[Bill Brightly]

Do you think that the economy and the shaky financial future of golf course budgets might be the basis for a long overdue restriction on how far balls can fly?

I watched the Met Am played at my course yesterday, and it was just sickening to see how how far the players hit the ball, turning every par 4 into a driver-wedge hole, completely flying every fairway bunker, even new ones installed recently at 270-290.

Clubs try to react to this by adding expensive new tees and bunkering, increasing the maintenance costs even more, while all we need is a restricted flight ball to bring old courses back to life. Last month, even my middling 270 yards tee ball allowed me to fly over most of what Macdonald did at National, and it really bothered me.

I know all about the Ping lawsuit, but geeze, the USGA could do so much good for their member clubs if they would just think this through and provide leadership. I admit that I have not followed this closely. Is there ANY chance that this could happen? The equipment and ball manufacturers will still sell the same amount of stuff..This idea just makes so much sense to me, tell me why it can't happen.

[Brent Hutto]

I can't see how anything about economic conditions would possibly lead to use of reduced-flight golf balls. That's a severe case of wishful thinking. Even if the economy somehow lead to shorter courses (that's a stretch but at least within the realm of possibility) I'd guess at least 99% of golfers would find it more fun to play a short course with a ProV1 and use less club on every shot than to play it with a Cayman ball and hit driver/5-iron. More like 99.999% of golfers, how many ever are not regulars on this forum.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Usually in a recession, people spend money for value and a ball that goes 300 yards for $4 is probably seen as a better value than a ball that goes 250 yards for $3.50.  People want escapism, and nothing is a cheaper thrill than a long drive.

[Bill Brightly]

Brett,

Here's how today's economic future changes things, in my opinion.

I sat on our club's board for the last 7 years, was Grounds Chair, and was part of a restoration committee. I think I know a little bit about costs and motivation from a club leadership perspective.

As balls and equipment allowed for greater distances, it was a natural reaction to add new tees and bunkers. $30,000 for a new tee here, $15,000 for a new bunker there, no problem, just put it in next year's budget, or assess the members, raise a million or so and do all the work at once. If guys don't like it and leave, no sweat, we'll get new members from the waiting list, spend their initiation fees on the work, and there will never be an end to prosperity and the good times. No problem that tees and bunkers are more expensive to maintain, putting upward pressure on our operating budget.

But the events of the past year have hit club leaders like a ton of bricks. Most boards are not going to assess members unless it is absolutely critical, and even in house, hole-by-hole work will be very diffiicult to get approved. Some clubs are 30 % or more below their target number and are really going to struggle to keep their course in decent condition.

Wishful thining? Absolutely! But is it wriog thinking?

[Brent Hutto]

The connection between the economy and golf courses is pretty inescapable. But the wishful thinking part is that people would respond by wanting a golf ball that flies less far. I honestly can't think of a single person at my club who would give that idea one moment's consideration. As Jeff says, a ball that flies farther seems like more for your money.

Heck, with my game I could enjoy courses hundreds of yards shorter with much fewer bunkers. But playing a short-flight ball wouldn't add anything to the experience.

[Jamie Barber]

I think a reduced flight ball is absolutely what's needed, but it needs to be legislative and enforced by USGA and R&A. The problem I think is that it's not in the interests of the premium ball manufacturers, since they won't be able to command a premium price for their premium ball. If all balls become equal, everyone would buy the cheapest.

[john_stiles]

Having been on a board,  I have seen the same with respect to course work.     It is truly a shame given thousands of courses are doing the same, spending a lot of money for new tees, bunkers, moving greens, etc.  

The  'ball rollback' has been argued quite a bit on GCA,  not as much as origins of Merion East, but quite a bit.    Way back when,  about 6 years ago,  we discussed the issues for a few years,  and the subject surfaces about once a year.   This has included discussions of a roll-back and how it could be accomplished fairly easily.    It could be approached from several aspects.   For example a minimum spin rate could be set.

Golf balls, and brand new 'name' golf balls can be obtained for $12 a dozen.

By the time you figure in research, materials, manufacturing, advertisement, packaging, shipping, profit for all parties,  a very good golf ball can be bought at $1 each.

Of course, we all know the ball and equipment will allow for even longer distances in the future.     Until research departments have no budget,  the quest for more distance will continue.   And the manufacturers will succeed in finding more distance.  Of course, many have said this is the end, the ball can go no further.

It would only make sense to roll back the ball every now and then,  regardless of how distance is gained.

Get ready for more bunker and tee work  in about 5-10 years.

[jeffwarne]

The connection between the economy and golf courses is pretty inescapable. But the wishful thinking part is that people would respond by wanting a golf ball that flies less far. I honestly can't think of a single person at my club who would give that idea one moment's consideration. As Jeff says, a ball that flies farther seems like more for your money.

Brent,
I think you don't give your fellow members enough credit.

[David Stamm]

Is there any more room under the present guidelines for noticeable distance to be gained by the manufacturers? I think we're just about tapped out, or very close. So what's the difference if the ball is rolled back? For arguments sake, let's say we have reached the end of the distance road, how do manufacturers sell their newest products? If they are all in the same boat in terms of stiffled distance development, what would they care if they ALL had to roll back the balls? Doing so would make so much more sense then continung down this road of longer courses that play like Firestone. This reminds of Brad Kleins comments about ballparks in book, Rough Meditations. I'm hopeful that there will be a movement from the fans and players to dump the Three Rivers, Riverfronts and Fulton County Stadiums and bring back the Ebbets Fields, the Crosley Fields and Griffith Stadiums. Rolling back the ball a mere 10-15% would accomplish this and be a boon to golf.

[Sean_A]

OR, we could just ignore what the flat bellies do and get on with playing golf.  IMO, its the clubs that help perpetuate this distance craze by being willing to alter their courses to accomodate ball flight.  Things will change until golfers realize and accept that the well being of the game is more in their hands than in the USGA's or R&A's.  Its too easy to blame an organization when the real power lies with each and everyone of us.

Ciao

[Rob Rigg]

Courses need to stand up and stop adding distance for the 1% of the golfing population who need it.

There are many GREAT courses in America who have let technology pass them by and they don't give damn. Cypress, NGLA, etc. and many many local courses who are never going to host an Open championship or Tour event anyways.

If courses would give equipment the finger, then maybe the equipment arms race would slow down because people get tired of watching pros hit driver/wedge into 90% of the greens? Or maybe not in which case a handful of courses in the country keep getting longer so they can host tour events while the rest remain stagnant and 95% of the golfing population still cannot break 80 no matter what you put in their hands.

In this day and age of (more) limited land, resources, money, etc. it is time for the courses to stand up and say enough is enough. To hell with the USGA if they are in the pockets of the manufacturers (which is hopefully not the case . . .) - at some point golfers will wake up. Hitting driver/wedge into every green is boring as well - if I was doing that I would roll technology back on myself.

[Bill Brightly]

I think Robb summed it up quite well. This really is a discussion about two different groups: average golfers and the top 1% (pros and top amateurs) who hit it 290 + in the air. I am 100% certain that the pro game would be more interesting if there was distance roll back for the pros. That's why I was so hopeful when it was rumored that Augusta would mandate a restricted flight ball. They could do this so much easier than the USGA or the R & A. The pros would still play the event and who knows, maybe it would catch on and start a trend.

Maybe the PGA would mandate it for their championship as a quick way to add a unique feature to bolster that major. Maybe then a few clubs would start having member-guest events that also used the new ball. Maybe the average golfer who should be playing the forward tees anyway would be forced to move up a set, and maybe the pressure to add Tiger tees would lessen.

There is no escaping the impact that the pro game has on the balls and equipment that average golfers use, and aging golfers struggling to stay on "Mens tees" are certainly not going to lead a distance rollback movement. Hell, f I did not care so much about architecture, I would not be advocating ths! So if any change were to happen, it would have to come from the pro game, and the Masters would be an ideal first step.

[Adam Clayman]

It was re-iterated to me yesterday how courses that are wide open with lots of dry humps and bumps are just not desirable for the above average golfer. Why? Because if "you just slightly snap one, it ends up in an undesirable location". This particular golfer's comments went so far as to also say "At least with trees, the ball has a chance to be stopped from going offline."  

What this confirms to me is how inadequate the formula is for course rating and slope. Assigning difficulty to aspects that in reality make the game easier for the better player.

While this may not be about restricted flight balls, there are alternative ways to defend against the modern movement. By having a varied canvas maintained optimally firm, causing the long baller to have to truly be perfect, in thought and execution, if one wants to hit the ball so damn far.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Stats that I have show that only 3-4% of golfers prefer to play courses over 7000 yards.  And in reality, 7000 yards is a no man's land now - 7200-7350 or so is a good approximate length for a decently skilled low handicapper who hits it a long way.  After that, 16% prefer 6800, 57% prefer 6300, 19% prefer under 6000, and 5% prefer about 5000 yards.  That is golf in America folks.

I often run into situations where I am trying to add length for those 3%, not even sure that the course I am designing will even get an "average" share of good golfers.  While it takes some marketing guts to ignore that small percentage of players, given costs, etc., I am wondering why we don't go back to 6800 or so as the max yardage on many courses, ceding highly skilled play to some other course.

[Chris Cupit]

Bill,

Great points and I agree with the premise of your post.  One other lawsuit that really shaped the USGA prior to the PING situation was the one with Polara.  That was the self correcting golf ball that was 100% "legal" under the rules but a ball the USGA refused to put on its conforming ball list because of its self correcting dimple pattern.  The USGA ended up paying around a $1,000,000 settlement and the ball went away.  The Polara, while self correcting, also flew about 230 yards max so I think the folks at Polara were happy to take their money and run.

It is a shame that the governing bodies feel powerless to set and make the rules of the game and have instead turned the game itself over to the manufacturers.  Golf companies owe the game absolutely zero and their shareholders everything--and it shows.

I don't want to be argumentative but you mentioned a tee costing $30k and a bunker costing $15k and that seemed very high.  We installed 6 new tees in the last 12 months and are working on two more as we speak and your numbers surprised me.  Obviously the location, size and construction methods can vary and Atlanta may be a lot cheaper location to do the work but still.

[Tom_Doak]

I still think the best design decision I have ever made was to restrict Pacific Dunes to 6700 yards and not change the design to get it up to 7,000.  I was lucky that Bandon Dunes was already there at 7,200 yards and highly regarded, so I could say to Mr. Keiser that if he wanted to host the U.S. Amateur, they would certainly just play the other course.

Of course a lot of people told me that a modern course could not be ranked as great if it wasn't 7000 yards, and I should add tees for that reason.  The funny thing is, they would probably STILL argue the same point on another course today.  Some people are just fixated on the idea that a good course has to be long.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I am working with a consultant who insists on Par 72 and 7000 yards.  As I say, I think 7000 is a real no man's land today, at least in normal condtions.  Certainly on a windswept site like BD, it would be more than enough but I think I would always keep the tip yardage there to 69XX even if they ever expand the tees.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

There are not many places to lengthen Pacific Dunes without doing some construction work that's going to be hard to conceal and might spoil the naturalness of the place.

In contrast, on Old Macdonald there is lots and lots of room; we've built the tees at nearly 7200 yards and there is lots more there if we wanted it.  As you say, with the wind it really isn't necessary or even desirable to do so, but if there is ever going to be a big tournament that course has the space for it, so we built around that idea.  The contours and dunes of Pacific Dunes are much more intimate, I think, and trying to do a big brawny course there would not have worked out as well ... a concept that would be lost on your golf consultant guy.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I think you are right so far as links go.  The biggest criticism I hear about new links is they are too hard if there is any wind up.  The new courses want to be in the championship mold even though there is no need.  How many big tournies are held on links?

Changes are afoot at Burnham with added length to take the course up to about 6900 yards and with a new irrigation system there is talk of more yardage.  It makes me cringe when a powerful guy in the club talke about making #13 a "real" par 5 when it is one of the more clevershort par 5s I know of.  Guys just don't get it that length isn't what makes the game great.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D,

We used to argue about how much nuance most golfers noticed in our office.  Of course, I guess if too many golfers noticed nuanced design, it wouldn't be, by definition, nuanced design............We were pretty evenly split on whether anything other than brawny was wasted on most golfers.  The concept of brawny vs. intimate scale is a worthwhile discussion, although I doubt it would go very far here.

As to my golf consultant guy, we had a couple of discussions - par 71 vs 72, etc.  Of course, he couldn't explain why he thought 72 was necessary, he just knew it was!

[Doug Siebert]

Here I thought that since some people are drawing parallels between the current economy and the great depression (at least as in "the worst economy SINCE the great depression) that someone was pointing out that the last time the USGA had made a material change in ball standards was a couple years after the start of the great depression.  So in 2010 we should be due for another material change...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()