[Adam Lawrence]

Steve Otto from the R&A gave an interesting presentation at the conference. But the thing that really struck me was the 68 degree wedge he'd brought with him. I did think to myself that it was ironic that John Low (I think) used to refuse to carry a niblick because he thought it was against the spirit of the game; and many people felt Sarazen's sand wedge shouldn't be allowed. Maybe we should legislate for an upper limit on loft?

[Jamie Barber]

I read somewhere that Seve has suggested wedges should be 56 deg maximum. Personally I think that wouldn't be a bad rule.

This weekend, I played went down to 8 clubs from 14 and had my best two rounds ages.

[C. Squier]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?  . . . .

How many 20 handicappers are consistent enough to have a "perfect seven iron distance."  I'm guessing that most do not hit the ball consistently well enough to know how far a seven iron will go.  If a 22 handicapper is 150 yards out from the green, he is just as likely to get the ball on the green with a six iron or eight iron as he is with an seven iron.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

Speaking as an old guy 20 handicapper and answering Mr. Lyon, who has it right for me.  I walk whenever permitted and am currently carrying (literally) eight clubs for my home course play: 3-wood, hybrid 4 iron, 6, 8, 9, 48 degree pitching wedge, 64 degree lob wedge (which is my sand club) and putter.  I play no better with more clubs, and I have figured out that 8 are easier (lighter) to carry than 14.  I hit a 3 wood off the tee and the fairway.  A driver is useless to me.  The closer I get to the green, the more important a variety of clubs becomes, for obvious reasons.  For a while I didn't carry the 9 iron, but I do think that that addition helps.  When I'm "between clubs" I normally choose to take the higher lofted one and come up short (assuming I don't have to carry over something like, say, the dreaded water).  I'd rather be in front of the green (or short on the green) for my next shot than long or in a greenside bunker, or, as likely, wide of a greenside bunker.  I am not deluded about my ability to hit each club a precise yardage.  I know tnat I do not have that ability and factor it into my club selection.  When I'm required to ride, I'll add the 5 and 7 irons, and 52 and 56 degree wedges, for what they may be worth.  I don't believe fewer clubs speed up my play, however.  I play fast regardless.  Speaking for myself, this is how I'm enjoying "playing" golf very much, but that having been said I do not believe that an attempt to limit by rule the number of clubs to something less than 14 has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell.

Carl, you do not agree w/ Mr. Lyon.  He very specifically said, "A high handicapper would be much better off with fewer clubs."  Unless you choose to make golf more difficult for you when you ride, the only reason you drop clubs when you walk is for ease of carrying....by adding the additional clubs when you ride, anyone can reasonably assume you do that for the purpose of bettering your game, no matter how trival the improvement may be.  That is a poor reason for any governing body to mandate anyone to have less than 14 clubs at their disposal. 

Why those in the treehouse can't let people decide for themselves if 8, 12 or 14 clubs are optimal is beyond me.  The person w/ 14 clubs doesn't give a shit if someone else may be optimized with 5 clubs.  For the record, I carry 13 and could easily drop the 4 iron any day now.

[Chris Shaida]

Brent,

I guess what I'm saying is that if you make that one stroke difference in the way the pros play their game, then they have to adjust to stay competitive...

 If they don't have that lob wedge in the bag or that second driver that helps them fade the ball rather than draw it, then perhaps they will think twice about blind-siding themselves or perhaps they will take 3-wood from the tee leaving a longer approach...

By making the game harder for the pro's without having to adjust the golf course (in exactly the same way as adjusting the ball), you make the influence of the golf designer and golf course that much more important...

I see that we are at polar opposites... My self-doubt has me thinking that I am missing something obvious... But I still can't see it...

Reading through this it seems to me like there are two themes or issues being discussed here: limiting the number of clubs as a way of defending against length or at least defending classic course design and the trickle-down affect on all the rest of us.

As regards the first I think the thing 'missing' is the link between limiting clubs and better 'shotmaking'; that is you're assuming that if we limit clubs the pros will take out some wedges or even the driver and therefore will have to to play for position more.  But as Chuck Brown  asserts the effect might be just the opposite--that a big hitter, knowing that his shorter-hitting competitors now have fewer tools to hit precisely from middle distances, is even MORE incented to just bomb away--if Justin Leonard's shot from 170 just got HARDER for him because he has to manufacture a shot then my 70 yard-from-the-rough-not-so-great-angle wedge just looks BETTER!  Now, I don't know which way it would play out but I certainly don't assume that it would play out with generally shorter shots played for position.

And the second thing--the affect on the rest of us--the 'missing' thing is just how aspirational rather than rational golf is for most of us--we want to hit the 'shot' we see on TV even if it's only once every 10 rounds! We like seeing the big drive.  We like seeing the 180 yard iron land softly on the green, etc.  Maybe we shouldn't.  Maybe we should get on Melvyn's band wagon and reduce the number of golfer's by 90%, reduce the number of course by 90% and return to a purer, more noble game (didn't Ted Ray play with just five clubs?).  But until we do that the argument that 'most golfers are lousy anyway so reducing the number of clubs only marginally increases that lousiness' misses' the whole aspirational element of current golf playing.

[JNC Lyon]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?  . . . .

How many 20 handicappers are consistent enough to have a "perfect seven iron distance."  I'm guessing that most do not hit the ball consistently well enough to know how far a seven iron will go.  If a 22 handicapper is 150 yards out from the green, he is just as likely to get the ball on the green with a six iron or eight iron as he is with an seven iron.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

Speaking as an old guy 20 handicapper and answering Mr. Lyon, who has it right for me.  I walk whenever permitted and am currently carrying (literally) eight clubs for my home course play: 3-wood, hybrid 4 iron, 6, 8, 9, 48 degree pitching wedge, 64 degree lob wedge (which is my sand club) and putter.  I play no better with more clubs, and I have figured out that 8 are easier (lighter) to carry than 14.  I hit a 3 wood off the tee and the fairway.  A driver is useless to me.  The closer I get to the green, the more important a variety of clubs becomes, for obvious reasons.  For a while I didn't carry the 9 iron, but I do think that that addition helps.  When I'm "between clubs" I normally choose to take the higher lofted one and come up short (assuming I don't have to carry over something like, say, the dreaded water).  I'd rather be in front of the green (or short on the green) for my next shot than long or in a greenside bunker, or, as likely, wide of a greenside bunker.  I am not deluded about my ability to hit each club a precise yardage.  I know tnat I do not have that ability and factor it into my club selection.  When I'm required to ride, I'll add the 5 and 7 irons, and 52 and 56 degree wedges, for what they may be worth.  I don't believe fewer clubs speed up my play, however.  I play fast regardless.  Speaking for myself, this is how I'm enjoying "playing" golf very much, but that having been said I do not believe that an attempt to limit by rule the number of clubs to something less than 14 has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell.

Carl, you do not agree w/ Mr. Lyon.  He very specifically said, "A high handicapper would be much better off with fewer clubs."  Unless you choose to make golf more difficult for you when you ride, the only reason you drop clubs when you walk is for ease of carrying....by adding the additional clubs when you ride, anyone can reasonably assume you do that for the purpose of bettering your game, no matter how trival the improvement may be.  That is a poor reason for any governing body to mandate anyone to have less than 14 clubs at their disposal. 

Why those in the treehouse can't let people decide for themselves if 8, 12 or 14 clubs are optimal is beyond me.  The person w/ 14 clubs doesn't give a shit if someone else may be optimized with 5 clubs.  For the record, I carry 13 and could easily drop the 4 iron any day now.

Would you advocate eliminating the 14-club limit altogether?  If people should be able to decide for themselves, surely you would approve of someone carrying 50 clubs?

[Carl Johnson]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?  . . . .

How many 20 handicappers are consistent enough to have a "perfect seven iron distance."  I'm guessing that most do not hit the ball consistently well enough to know how far a seven iron will go.  If a 22 handicapper is 150 yards out from the green, he is just as likely to get the ball on the green with a six iron or eight iron as he is with an seven iron.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

Speaking as an old guy 20 handicapper and answering Mr. Lyon, who has it right for me.  I walk whenever permitted and am currently carrying (literally) eight clubs for my home course play: 3-wood, hybrid 4 iron, 6, 8, 9, 48 degree pitching wedge, 64 degree lob wedge (which is my sand club) and putter.  I play no better with more clubs, and I have figured out that 8 are easier (lighter) to carry than 14.  I hit a 3 wood off the tee and the fairway.  A driver is useless to me.  The closer I get to the green, the more important a variety of clubs becomes, for obvious reasons.  For a while I didn't carry the 9 iron, but I do think that that addition helps.  When I'm "between clubs" I normally choose to take the higher lofted one and come up short (assuming I don't have to carry over something like, say, the dreaded water).  I'd rather be in front of the green (or short on the green) for my next shot than long or in a greenside bunker, or, as likely, wide of a greenside bunker.  I am not deluded about my ability to hit each club a precise yardage.  I know tnat I do not have that ability and factor it into my club selection.  When I'm required to ride, I'll add the 5 and 7 irons, and 52 and 56 degree wedges, for what they may be worth.  I don't believe fewer clubs speed up my play, however.  I play fast regardless.  Speaking for myself, this is how I'm enjoying "playing" golf very much, but that having been said I do not believe that an attempt to limit by rule the number of clubs to something less than 14 has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell.

Carl, you do not agree w/ Mr. Lyon.  He very specifically said, "A high handicapper would be much better off with fewer clubs."  Unless you choose to make golf more difficult for you when you ride, the only reason you drop clubs when you walk is for ease of carrying....by adding the additional clubs when you ride, anyone can reasonably assume you do that for the purpose of bettering your game, no matter how trival the improvement may be.  That is a poor reason for any governing body to mandate anyone to have less than 14 clubs at their disposal. 

Why those in the treehouse can't let people decide for themselves if 8, 12 or 14 clubs are optimal is beyond me.  The person w/ 14 clubs doesn't give a shit if someone else may be optimized with 5 clubs.  For the record, I carry 13 and could easily drop the 4 iron any day now.

Clint.  By way of clarification -- I was a little too loose, perhaps.  Mr. Lyon made three posts before mine.  In the second post he did say: "A high handicapper would be much better off with fewer clubs."  The third post is the one I quoted from and was responding to and agreeing with in part, particularly with reference to knowing how far I hit a particular club.  That was why I quoted that post.  In that post Lyon also said, among other things, "I'm not sure that it [carrying fewer clubs] would improve his [the higher handicapper's] game.  Go figure.  That seems inconsistent with the "much better off" statement in the second post, but I expect he can explain it.  Let me also make clear that I am not personally in favor of a rule change to reduce the number of clubs you may carry.  So if you go back to Mr. Lyon's earlier posts, I clearly disagree with him on that one.  I did not make that explicit in my first post, but should have.  For all I care about the matter, which is not much, you could go for an increase in the number of permitted clubs.  I also said I disagreed with him on the delusion issue and speed of play issue, as they would apply to me.  Regarding the additional clubs that I'll take when I ride, I have mixed feelings about that.  I said that for my home course, where I can walk anytime (with an exception, noted later) I know the eight clubs I need right now.  Normally I'm riding at away courses, including those I may be playing for the first time.  So, I don't always know exactly which of the clubs I have that will be my best choice, and since I have the right to take more clubs, I happily do that.  At my home course I do play in some league matches where we are all required to ride, and I'll take the extra clubs.  The four extra clubs may hurt me, give me a trivial improvement, or maybe not, or maybe more than trivial.  I'm not good enough to know.  It's kind of like not knowing exactly how far my 6 iron will go each time I hit it.  I am smart enough to know not to put a driver in my bag, however, and then be tempted to try to use it.  My bottom line on this is that the 14 club rule is just fine -- let's not change it -- but that doesn't mean I have to always carry 14 clubs myself, as my playing partners sometimes suggest I should.

[Steve Lang]

  currently in my 2.5 lb gca.com bag:

D
12° spoon
7 wood
4, 6, 8, 10
52°
putter

travel light.. travel right is the motto, especially in the heat.. that nearly 5 extra pounds of club weight makes a significant difference.  club selection is very quick

sometimes throw in the 9 iron or 7 iron to make it 10 clubs depending on venue, and bring in the 60°, 9, 7, 5 and 4 or 5 wood to make up riding bag of 14..

[Chuck Brown]

One problem with a limit on loft is that it is a hard rule to enforce.  It is rather easy to take a 56 degree wedge and bend it to 59.   Leaving the "56" right there on the sole.  So every club pro needs to mount a Mitchell machine on the first tee and measure clubs as players tee off.  
The other problem with a limit on loft is that it is a kind of a pointless rule.  The problem in golf is not that players are "dominating" courses with their wedge play.  Lee Trevino was a better wedge player than almost anyone on Tour today.  No; the problem in golf is that players are hitting 485-yard Par 4's with a drive and a wedge.   And when you can hit a 485-yard Par 4 with driver-wedge, it really doesn't matter if you don't have a 4-iron, a 5-iron or a 6-iron.
This business of a 10-club limit was the idea of Frank Thomas and I have never once heard Frank defend the idea under any sort of mild cross-examination.  A 10-club limit for touring professionals is about as meritorious as Frank's notion that drivers would never get much larger than 360cc.  And then the USGA fired him.

[Chuck Brown]

As long as we are on the wonderful subject of the joys of a light carry bag with a few clubs, here's mine:

"Seven Clubs"
Sun Mountain Sunday Bag
3w - Callaway Big Bertha War Bird 3+/M10 steel shaft
5i - Titleist Forged 680 (2 degrees strong)
7i - Titliest Forged 680 (1 degree strong)
9i - Titleist Forged 680 (standard)
52 - Vokey 452.08
59 - Vokey 258.12
Putter

There's not a course anywhere that I cannot enjoy with that set.  If need be, I move up a tee or two to make it a 6300 yard course.  Around the green, I am missing nothing in terms of club selection.  There are about 8 or 9 degrees of loft-gap between every club, so I'm never more than a club off.  This set is every bit as much fun as anything I own.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Chuck has made two very good posts that are the first to make me question the original premise...

All I'm interested in finding out is whether it would have any effect (for the better) on the way we design courses or on the intentions of that design (e.g. strategy) actually being implemented by those who play...

I am interested also if it would make the game more fun for the average golfer... or just harder and therefore less fun...

I am not interested in what it does to your score unless it slows down play as opposed to speeds it up...

Maybe it would have no effect whatsoever... in which case, leave it at 14...

[Chris Shaida]

Chuck has made two very good posts that are the first to make me question the original premise...

All I'm interested in finding out is whether it would have any effect (for the better) on the way we design courses or on the intentions of that design (e.g. strategy) actually being implemented by those who play...

I am interested also if it would make the game more fun for the average golfer... or just harder and therefore less fun...

I am not interested in what it does to your score unless it slows down play as opposed to speeds it up...

Maybe it would have no effect whatsoever... in which case, leave it at 14...

re 'fun for the average golfer' - well, I guess that's me (at 10 index I guess I'm statistically better than average but when copmared to the pros there's not all that much difference between a 10 and 20 so...) and I guess I'd say that if you magically changed the pros limit to 10 clubs then it wouldn't be any less fun playing with 10 but I don't really see how it would be MORE fun.  I usually play with 13 and have played in some informal events with fewer clubs which were quite fun BUT I think the 'fun' had to do with the relative rarity.  Said another way, it wasn't that playing with 7 clubs was more fun on its own but more fun because we're used to playing with twice as many and once you always played with 10 (or 7 or whatever) I'm not sure the 'more' would survive.

JNC Lyon - 'Would you advocate eliminating the 14-club limit altogether?  If people should be able to decide for themselves, surely you would approve of someone carrying 50 clubs?'

(I know you specifically posed this to Brent but since he said he made his last post on this thread above I'll take the liberty of chiming in with at least my take)

No, and no.  While the 14 club limit might have been somewhat arbitrary when first instituted we now have generations of golfers who have tested and embedded that particular configuration of implements in their practice, playing and mental habits.  Sort of like the size of the cup.  (btw but completely off-topic, there was a pro tournament in the 50s at my club where they experimented with a larger cup--not all that surprisingly the winner won with 19 putts).  The onus really is on the proponents of change on this one. Said another way, arguing against changing the 14 club limit is NOT the same thing as arguing for no limit at all.

And what I'm hearing as the arguments FOR are:

for the pros - this might make them hit shorter shots, play for position and shape shots more.  Maybe but maybe not.  I can see it working exactly the other way as per Chuck Brown's comment above.

for the rest of us - maybe this would force us to be 'purer' feel, think, shape more and if not we're all pretty lousy anyway so a little change in lousiness one way or another shouldn't matter all that much.

Seem like weak arguments to me.

[C. Squier]

Would you advocate eliminating the 14-club limit altogether?  If people should be able to decide for themselves, surely you would approve of someone carrying 50 clubs?

No.  We've had a lifetime of adjusting to 14 or under.  14 is a completely arbitrary number.....and so is anything less than that.  Why change from arbitrary to arbitrary?  It would make more sense to reduce the number of holes on a golf course from 18 to 14, at least that would have a tangible affect on round times.  

I swear I didn't plagarize Chris' argument above while I typed.....well said, Chris.

[Brent Hutto]

I will chime in a say that no, I don't care at all if the 14-club limit were abolished all together. The fact that someone, somewhere might have 50 clubs wouldn't affect me in the least. No more than the fact that Sean Arble always uses seven or whatever it is. He can still give me strokes and take my money regardless!

[Carl Johnson]

Chuck has made two very good posts that are the first to make me question the original premise...

All I'm interested in finding out is whether it would have any effect (for the better) on the way we design courses or on the intentions of that design (e.g. strategy) actually being implemented by those who play...

Not having given it much thought, and as a very average golfer (and not a "we" course designer), I'd think designing for fewer clubs would mean designing in fewer forced carries, if any, and providing relatively more good layup options around the greens.

I am interested also if it would make the game more fun for the average golfer... or just harder and therefore less fun...

As a very average golfer, limiting the number of clubs to, say, 10, would not make it harder for me and therefore less fun.  Would it be more fun?  Well, I get along most of the time with eight clubs anyway.  I have to think and plan a little better with fewer clubs, and try more "creative" shots, but that makes it a little more fun for me.  Thinking about what I'm doing always seems to help, to put it mildly.  Now, as an observer, you might watch me play and think I could do better and have more fun with more clubs, and be less "creative," but that doesn't translate to how I feel about my play, which is all that matters to me.
I am not interested in what it does to your score unless it slows down play as opposed to speeds it up...

I don't think it slows me down.  As I said above, I play fast regardless.

Maybe it would have no effect whatsoever... in which case, leave it at 14...

As I said above, notwithstanding my own choice of the number of clubs to play with, if we were voting on it I'd leave it at 14.  Still, the question about the design impact is interesting and I'd like to hear what the professional designers have to say.  That's a key reason I'm on this site, to learn from the pros.

[Andrew Summerell]

It won't make much difference to the pros. The 'big bombers' will still hit driver - wedge to just as many 400y+ par 4's as they did before.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

I don't think such a rule would have any effect on the way I designed courses.  The only effect I can see is that players would sometimes be required to hit less-than-full-swing shots, which would bounce a bit more, so you might have to leave more greens open in front.  But I already do that.

I disagree with Chuck that the rule change would make no difference to the pros.  They hate being between clubs, and this rule would inevitably put them between clubs more often.  There may be a few who are long enough to hit wedges to pretty much any hole, but if so, then what is J.B. Holmes carrying all that extra weight around for?  I can't really believe he's carrying five clubs he never uses.

[Thomas McQuillan]

Ally:

I don't think such a rule would have any effect on the way I designed courses.  The only effect I can see is that players would sometimes be required to hit less-than-full-swing shots, which would bounce a bit more, so you might have to leave more greens open in front.  But I already do that.

I disagree with Chuck that the rule change would make no difference to the pros.  They hate being between clubs, and this rule would inevitably put them between clubs more often.  There may be a few who are long enough to hit wedges to pretty much any hole, but if so, then what is J.B. Holmes carrying all that extra weight around for?  I can't really believe he's carrying five clubs he never uses.

He's not. he uses his 5,6 &7 irons for hitting into par 5's

[Michael Taylor]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I think it would be a good idea for the game because it would bring more shotmaking skills back into the game, something that has been slowly disapperaring from our game. The major difference would be the pros having to adapt to each individual shot, rather than having a club already adapted for that shot to be played.

And remember Donald Ross said he never used anymore than 6 or 7 clubs in a game.

IMO I'd bring it down to 8 clubs or so.

Pup

[Chris Shaida]

Ally:

I don't think such a rule would have any effect on the way I designed courses.  The only effect I can see is that players would sometimes be required to hit less-than-full-swing shots, which would bounce a bit more, so you might have to leave more greens open in front.  But I already do that.

I disagree with Chuck that the rule change would make no difference to the pros.  They hate being between clubs, and this rule would inevitably put them between clubs more often.  There may be a few who are long enough to hit wedges to pretty much any hole, but if so, then what is J.B. Holmes carrying all that extra weight around for?  I can't really believe he's carrying five clubs he never uses.

Well, it wasn't Chuck who said it 'would make no difference to the pros' (that would have been Andrew).  Not that who said what matters except that I think Chuck was making a more subtle point; to wit, that it wouldn't make the 'difference' that we assume/hope it would (have them hitting shorter shots) but might have the opposite result.  JB Holmes likes playing with all 14 clubs (because he doesn't like being 'between' shots anymore than anybody else) but if EVERYBODY was hitting more 'between' shots wouldn't you select for hitting CLOSER 'between' shots? Particularly since your shorter hitting competitor although maybe hitting from the fairway is dealing with an (annoying) between shot.

[Carl Rogers]

My suggestion would be to lenghten the loft angle differentials between clubs:
driver, 20 deg, 26 deg, 32 deg, 38 deg, 44 deg, 50 deg, 56 deg, putter for a total of 9.  Most golfers have problems with highly lofted clubs and low lofted fairway metal clubs.
I of course choose not to take my own advice

[Michael Taylor]

One other thing.

Wouldn't pros be more inclined to lay-up to a certain distance, in order to be left with a club suited for the next shot? Wouldn't that bring more decision making back into the game?

Pup

[Chuck Brown]

I understand what many of you guys are saying -- and yes, if you forced Tour players to play with just 10 clubs (that was the proposal of Frank Thomas) you would have some impact on scoring, and it would change the makeup of sets of golf clubs, and it might encourage some more shotmaking and perhaps some different strategies with some kinds of clubs.  

It might also make players "throttle back" with driver.  But maybe not.  I sort of think, "not."  If you make JB Holmes take four clubs out of his bag, the four clubs are probably going to be his 4,6 and 8 irons, and some other combined fw or hybrid club.  JB is therefore left with good ol' driver and wedge for everything else.  And that does nothing to solve the distance problem.  People keep thinking that growing longer rough, or cutting narrower fairways, will make JB throttle back.  It is a silly, convoluted, roundabout notion. Why not leave the golf courses as they were intended, and do somehting about the golf balls if the golf balls are going too far and not spinning enough?

We don't have, and have never had, a problem with scoring, or making things sufficiently harder for extraordinarily talented Tour professionals.  That's just not the issue.  We can do that, and always make sure that the winning score is whatever we want it to be.  That is the U.S. Open model of golf course setups, and it creates deadly boring golf.  

No; the issue is one of relation, between the kind of game that Tour players now play, and especially their distances, and the classic championship golf courses.  Reducing golf ball distance, and restoring limits on golf ball lengths and spin rates is the way to do that if you believe, as I do, that the golf course is the star of the show and not the golf ball.

We all remember Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan hitting 1-irons in competition.  We remember the places they played, and the shots they had to shape, and the distances they had to carry.  The beauty of those places was paramount for the whole experience.  Anybody remember what kind of ball Nicklaus played?  Or Hogan?  Does it matter?  Does it matter what those ball specs were?

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom - What if players were not allowed to use clubs with less than 15 degrees of loft... would that affect the way you design courses?

[Scott Warren]

I'd be interested to hear the answer to Mike's question as well, perhaps with the added aspect of no less than 15* and no more than 56* - carry as many as you like between those bookends.

PS - Nice avatar, Mike!

[Sean_A]

I would be in favour of a reduction of clubs because:

1. I think eventually manufacturers would start to create personal sets - meaning the exact lofts folks want from among an array of choices.  Bottom line, for the average player clubs would be cheaper because fewer would be bought.  Folks who are serious about their equipment will still continue to spend endless dollars so a club reduction will not limit their spending.

2. Less clubs would encourage more walking and possibly the creation of more walkable courses. 

3. Watching the pros and top amateurs would be more exciting because I believe we would see more out of the box shot making.  Folks into the game but not caring what happens at the pro level may come back to watching.  That said, what the pros do should be FIRMLY up to them.  It is their livelyhood and it is THEIR responsibility to figure out how to sell their product. 

4.  I don't agree with Chuck.  I believe that the tendencies of pros would be heightened by a reduced club rule.  Meaning, guys that bang away will continue to do so at least for a while. Guys who are more cautious will continue to be more cautious at least for a while.  That said, the best way to make pros re-think their shot selection is through course design and maintenance.  This is why the Open is still by far the most compelling tournament of the year.   

MInd you, imo, I think there should be a loft limit to accompany a club reduction rule.  Probably something like 15-50 degree loft is about right.  With this sort of range 9 or 10 clubs makes absolute sense.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()