If anyone doesn't think that hi-tech has drastically altered the game ....

[David Lott]

Pat, I also watched the match at Pine Valley involving Littler and Nelson and had the same reaction. So did our pro, and several other guys who watched the match.

Except for the game between the ears, which will never change, it's a completely different exercise for the most skilled players now. The biggest difference is increased length off the tee--which I think is about 75-85% technology and the rest improved strength and conditioning.

Has it ruined the game? No, because the game between the ears is still the most difficult and compelling, but it sure as hell has changed it at top levels.

It has changed it at lower levels too, but in some ways for the better. At age 64, and after a serious six month conditioning program, I've been able to get a lot more straight yards off the tee, which overall makes the game more accessible and fun. No matter what the conditioning program, I could not get it near this distance with the old equipment.

On the other hand, I play a few times a year with a circa 1934 set of steel shafted Bobby Jones autograph irons and some 1950's woods (and a 21st century ball) and still have a blast. I move up two sets of tees though.

The biggest liability for me with the old clubs is the putter. The Calamity Jane doesn't work like the Scotty Cameron for me on fast greens, though in truth I'm not all that fabulous with either one.

Thus the competition ball, as you suggest.

 

[Andy Hughes]

The point is that the architecture intended to interface with the golfer is no longer functional in that respect due to hi-tech equipment and balls.

Patrick, what do you do to ensure that you are able to interface with the architecture as intended by the architect?

[Chuck Brown]

Some general responses:

1.  To those who suggest controlling only the elite-level players, I asy that that is an unacceptable proposition because of the value of the "one set of rules for all" principle.  Besides, manufacturers know that aspirational golfers want to play with what the elites play with.  It does no good for Titleist to advertise how many pros use the Pro V1 if we couldn't buy the same ball.

2.  To those who suggest that recreational players just go ahead and play as much of a traditional game as they'd like (use balatas, persimmon, etc.), I have really grown weary of explaning; this is not a matter of expressing personal preferences.  It is a fight over how the game ought to be played and how it is ruled.  Even if I never played major league baseball, I might still have an opinion if MLB introduced a new baseball that players could hit 700 feet, and thereby made Wrigley Field and Fenway Park obsolete.

3.  I say again that technological advances in equipment that help recreational players a tiny amount, and which help tour players by a lot, are "perverse" developments in the game.  It would be a much better development to have all players cloer together.  It would be a much better development to have tour players scaled back so that they could comfortably challenged on courses that were not monstrous creations just for them.  It is simple dishonesty to not recognize that in the Pro V era, tour players have picked up lots of yardage, and recreational players have not meaningfully benefitted. 

[Drew Standley]

I know that I am in the minority here but I see no problem with hi-tech golf.  Now, the baseball argument would work for me if the cup was going to grow larger or the ball smaller. 

[Andy Hughes]

Chuck, the problem is there are also two big issues you ignore:
1. protecting the chastity and good reputation of the Merions and AGNCs of the world
2.  ensuring technology doesn't ruin the game for
         a. the pros
         b. all the 78 year quadruple bypass guys that Patrick plays with that  carry it 340 yards with their little cut/bunt swings
         c. those who wish to play the game as it was 'intended', who wish to 'interface with the architecture' as the architect designed it i.e. forcing you to decide whether to hit left or right of the bunkers on the Bottle Hole at NGLA rather than just blasting over them as the 86 year old triple amputees Patrick plays with currently do.

Really? I don't care what the pros do at Merion. It doesn't bother me if they can fly it 40 yards past the bunkers or if they shoot -16.  Merion's reputation doesn't mean much to me (as long as that Charley McDonald interloper doesn't start stealing all the glory)
The pros hitting it 340 yards on tour? Again, I can't say as I care one way or the other. I don't see it much anyway and it has no effect on my enjoyment of the game.
Patrick's 97 year old leprosy-riddled playing partners carrying the ball onto the first green at NGLA? God bless 'em.

The biggest issue of the lot are those that wish to do all that interfacing with the architecture, and on that Chuck I think you are dead wrong. It is exactly a matter of personal preference--if I wish to decline the use of modern tools I am certainly free to do so. That you and others wish the choice forced down others' throats because you are too weak to do it yourself unless some greater power tells you to--well, what does that say? The fact that the number of players who willingly choose to use older, more traditional equipment even among this group is so tiny speaks volumes, does it not?

[Chuck Brown]

I confess, Mr. Hughes, that I am not following you.

First, you profess to not care what the elite players do in national championships.  That's fine by me if you don't care; I assure you that I DO care, not because I want a Corey Pavin to win or a JB Holmes to lose.  (That's not the case, anyway.)  I care because if the tour pros can, by use of technologically-juiced equipment, render Merion obsolete (we're taking a hypothetical here, let's not debate Merion's merits, per se) then there are only a few options.  One option is to alter Merion, to defend against the new length.  Another option is to abandon Merion, and instead go to the 7,800-yard TPC at Viagra Bluffs.  Those two options seem obscene to me.  Meanwhile, the third option is to scale the ball back so that the tour pros fit Merion more comfortably.  (I suppose the other option is to do nothing, let Tiger Woods play the Open without a driver or a three-wood, nothing but a hybrid and five wedges, and where all but a few holes will be approached as drive / wedge.)

Now if, as I originally pointed out, that you "don't care" what the tour players do, why would you care if they had a ball rollback?  Why would you object to any new ball regulations that preserve the usability and integrity of hundreds of great old championship layouts like Merion?

If it is because you might get scaled back along with the tour pros, I'd ask, "Really?  By how much?"

You seem to think that the only fair option is for rollback proponents to voluntarily roll themselves back, and leave the rest of the game to go on.  You seem to take it for granted (perhaps rightly) that there is no technology crisis among recreational players; that only the elites are making courses obsolete with their newest equipment.  That is precisely why a rollback is neccessary, unless you want to bifurcate things, which I don't accept.  We need to roll back ball specs for the elites, and if recreational players get nudged back a little (I doubt it), they can be told "Your game is now a LOT closer to those of Els and Woods and Singh.  You lost 5 yards, but they lost 25 yards." 

As for people who just like to hit it far, and who don't care about the rules, and who don't care about playing by a single set of rules at all levels, you can go buy yourself the biggest, hottest driver and the longest ball that technology can produce.  There's you personal preference at work.  Do what you want to.

Meanwhile I am debating what is best for golf.

[Garland Bayley]

...
It has changed it at lower levels too, but in some ways for the better. At age 64, and after a serious six month conditioning program, I've been able to get a lot more straight yards off the tee, which overall makes the game more accessible and fun. No matter what the conditioning program, I could not get it near this distance with the old equipment.
...

Hitting the ball farther does not make the game more accessible for the average player. Keeping the ball in play makes the game more accessible. Guess what keeps the ball in play! A ball that goes less far!

When we make golf courses longer, do we widen them? (I put up a thread asking about this of the architects on this site, but got zero responses.) My impression is that we keep making them longer and keep making them the same width. This is a recipe for disaster. Probably a recipe for decreasing interest in and play of the game. We seduce people with visions of hitting the ball huge distances, only to have them find out it really is a game of straight. Talk about disillusionment. Roll back the ball now, and bring sanity back to the game!

[Mike Bowline]

If golf courses want to lengthen their courses to 7500y for the upper echelon, that's fine with me.

Steve, lengthening the courses to 7500y as you state should NOT be fine with you, or with ANY of us. That length which is added adds costs for land, costs for re-construction, costs for maintenance - all costs that must be paid by somebody. And that somebody is you and me.

We have got to do something about the higher costs of the game if we want to entice players to keep playing.

[Sean_A]

I confess, Mr. Hughes, that I am not following you.

First, you profess to not care what the elite players do in national championships.  That's fine by me if you don't care; I assure you that I DO care, not because I want a Corey Pavin to win or a JB Holmes to lose.  (That's not the case, anyway.)  I care because if the tour pros can, by use of technologically-juiced equipment, render Merion obsolete (we're taking a hypothetical here, let's not debate Merion's merits, per se) then there are only a few options.  One option is to alter Merion, to defend against the new length.  Another option is to abandon Merion, and instead go to the 7,800-yard TPC at Viagra Bluffs.  Those two options seem obscene to me.  Meanwhile, the third option is to scale the ball back so that the tour pros fit Merion more comfortably.  (I suppose the other option is to do nothing, let Tiger Woods play the Open without a driver or a three-wood, nothing but a hybrid and five wedges, and where all but a few holes will be approached as drive / wedge.)

Now if, as I originally pointed out, that you "don't care" what the tour players do, why would you care if they had a ball rollback?  Why would you object to any new ball regulations that preserve the usability and integrity of hundreds of great old championship layouts like Merion?

If it is because you might get scaled back along with the tour pros, I'd ask, "Really?  By how much?"

You seem to think that the only fair option is for rollback proponents to voluntarily roll themselves back, and leave the rest of the game to go on.  You seem to take it for granted (perhaps rightly) that there is no technology crisis among recreational players; that only the elites are making courses obsolete with their newest equipment.  That is precisely why a rollback is neccessary, unless you want to bifurcate things, which I don't accept.  We need to roll back ball specs for the elites, and if recreational players get nudged back a little (I doubt it), they can be told "Your game is now a LOT closer to those of Els and Woods and Singh.  You lost 5 yards, but they lost 25 yards." 

As for people who just like to hit it far, and who don't care about the rules, and who don't care about playing by a single set of rules at all levels, you can go buy yourself the biggest, hottest driver and the longest ball that technology can produce.  There's you personal preference at work.  Do what you want to.

Meanwhile I am debating what is best for golf.

Chuck

You say you are debating what is best for golf, but you dismiss bifurcation almost out of hand.  I can't honestly say what is best for golf because golf means different things to different people.  You seem to be keen on the historical aspects of the game and how to preserve architectural intent.  Thats fair enough and I would support you to a certain degree.  I believe the only area we disagree on is your (and others with your beliefs) reluctance to act on your beliefs.  You don't seem to see any contradiction between professing the virtues of whatever era of golf and using the modern equipment which negates some of those virtues.  I know if it was that important to me I would make a stand regardless of how my stand effects the results of my weekly Nassau.  It would be a humble gesture I know, but at least I would be consistent. 

I spose the difference between us is that I have never believed the pro game or the ruling bodies are the heart of golf.  The heart of golf are the run of the mill members and public players who foot the bills.  If this core group of golf is dissatisfied with the status quo and the blue coats aren't reacting quickly enough, why do so many hang about doing nothing to salvage the situation?  Its a great pity that golfers don't believe the current state and future of the game lies with themselves and that their actions are important, much more so than their words. 

I have used myself as an example before.  I am sympathetic with your cause because I too like the historical aspect of the game and I value affordable golf.  In theory anyway, I can see the current state of distance is king escalating green fees to the point where I lose interest.  Though in truth, I think stupid maintenance practices and greed (I do believe that most courses charge what the market will bear rather than on a cost analysis) are more likely to cause me to lose interest first.  Be that as it may, I am much more likely to take notice of a guy spouting on about technology who has a bag of spanners my age and the will to hit whatever ball he finds than if he has all the new gear. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am for Mr & Mrs Average, all courses should be designed for them and we should use them for all competitions. One Game for ALL.  Also technology should be a friend to all golfers but tightly controlled by our Governing bodies.

My reason for advocating this approach, although a supporter of Mr & Mrs Average, is that, I also know full well that they are not really that interested in how the game is controlled, just as long as they can get a round in when they want. Those who are happy to make the rules should also see the potential problems and step in before our game in made into a joke by constantly increasing the length to accommodate technology.

I do not want to see golf split or parts of the world playing a different game to the rest. One Game, One Set of Rules and One Single Governing Body that has the courage to act for the good of the game.

Those who care about the game also have a duty to debate the problems in an open forum, and there is none better than GCA.com (thanks Ran).  To pretend that it does not affect you or your game in the long run is just being naïve, bury your head in the sand mentality. I don’t care, then why are you a member of GCA.com.

For good or bad, technology is with us. But don’t ridicule those who have played golf for nearly fifty years in the time honoured way. Be honest technology has improved distance for All Golfers in various degrees. I see no problem using reliable clubs thanks to modern materials nor for that matter do I have a problem with modern balls. However we MUST stop the need to increase the length of a golf course. The answer in not in more land and all the cost implications, but developing the Ball and also the Clubs to work within set parameters (which need to be agreed).

Our fossil fuels i.e. petrol is starting to run out, do we keep building larger engines in our vehicles or do we downsize making them more efficient and cost effective? Already in golf the water and maintenance costs are requiring the same type of thought, so longer course may already be doomed.

Golf has always been and is still a recreation sport – first and foremost, competitions followed using the same courses. I for one want to play a course that gives me the feel good factor, but that does not come from technology but by the combination of land and a skilled Designer.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Melvyn,

One game for all? Callaway doesn't think so:

www.economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11015777

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

My understanding of the article is that he agreed with my overall statement.

On the financial side how much money do the Pro’s contribute or pay towards the courses in the form of Green Fees, etc?

It’s the ordinary people who pay, we are the bottom line, the Bucks/Pounds etc comes from our pockets. 

You want to hit long shots or play golf use the Driving Ranges, and yes I fully encourage and support women to play Golf.   

[Andy Hughes]

First, you profess to not care what the elite players do in national championships.  That's fine by me if you don't care; I assure you that I DO care, not because I want a Corey Pavin to win or a JB Holmes to lose.  (That's not the case, anyway.)  I care because if the tour pros can, by use of technologically-juiced equipment, render Merion obsolete (we're taking a hypothetical here, let's not debate Merion's merits, per se) then there are only a few options.  One option is to alter Merion, to defend against the new length.  Another option is to abandon Merion, and instead go to the 7,800-yard TPC at Viagra Bluffs.  Those two options seem obscene to me.  Meanwhile, the third option is to scale the ball back so that the tour pros fit Merion more comfortably.  (I suppose the other option is to do nothing, let Tiger Woods play the Open without a driver or a three-wood, nothing but a hybrid and five wedges, and where all but a few holes will be approached as drive / wedge.)

Chuck, I believe you have missed the obvious option. Let them play the Open at Merion as is and let them score whatever they score even if it means Tiger wins at -18.  

Now if, as I originally pointed out, that you "don't care" what the tour players do, why would you care if they had a ball rollback?  Why would you object to any new ball regulations that preserve the usability and integrity of hundreds of great old championship layouts like Merion?

I would have no objection at all.  I am a bit of a romantic when it comes to the lore and history of golf;  your quest to maintain the integrity of good old architecture is admirable to me. That isn't my issue.  

What I object to is that almost everyone who is trying to scale back technology, all those who rage against the latest and greatest, almost invariably have a  bag full of equipment of very recent vintage.  If the need to maintain architectural relevance is so strong, if the appeal of 'interfacing with the architecture' as intended by the architect is so strong, then why do all those who say such things have 460 cc drivers and Pro V1 balls?  When all those who say it is a crisis start to act like it is a crisis, perhaps I will believe they think it is a crisis.  It reminds me a bit of Al Gore warning about global warming, and then  flying his private jet around the world on a weekly basis.
If all of you who feel so strongly actually followed through on your convictions, I would have more sympathy. That 98% of you find your $2 Nassau of greater importance than 'interfacing with the architecture' speaks volumes to me.

PS Chuck, obviously I haven't a clue what's in your bag. If you are the rare exception, more power to you.

You seem to think that the only fair option is for rollback proponents to voluntarily roll themselves back, and leave the rest of the game to go on.

No, I think those who say they wish to interface with the architecture are free to do so.  Those who laud NGLA's Bottle Hole but are saddened that they now just blast it over the bunkers have only themselves to blame. The solution is readily at hand. Either they don't really mean it, or the architecture is less important than a $2 Nassau. I don't have great sympathy for either position.

 

As for people who just like to hit it far, and who don't care about the rules, and who don't care about playing by a single set of rules at all levels, you can go buy yourself the biggest, hottest driver and the longest ball that technology can produce.  There's you personal preference at work.  Do what you want to.

You said something like this before. I have never suggested the rules don't matter or that golfers should ignore the rules. I am not at all sure where you got this from.

Meanwhile I am debating what is best for golf.

Admirable, and I wish you well. I look forward to teeing it up with you some day, looking into your bag and seeing 6 clubs, each at least 20 years old.  

PS What Sean said.