the balls at the ProV price point and revenues would be unchanged.

The correlation between green fees and distance is probably not 1:1, but I am certain that added length means more area to maintain, more land to acquire, and therefore means added cost.  But I don't think cost is a primary motivator here.  I think that is as stated above, it is one way to enahnce the excitement of the PGA tour events.
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2007, 05:21:41 PM »
Powell,

With all due respect, please tell me this crusade is not an attempt to make television golf more exciting...

The guys on TV play the courses they want, or they demand the courses be changed. If a hole is too difficult to approach with a 4 iron they play it from 30 yards up and let them hit 6 and 7 irons...shortening the ball for them would simply cause damage to the members tees during the tournament week and the month following...

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2007, 05:23:18 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

I've always thought a majority of frequent golfers would continue to buy and play what the pros use -- how else would we know how good we are? Then again, if club and amateur tournaments continued to allow non-restrictive equipment, you'd probably wouldn't be willing to give the rest of the field an edge.

By the way, Sean's comment about the irrelevance of par may have merit, but not when it comes to handicaps. Par is the only way golfers can measure themselves against each other numerically. I'm not a big fan of handicaps anyway, but without par, you can do away with handicaps, too.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2007, 05:26:33 PM »
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use?   I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.

Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.

Sully

I am not sure if bifurcation is the answer, but I would be willing to give a try.  I honestly believe that pros play a different game with different equipment and on differently prepared courses than I do as it is.  The question is, would the pros give it a go?  Like most things dealing with the perceived reduction in challenges between generations, it is usually the retired generation that thinks there is a problem.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2007, 05:26:35 PM »
Rick,

Handicaps are indirectly at best related to par. It's course rating and slope that determine handicapping.

As to club players buying the Tour stuff or not if they were allowed to play either...and they competed a bit...it wouldn't take long for them to realize there really was very little difference to their games between the good stuff and the discount rack stuff.

JMO

John Kavanaugh

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2007, 05:26:38 PM »
The biggest kudo's concerning architecture in relation to the PGA Tour came when Hanse shortened a hole.  I thought it was bogus textbook pandering but the cognesenti loved it.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2007, 05:29:27 PM »
Is "pandering" a 'representation' or an 'interpretation'?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2007, 05:31:46 PM »

There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players.  Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect.  Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment.  Course maintenance has an effect.  I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.

Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.  

I think the distance problem is more pronounced at that level, but, that doesn't exclude the distance problem from affecting other levels.
[/color]

I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.  

I don't think that's true.
There's been a good deal of discussion on the distance issue affecting golfers at other than the elite level
[/color]

Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.

That's absolutely untrue.
The members of "golfden age" clubs had nothing to do with the quantum leap in distance over the last two decades.

It was the aggressive development on the part of the manufacturers and the silence of the USGA that created the problem, not the "golden age" clubs or their members.
[/color]  

I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.  


Sean, I can't speak to your game, but, I can speak to mine and to the games of others I've watched over the last two or more decades, and, improved equipment has had a significant impact.

I know guys who are considerably longer at 65 than they were at 25, and, they're straighter too.  And, they are NOWHERE near the shape they were in 40 years ago.

14 year old kids are hitting it far longer than Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime.  That alone should register on your "something's changed scale"
[/color]

It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.  

However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.  

Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.  

It is, provided you can.

The "GAME" is inherently FUN and CHALLENGING irrespective of how far you hit it.

Handicap is a wonderful offset for lack of ability.

When I could only hit the ball 180 yards with my best drive, I enjoyed the game as much as I ever did.

That doesn't mean that I didn't want to hit the ball farther, only that "THE" INHERENT LURE isn't about distance.
[/color]

Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.  

But, aren't the ones that rip you off, the more desirable courses ?

If they weren't, they couldn't rip you off.
[/color]

The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.

My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance,[/color] I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.  

I agree with you, it DOESN'T solve the distance problem.

But, it DOESN'T get to the heart of the matter either.
[/color]

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2007, 05:34:04 PM »
Elite golf is boring to watch because the variety of shots is being reduced.  

Anyone who's watched Tiger Woods would probably disagree with you.

But, that's not my point.
Who cares about watching ELITE golf, compared to PLAYING golf themselves ?

And, limiting the golfer to 10 clubs won't solve, much less address the distance issue.

The DRIVER is a main culprit as is the ball.
Taking out 4 clubs will have NO MATERIAL AFFECT on the distance issue.
[/color]

People often cite distance as the reason for the reduction in variety and thus the reduction of challenge.  Maybe this is true, but the governing bodies are struggling to come to grips with this issue because the balance of power between manufacturing and golf's ruling bodies is no longer in harmony.  

That's because they waited too long before acting.

Had they acted earlier, much of the distance problem would have remained theoretical.
[/color]

This means, given the current state of affairs, the problem has gone more or less unchecked and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon to stop equipmanr advances.


That's not true.

The solutions are there, it's the will and fortitude that's lacking.
[/color]

Some say that the we have just about reached our limit of what can be achieved under the current guidelines.  I don't buy this for a minute.  

I agree
[/color]

I see no reason why we can't expect the distance problem to continue for perhaps another 10, 20 or 30 more yards.  

I don't think increases will come in those increments, but, I do believe increases will come.
[/color]

This raises an interesting question for people such as myself.  WHAT IF MANUFACTURERS ANNOUNCED THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE A BALL COULD BE HIT BY 20, 40 OR 50 YARDS?  WHAT WOULD BE YOUR (MY) REACTION?  

I'd be against it.
[/color]

Of course, companies don't do this sort of thing because it would significantly increase the risk of reduced profits.

I would think it would be just the opposite.
[/color]

The quick reaction is to blame the ruling bodies for inaction/incompetence.  It may be that it is a combination of reasons which have halted any real movement toward reducing distance.  

They're certainly culpable.
[/color]

It may be more difficult than most of us can imagine to take on an industry which is far more powerful (in the cosumers' eyes) than any ruling body.  

Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness and leadership.
[/color]

The easy way out is to create a tournament ball, but the powers that be have been reluctant to do so.  

That's not THE EASY WAY OUT, it's a prudent solution.
Once a tournament ball was adopted by the USGA and R&A, regional, state and local golf associations, all the way down to local clubs would follow suit.  The transition would take a short while and eventually golfers would police themselves at the local level.

The USGA outlawed "HOT" golf balls for years.
Even the smaller R&A ball was banned from competition.

Would you play a match using the current golf ball against a golfer using the old R&A ball on a windy course ?
Did this happen when both balls were readily available ?  
NO, it didn't, because golfers tend to be honorable competitors, it's a quality that's also inherent in the game.

The "de-evolutionary" process, combined with the fact that golf is a "gentleman's game would allow for a rather quick transition toward the play of THE Tournament Ball.
[/color]

There is another possible solution which is often given little time.  

IMO, reducing the number of clubs resolves the problem of shot variety and still leaves the mega power game as an option.  More often than not, this argument of reducing clubs is countered with "scores will not be effected by an elite player carrying less clubs".  This may or may not be true, but it is my impression that the need to reduce length is to re-introduce some lost challenges, not reduce scores.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2007, 05:36:00 PM »
 

This does NOTHING to address the distance issue.
You're misguided if you think so.
It only exaccerbates the distance issue.
[/color]

It is often assumed that re-introducing some previous challenges will automatically increase scores and thus create a better balance with par being more meaningful to a winning score.  Perhaps this is a false assumption, but in any case, WHAT DOES THE WINNING SCORE AS IT RELATES TO PAR HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF OUTRAGEOUS LENGTH?  

That's not only a flawed assumption, it's misguided and misdirected.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

THE ISSUE is the return of the architectural features such that they again integrate themselves with the golfers game, as opposed to having become vestigal organs or features.
[/color]

This is a fundamental question that has not been properly addressed.  

That is NOT the FUNDAMENTAL question, and it has been properly addressed.
[/color]

It is my contention that many people are more against the idea of par being broken with ease on many classic courses then they are concerned about how its done.  

That's TOTALLY false.

You've got it backwards.

It's the distance problem in the context that it's contributed to the avoidance of having the architectural features integrate with the golfer's game.  Scoring is merely a byproduct of that process.
[/color]

As has been pointed out by many on this site, par has a mental effect on people and their thought processes are (unduly imo) influenced by the concept of par.  Because par is completely artificial, it is as changeable as courses themselves.  Is it not conceivable that par for many courses could be dropped to 65-68?  

One thing is clear to me, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "distance problem", people need to start thinking about ways in which the balance of challenge, entertainment (in the case of spectating) and fun can be achieved.  

They have, you just haven't been listening
[/color]

Stating that reducing the ball by X% will do the trick is the thinking of a simpleton.  

That's funny.

If INCREASED DISTANCE is THE problem, then you solve the problem by reducing distance, and not by limiting the number of clubs golfers can use.
[/color]

The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell.  If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL?  

Some allege that it was around 1998-2000 when the biggest leaps took place with the advent of the solid ball.

Prior to the 70's, 80's or 90's increases had been di minimus
[/color]

Is there an answer to this question?  

YES, but, you've rejected it.
[/color]

I don't know, but to solve the distance problem I think this question needs a concensus between manufacturers, consumers and golfing bodies.  

What happens when 8 wolves and 4 lambs try to reach a consensus on what's for dinner ?

The ruling bodies lost their critical opportunities.
They need to revisit club size, shaft length and ball performance.
[/color]

Quote

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2007, 05:43:17 PM »
Powell,

With all due respect, please tell me this crusade is not an attempt to make television golf more exciting...

The guys on TV play the courses they want, or they demand the courses be changed. If a hole is too difficult to approach with a 4 iron they play it from 30 yards up and let them hit 6 and 7 irons...shortening the ball for them would simply cause damage to the members tees during the tournament week and the month following...


Jim,

It is not a crusade. Its just an idea offered in part to answer Sean's original question.

And my motivation is not, directly, the entertainment value of golf on TV.

Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, ir is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.

I believe maintaining a healthy level of particpation is improtant because that will ensure that the courses we love are preserved, hidden gems are restored,  and wonderful new courses are built. No one likes seeing courses sold for housing development, and I fear we will see more of it under the present circumstances.

Powell
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

Brent Hutto

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2007, 05:46:57 PM »
Quote
The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell.  If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL?

Some allege that it was around 1998-2000 when the biggest leaps took place with the advent of the solid ball.

Prior to the 70's, 80's or 90's increases had been di minimus

Pat, are you saying that the increase in distance at the onset of the ProV1 era was greater than the increase wrought by the Haskell ball? I believe that would be a serious overstatement. I realize you were still a schoolboy when the Haskell arrived but try to think back...

Quote
The ruling bodies lost their critical opportunities.
They need to revisit club size, shaft length and ball performance.

Let's say the ball specification were rolled back to produce distances comparable to the pre-ProV1 era. Why would any downgrade of the clubheads and shaft as well be warranted? Or is it not all about the distance after all?

John Kavanaugh

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2007, 05:50:59 PM »


Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, ir is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.


Powell,

Would you agree that the game is now open to more individuals of limited means than at any time in its history?

Would you agree that the game is easier to learn with modern equipment and improved teaching technology? (Just last night I was able to investigate the different types of putting grips now popular for people with the yips by doing a simple Google search.  This type of information was not available for free not that long ago.)  

Would you also agree that length of a round is dictated by the crowds on the course which implies there is no problem at all?  

Would you agree that Tiger is the most entertaining golfer who ever lived?  

Would you agree that you are not having a good day?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 05:52:08 PM by John Kavanaugh »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2007, 06:07:29 PM »
John,

I don't think that individual instances is really the point here.  I could manage to make contact with the ball if Clemens were pitching to me, and I could score at least one basket if Kobe were defending me, and I could kick a 45 yard field goal every now and then.

The point is when you take it in the context of the entire game, I'm nowhere even close to competing with a pro.  And while there are some people who can hit the ball 300 yards on a semi-consitent and straight basis, they are the vast minority and they likely can't compete with the big boys either.  Golf courses should be suited to the average guys not for less than 1% of the golfing population.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2007, 06:16:42 PM »

There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players.  Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect.  Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment.  Course maintenance has an effect.  I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.

Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.  

I think the distance problem is more pronounced at that level, but, that doesn't exclude the distance problem from affecting other levels.
[/color]

I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.  

I don't think that's true.
There's been a good deal of discussion on the distance issue affecting golfers at other than the elite level
[/color]

Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.

That's absolutely untrue.
The members of "golfden age" clubs had nothing to do with the quantum leap in distance over the last two decades.

It was the aggressive development on the part of the manufacturers and the silence of the USGA that created the problem, not the "golden age" clubs or their members.
[/color]  

I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.  


Sean, I can't speak to your game, but, I can speak to mine and to the games of others I've watched over the last two or more decades, and, improved equipment has had a significant impact.

I know guys who are considerably longer at 65 than they were at 25, and, they're straighter too.  And, they are NOWHERE near the shape they were in 40 years ago.

14 year old kids are hitting it far longer than Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime.  That alone should register on your "something's changed scale"
[/color]

It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.  

However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.  

Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.  

It is, provided you can.

The "GAME" is inherently FUN and CHALLENGING irrespective of how far you hit it.

Handicap is a wonderful offset for lack of ability.

When I could only hit the ball 180 yards with my best drive, I enjoyed the game as much as I ever did.

That doesn't mean that I didn't want to hit the ball farther, only that "THE" INHERENT LURE isn't about distance.
[/color]

Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.  

But, aren't the ones that rip you off, the more desirable courses ?

If they weren't, they couldn't rip you off.
[/color]

The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.

My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance,[/color] I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.  

I agree with you, it DOESN'T solve the distance problem.

But, it DOESN'T get to the heart of the matter either.
[/color]

Patrick

Club members change their courses.  They may have reasons for doing so, but the responsibility of changing the course and how it is changed is down to the club members.  Blaming someone or something else is neither constructive or accurate.  Furthermore, as consumers, all golfers have something to do with all changes in equipment.  

If you read my words and keep them in context, it would be very difficult to conclude that I believe the lure of the game is about distance.  Surely, length is one aspect of the game which many people enjoy, but it isn't the only lure of the game.  

In many cases, the courses which charge more are the more desirable ones to play and I still want to play some of them if given the opportunity.  However, in the vast majority of instances, the courses I want to play that have high green fees are not expensive because the ball goes further.  They are more expensive because people are willing to pay.  Luckily, because I don't view golf as an attractive game purely for its challenge, I can enjoy many so called lesser courses with reasonable green fees.  

Golf is a game that has changed dramatically over the years and it will continue to change.  Hence, the challenges of the game will change.  Some people like some changes and others don't.  Once there is some sort of concensus on the part of the ruling bodies, manufacturers and consumers about what is good or bad, then we can get at whatever the heart of the problem is with golf - assuming there is a problem.  Suggesting that one person's idea of a certain decrease in distance is the heart of the matter is simple minded.  

Perhaps there are solutions staring us in the face these past 100 years or perhaps the heart of the matter is more complicated than you believe.  I don't have any solutions to a distance problem, but then I don't have a problem with distance and I can't think of a single person I know that does - regardless of how far he hits the ball now compared to however many years ago.  So far as I can tell, very few people do have a problem with distance and of those people who do, most are pros - in which case it doesn't really matter to me.  I spose only each individual can answer if he has a distance problem for themselves.  Perhaps a 12 step program can be invented.  

While I don't personally care much if the ball is rolled back, I don't like the idea of folks making decisions for me.  I don't need a granny state ruling to tell me I have been naughty and therefore should now use a ball which doesn't go as far.  I can make my own decisions concerning length and believe me, if I thought I was taking the piss, I would not hit driver because I am not nearly as caught up in the "equal footing" mentality side of competition that some are.  For instance, I don't take advantage of 14 clubs, I very rarely use a caddy, I don't use trolleys, I try not to consult yardage guides, I don't get fitted for clubs, I have never had a lesson, etc.  These are all personal decisions which I understand most likely place me at a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint, but maximizing every possible advantage is not my goal.  I play for enjoyment so I don't deem these advantages as terribly important.  

If the goal of distance reduction is to bring back architectural integrity, which era of architecture would you like to be restored to?  Somebody once said that to get the full measure of TOC today compared to 1850, the course would have to be 9000 yards long.  Sounds like a slog to me.  Perhaps many courses even as little as 50 years ago were too difficult for the average golfer.  

Ciao
« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 06:23:53 PM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2007, 06:17:10 PM »
I think Pat has the right idea in this
 thread.

In softball, limited flight softballs are used all the time so the games don't turn into homerun-fests, especially in light of all of the juiced bats that exist now.

In football, the size of the ball varies on the size of the player.  High school footballs are smaller than the professional ball. In basketball, the court is longer for the pros and high schoolers and the 3 point line is further away.

The issue here is the PGAtour needs to put its foot down, grow a pair, and say a golf ball must fly no further than x amount when hit with Iron Bryon at X amount of speed. Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc, etc, can all make a tourney conforming ball for the big boys.  I don't see why this is such a big deal

Weekend hacks can still play with their Pro Vs and the tour boys can use thier limited flight balls.  And they can keep the big boys interfacing the architecture in the same way the weekend warrior does..

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2007, 07:15:04 PM »


Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, it is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.


Powell,

Would you agree that the game is now open to more individuals of limited means than at any time in its history?

Would you agree that the game is easier to learn with modern equipment and improved teaching technology? (Just last night I was able to investigate the different types of putting grips now popular for people with the yips by doing a simple Google search.  This type of information was not available for free not that long ago.)  

Would you also agree that length of a round is dictated by the crowds on the course which implies there is no problem at all?  

Would you agree that Tiger is the most entertaining golfer who ever lived?  

Would you agree that you are not having a good day?

I'm inclined to agree with all of the above, except as it relates to pace of play.  (and I'm having a bad day becuase I spent most of it dealing with problems casued by a building contractor.  Surprisingly, most are not cut from the same cloth as asphalt suppliers and paving contractors.)

Would you agree that in spite of all you state above, there has not been growth in the number of Avid Golfers since the dawn of the Tiger era?  These circumstances should have had golf poised to reach out and capture new players, and it did not.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 09:19:48 PM by Powell Arms »
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

John Kavanaugh

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2007, 07:23:51 PM »
I agree that the game has not grown but I see it as a society problem and not a distance issue.  The game needs more people like me who are heads of single income households who have been married to the same woman their entire life and take no qualms dictating where, how often and when they are going to play golf or any other sporting event that includes the company of their friends.  We are a dying breed and the game is going with us.

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2007, 07:27:30 PM »
I agree that the game has not grown but I see it as a society problem and not a distance issue.  The game needs more people like me who are heads of single income households who have been married to the same woman their entire life and take no qualms dictating where, how often and when they are going to play golf or any other sporting event that includes the company of their friends.  We are a dying breed and the game is going with us.

I love this post.  Thank you for a good laugh at the end of a long day.
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2007, 07:41:05 PM »
...
The issue here is the PGAtour needs to put its foot down, grow a pair, and say a golf ball must fly no further than x amount when hit with Iron Bryon at X amount of speed. Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc, etc, can all make a tourney conforming ball for the big boys.  I don't see why this is such a big deal
...

Why does the PGA Tour have to do something that the USGA already has done, and the PGA Tour requires their players to abide by?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The Average Golfer Speaks Out
« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2007, 08:12:58 PM »
JakaB,

I'd agree that the distance issue and the popularity issue are NOT related, but rather, seperate issues, with the popularity issue being related to changes in our culture over the past 20+ years.

Dual wage earners and shared responsibilities along with the inordinate amount of time required to play 18 holes, play a significant role in the popularity/opportunity to play the game.

Young fathers tee off at 7:00 and are home by 11:00 or their play is curtailed.

Years ago, fathers teed off later, had lunch, played cards and went home or their wives joined them for dinner at the club.

Slow play or the time to play is a factor, distance is not.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back