[Chuck Brown]

Geoff Shackelford has reported on the changes to Turnberry, quoting the R&A's pre-Open press release "announcing" changes made to the Ailsa Course (which have been going on for some time, preparatory for this year's Open).

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2009/4/21/todays-professionals-are-bigger-stronger-fitter-have-more-te.html

Now, in preparation for the 2013, a friend in East Lothian informs me that at Muirfield, they have knocked a hole in the low stone wall at 9, in order to move the tee back 65 yards.

Does anyone from the USGA Executive Committe read this board?  When are you guys going to do something about equipment technology?  Does anyone from the R&A read this board?  Why don't you develop your own golf ball standards?

Edit. -- My Scottish friend reassures me that after the 2013 Open, they will replace the stones, each in its place, to rebuild the wall...  What a world.

[PCCraig]

Unless he was covering up under all that wool, Old Tom probably wasn't in the same kind of physical shape that Tiger Woods is in. Sure the ball and clubs go further now, however the golfers themselves are in such unreal shape that even with equipment standards staying still, they are hitting the ball further every year.

The bottom line is if you have to knock a wall down in order to build a new tee and bring the original strategy back to the hole, then so be it.

However, how neat would it be if they had to hit over the low wall?

[Steve Salmen]

Pat,

I agree with you about hitting over the wall, it's not particularly high but would be a pain to get over for the players and caddies. 

They have to lengthen it because it played 510 yds par 5.  One time during the 2002 Open Tiger went 4 iron 4 iron.

[Mark Pearce]

I played at Muirfield last month and that change to the 9th is the most significant planned.  I didn't hear that they'll be replacing the wall and it strikes me as odd if that's what they intend to do, since theyll expect the Open back in ten years and presumably will need to lengthen 9 again (or play it as a par 4).  That tee is in a corner of the course and the players and caddies and officials need to get across that wall if they're going to play over it, so there'd still be a need to knock a hole in it.

I did hear what the other planned changes were but they were sufficiently minor that I have forgotten what they are.

[Mark Smolens]

How high is the wall that you want people to hit over it?  Has anyone ever hit one a little thin?  What's the liability for a ball coming back at me when I do?  I'll be contacting my solicitor forthwith. . .

[Jamie Barber]

however the golfers themselves are in such unreal shape

You really believe that? There seem to be a fair few porkers on tour!

Personally I cannot understand why they don't reign back the ball. Change the ball, or change all our tournament courses, no brainer really

[Chuck Brown]

The odd thing about Muirfield is that they have a lot of room to move tees if they wanted to, with a few notable exceptions, 9 being one of them.  Until you punch a hole in the wall.

But aren't these things sending us a message?

Yeah, I know that Tiger Woods is a different specimen from Old Tom.  But I dare say that their respective golf balls are probably more different than their respective golf swings.
But let's stipulate that Tiger Woods (and the rest of his compadres on tour) are much more efficient golfing machines, and let's observe further that composite-shafted titanium alloy drivers are likewise great distance-producing machines.  If we stipulate that those things are true, and add that we don't really want to clamp down on the whole golf club industry and suddenly make existing clubs illegal (average consumers having paid a lot for them), isn't it a natural conclusion that the golf balls (the cheapest, most fungible, replaceable part of the game) should be rolled back?

Which do you prefer, the ability to watch tour players hit 360-yard drives, or the historical integrity of the British Open rota?  Would you choose "the Pro V1" over "Muirfield"?  I am actually embarassed to be asking the question.

[Jamie Barber]

+1 - very well put

[PCCraig]

If Tiger needs to hit two perfect 4 irons to reach the green in two, is it not already a good if not great hole when you do not use par as a benchmark?

I would just put a little hole in the wall for players to walk through so Tiger can hit his 4-irons over the wall.

[Chuck Brown]

If Tiger needs to hit two perfect 4 irons to reach the green in two, is it not already a good if not great hole when you do not use par as a benchmark?

I would just put a little hole in the wall for players to walk through so Tiger can hit his 4-irons over the wall.

Now that is a great point, Pat!  Maybe the hole doesn't need changing.  Just make it a par 4.  (That wouldn't bother me.)  Or just quit caring about the final score in relation to par.  (That wouldn't bother me either.)  

The only problem is that 9 at Muirfield may be uniquely positioned to accept a certain kind of technological abuse, because it starts out as a tremendously interesting Par 5.  What about a host of other shorter holes?

Again, Pat, even if we stipulate that players' "fitness" or "training" or "size" or even "talent" were the main factor behind tour players' increasing dominance over courses, isn't the easy, practical thing still to control the balls?  I don't foresee any USGA Rules Appendices on the number of hours allowed in the fitness trailer anytime in the near future...

[Jamie Barber]

To add to the above, they've also been changing and lengthening St George's for 2011. The obvious ones I've seen are a new back tee on the Maiden and a new green on the 14th (40+ yds back).

[Bill_McBride]

#9 makes a strong par 4 from inside that wall.  Play it as such would be my thought.

I went to a dinner last Friday night in Santa Barbara where the president of the USGA essentially said they give up, the ball will not be rolled back, prepare to add yardage to courses.  It's really pretty crazy.  The leading authorities in golf, the USGA and the R&A, have no control over the ball played in their competitions.

[Jamie Barber]

I personally wouldn't be against a tournament ball. I don't believe the balls make that much difference to the club golfer (how many club golfers score even in the 70s regularly?). The top pros play a different game anyway, and have access to different clubs and endless tour van tweaking and fitting than is widely available to Joe Bloggs, so it's not that big a leap to restrict the ball aerodynamics for pro tournaments

[Steve Salmen]

I should have brought this up sooner.  The HCEG or the R&A do the opposite to the ninth at Muirfield than what is usually done on 1/2 par holes in major championships: they move the tees back and play it as a 5.  For regular play it's about 460 yds and is par 4.  My point is that there are more options than having to play it as a par 5.

Unless they want to protect the par 71 throughout the history of their Opens.  Pebble did away with this by making #2 a par 4.

Let's keep in mind that Tiger also shot 81 on the Saturday round.  He went 4i-4i to the ninth but to anyone whose ever played links golf, this is not surprising even if it's moderately downwind.  The hole measured 510 for the Open.

[Sean Leary]

How tall is the wall? Must not be able to step over it...

[Steve Salmen]

3-4 ft high I would guess.  It's not hitting over, it's getting over that's the inconvenience.

[Mark Pearce]

It's also putting the left hand fairway bunker in play.  The whole strategy of the hole is dominated by a bunker and mound on the left hand side.  Off the current back tee the pros can blow past it (though it was fun watching the seniors deal with it into the wind when the Seniors Open was there a couple of years ago).  I suspect the intention is to bring that back into play.

[PCCraig]

If Tiger needs to hit two perfect 4 irons to reach the green in two, is it not already a good if not great hole when you do not use par as a benchmark?

I would just put a little hole in the wall for players to walk through so Tiger can hit his 4-irons over the wall.

Now that is a great point, Pat!  Maybe the hole doesn't need changing.  Just make it a par 4.  (That wouldn't bother me.)  Or just quit caring about the final score in relation to par.  (That wouldn't bother me either.)  

The only problem is that 9 at Muirfield may be uniquely positioned to accept a certain kind of technological abuse, because it starts out as a tremendously interesting Par 5.  What about a host of other shorter holes?

Again, Pat, even if we stipulate that players' "fitness" or "training" or "size" or even "talent" were the main factor behind tour players' increasing dominance over courses, isn't the easy, practical thing still to control the balls?  I don't foresee any USGA Rules Appendices on the number of hours allowed in the fitness trailer anytime in the near future...

I think being able to forget "par" and to stop caring about the final score would solve many of the issues the USGA, R&A, and Masters have with protecting their ego and history.

I understand that the 9th is a fantastic par-5 for the everyday golfer, but by making it a "par-4" for the professionals does that make it any less of a golf hole? If it does, than the logical step is to add some yardage and have it played as it was "intended" to.

I agree that the ball is probably the most signifcant factor in many distance issues and I would love to see a roll back in a ball, however I don't find it realistic. I am more than ok with the stale growth in technology in equipment the last 5 years or so. Drivers are as long as they are going to be, and so are balls. They even rolled back the grooves in wedges. So as long as they keep all things constant now (which "they" failed to do in the past) all should be good.

[Adrian_Stiff]

To add to the above, they've also been changing and lengthening St George's for 2011. The obvious ones I've seen are a new back tee on the Maiden and a new green on the 14th (40+ yds back).

What again?...seriously St G is quite hard to go back now... 2/3/4/5/8/12/13/17/18 are tough to extend..so i guess 7600 is the limit (par 70)

[Adrian_Stiff]

9 @ muirfield probably needs to be 540 yards to restore the original intent. Probably all holes need extending 20-30 yards to RESTORE the tee shot. It cant be done everywhere but sadly because of technolodgy its just making up. I agree a tournament ball solves the problem, and would make golf more enjoyable at many golf courses where the lesser golfer enjoys but the better player has NO test.

[PCCraig]

9 @ muirfield probably needs to be 540 yards to restore the original intent. Probably all holes need extending 20-30 yards to RESTORE the tee shot. It cant be done everywhere but sadly because of technolodgy its just making up. I agree a tournament ball solves the problem, and would make golf more enjoyable at many golf courses where the lesser golfer enjoys but the better player has NO test.

Doesn't a tournament ball seem like a ton of work just for the top 0.00000001% of all golfers in the world.

I ask this, what difference does it make what Tiger shoots at many of these courses. Is he not playing the same course as the rest of the field? Other than the R&A's ego, I don't see why a normal golfer should care.

[Chuck Brown]

...

I agree that the ball is probably the most signifcant factor in many distance issues and I would love to see a roll back in a ball, however I don't find it realistic. I am more than ok with the stale growth in technology in equipment the last 5 years or so. Drivers are as long as they are going to be, and so are balls. They even rolled back the grooves in wedges. So as long as they keep all things constant now (which "they" failed to do in the past) all should be good.

So much to agree with!!!
But consider this, Pat (with a deep bow and a tip of the cap to Geoff Shackelford):

Let's assume that we all agree that distance gains "must stop."  You say, there's been no significant distance gains for "the last 5 years or so."  We can agree on that as well.  The manufacturers haven't come up with any new big ideas in that time.  Let's presume (not a great stretch by any means) that somehow, some time in the near future, a clever golf ball engineer is going to come with the next leap in ball technology.  Is it your position that that development, that change, whaever it is, is the one that must be stopped?  Prevent that change, whatever it is...?

"Why that change?", is what Geoff Shackelford has recently been asking.  Why not the "last" change, the one that forced a bunch of undesirable changes on Winged Foot, Riviera, Oakland Hills, Turnberry, TOC, (plus far too many others to mention) and now Murifield?
When someone says, "Let's just cap things where they are now," I say why?  Why is this moment so magical?  Why not go back to a better level, more in line with more historic golf courses, so that tour players can visit and hold events at more classic courses?  Why not try to develop a ball that does nothing to hinder recreational players but significantly rolls back elite players?  I don't have any particular design in mind, but isn't that a laudable goal?  Why accept the status quo?  Why remain static?  The ball-design R&D people won't stand still....

[Steve Salmen]

I just received this email from a member after forwarding him the first piece of the thread:


Steve's friend's info about muirfield is incorrect, according to info delivered to members (only) last night at a meeting in Edinburgh.

Far and sure,

[Chuck Brown]

I just received this email from a member after forwarding him the first piece of the thread:


Steve's friend's info about muirfield is incorrect, according to info delivered to members (only) last night at a meeting in Edinburgh.

Far and sure,

So what's incorrect?  That they are knocking down the wall behind 9 tee?  Or that they will ever replace it?

My friend said he "witnessed" the beginning of the work last weekend.  He lives in East Lothian, is a competitive amateur and sometime Euro-Tour caddy, who is frequently at Muirfield.

I don't claim to have seen it myself, of course, but that was as I originally reported it.

[Tom_Doak]

D'oh!  Muirfield got that property over the wall on #9 from The Renaissance Club.  But it will be a good trade if we get permission to build three holes on what was formerly their land, out in the dunes.

Is there an architect involved in any of these changes or do you just have to do whatever Peter Dawson says if you want to have the Open again?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()