[Thomas Dai]

Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb

[Garland Bayley]

When I first heard Gary's rant, I understood him to be claiming Bethpage to be better for the amateur than Chambers. On rehearing, I find his reason for mentioning Bethpage to be ambiguous.

I used the GHIN app to find back tee slopes at BB to be 155 and 148, whereas CB has 145 and 140 for longer yardages.

[Garland Bayley]

Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb

I don't find this very informative. If the course is 1000 yards longer, it adds 10 to 12 minutes to the walk. Hardly something to keep you from playing 36, or 54, or more.

[John Emerson]

This would be a good place to drop this epic. f'ing. rant. by Gary Player regarding Chambers Bay in 2015:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Ha59iKfjTxw&feature=emb_logo

Never gets old! 

[John Emerson]

Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb

I don't find this very informative. If the course is 1000 yards longer, it adds 10 to 12 minutes to the walk. Hardly something to keep you from playing 36, or 54, or more.

I’m confused a little here GB.  How do you determine that 1000+ more yards adds this amount of time to a round?  Is that just factored for average walking speed in a straight line?

[Garland Bayley]

John,

That is factoring in average walking speed for walking 1000 yards.

Since the USGA wants you to play it forward so you can hit wedges to most greens, moving back 1000 yards means hitting 5 irons to most greens. Score increases because of the larger misses around the green. If you go up 5 strokes, that also is minimal delay.

[Thomas Dai]

Some nice essentially tour chat here from circa 26 mins about shot making, spin, equipment etc etc - mainly European Tour related but worth a listen -
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-filthy-lipout-golf-podcast/id1522533863#episodeGuid=1b8e023d-35f9-4345-ae5c-197024007882
atb

[JESII]

Garland, why would you add 5 shots?


A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...

[Kalen Braley]

Garland, why would you add 5 shots?


A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...

Jim,

This was my thought too.  For most mid teen cappers and above, playing a course from 6000 or 7000 yards will have a massive impact in extra shots, looking for offline shots hit by longer clubs into nearly every hole, balls in hazards/junk, etc.

However, if the change was 5000 to 6000, I would agree it wouldn't be a big difference.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It sure is funny to re-read the first article in this thread from 2010. I quote:

And he casually mentioned an agreement with the manufacturers that the R & A will act on the ball only if their data shows that the driving distance is increasing from the 2002 standard of 287 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, why would you add 5 shots?


A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...

Because I'm a Wild Willy, and playing a longer course results in my handicap index going down. Short hitters will be more adversely affected by playing 1000 more yards.

Adding 10 ponds in play on a course is more likely to cause my handicap index to go up.

Take a 400 yard par 4. I drive, I miss, i pitch, I two putt. 5
Add 55 yards. I drive, I miss short, I pitch, I two putt. 5

Take a 300 yard par 4. I drive, I pitch, I two putt. 4
Add 55 yards. I drive, I pitch, I two putt. 4

 

[Garland Bayley]

Taking Chambers Bay ratings. The light blue tee is 1300 yards shorter than the sand tee, which is 1200 yards shorter than the teal tee.

My course handicap jumps by 8 when I shift light blue to sand, and again by 8 when I shift sand to teal.

So the USGA seems to say that 1000 yards is definitely not 10 strokes added. Closer perhaps to 7.
My experience as a Wild Willy is that get more advantage in the handicap system by moving back tees. In a communication with Dean Knuth, he agrees that my handicap index should go down if I were to use a longer tee to play my rounds and set my handicap index.

[Lou_Duran]

Christ, Garland and I do have something in common!  Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope.  I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens. 


Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am.  There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.


The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution.  I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other.  And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose.  If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods.  In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%.  If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.


Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency.  I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.   

[Peter Flory]

Watching the replay of the '91 Ryder Cup.  That would be a decent year to roll back the tech.  Langer was still playing persimmon even though metal drivers were common (indicating that they couldn't have been much better).  Irwin played a metal driver, but a persimmon fairway wood.  But overall, it has the feel of modern golf on the approaches and short game.

The course looks great as well.  One thing that escaped my memory was how badly Irwin was gagging.  3-putted on the 17th, pulled his drive in the gallery on 18, missed the green, then delivered a really poor chip that came up way short. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Christ, Garland and I do have something in common!  Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope.  I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens. 


Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am.  There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.


The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution.  I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other.  And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose.  If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods.  In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%.  If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.


Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency.  I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.   

Lou,


The rest of the world was forced to give up yardage in 1983 or 1984 then the big ball was mandated and the 1.62 ball banned.
No one complained - although Peter Thomson made the point of asking 'why are we blindly following the Americans' - and no one gave up golf because they were forced to play a ball that was 15-25 yards shorter for good players.
The administration need to test both balls (current and rolled back) at every speed from 70 mph to 130 and show definitively who loses what. The world isn't going to fall in if you and I (maybe 100 mph with my driver) lose a few yards.

[Tom_Doak]

The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution.  I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other.  And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose. 


If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods.  In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%.  If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.

Lou:


I broke your paragraph into two key parts.


The first half is spot on.  The ideal would be a ball that costs the pros 15% and the guy with a slower swing speed 5-10%, and I think that's just as likely an outcome as something 10% across the board if we tried for it.


The second half - ?  If you're 170 yards out, let's say your shot has to be 5 degrees offline to miss the green wide.  (Jeff B would know the angles better than me.)  Doesn't matter if you are hitting 5-iron or hybrid, if you're 170 yards away the same angle offline means the same result.  Sure, your buddy who hits hybrid from 170 now misses the green more often than you do, but he is also not as good a ball striker as you are!


There may be some reason a hybrid is not as straight as a 5-iron but I'm not sure what it is.

[Thomas Dai]

Would someone like to indicate the maintenance cost difference including water of looking after a course that’s say 7,000 or 6,000 yds as against a course that’s say 5,000 yds?
Just curious.
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

Would someone like to indicate the maintenance cost difference including water of looking after a course that’s say 7,000 or 6,000 yds as against a course that’s say 5,000 yds?
Just curious.
Atb

Don't forget Thomas you can also have desert courses which basically don't have rough. "Target golf" some call it, however you do need to water during the drought months more. Of the great links courses do all have irrigated fairways? How many gallons of water do they use each year?  Someone is keeping track of the water bill, should be known.

[Thomas Dai]

Aware of this Jeff. Bit like courses where the grass is eaten rather mown.
Water is a slight sideline, although it’s cost, where applicable, ought to be included.


The question could be re-phased along the lines of what’s the cost difference to maintain the same course if it were 7,000 or 6,000 yds or only 5,000 yds. Different overall cost basis depending on the type of course and the climate and the location etc etc but how much less would it be if the course wasn’t as long.


As to great links course water usage, once upon a time damn near none, these days too damn much!


Atb

[Stephen Davis]

Christ, Garland and I do have something in common!  Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope.  I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens. 


Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am.  There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.


The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution.  I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other.  And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose.  If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods.  In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%.  If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.


Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency.  I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.   

Lou,


The rest of the world was forced to give up yardage in 1983 or 1984 then the big ball was mandated and the 1.62 ball banned.
No one complained - although Peter Thomson made the point of asking 'why are we blindly following the Americans' - and no one gave up golf because they were forced to play a ball that was 15-25 yards shorter for good players.
The administration need to test both balls (current and rolled back) at every speed from 70 mph to 130 and show definitively who loses what. The world isn't going to fall in if you and I (maybe 100 mph with my driver) lose a few yards.

Thank you for saying this Mike. I feel like this is the point that is lost in all the "don't take my yardage away from me" crowd. I watch moderate to slow swing speed guys use ProV1s, TopFlights and even grab the limited flight range balls from our range and they can't tell a difference in the distance they are hitting the ball. If they did, they would surely stop snitching the range balls to play their rounds with. It would be such a simple thing to test multiple individuals with varying swing speeds, and especially those under 95 mphs, and see what exactly they would be losing with a ball redesign.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom D,


The variable here is the ball.  A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens.  Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid.  In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom D,


The variable here is the ball.  A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens.  Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid.  In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.

There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The first half is spot on.  The ideal would be a ball that costs the pros 15% and the guy with a slower swing speed 5-10%, and I think that's just as likely an outcome as something 10% across the board if we tried for it.

I appreciate that you didn't go for the 20% I've seen lobbied for by others, but at 15%:

• Dechambeau would hit it 275.
• Rory would hit it 265.
• Dustin Johnson, just under 262.
• The other Johnson, Zach, all of 243.

In 1980, Dan Pohl hit it 274.3, and 150th on the PGA Tour hit it 248.5.

So you'd basically roll the ball back four decades, Tom?

The second half - ?  If you're 170 yards out, let's say your shot has to be 5 degrees offline to miss the green wide.  (Jeff B would know the angles better than me.)

https://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/angles_of_error

From 175, to a green 25 yards wide, you have about 4°. So you're really close with 5°.

[Peter Flory]

Current ball + 1991 equipment would be much more fun to watch than 1991 golf ball with current equipment.  When I play with hickory clubs, it doesn't really matter to me if I play a proV or a 1920s replica.  You just don't get that trampoline effect and you're actually looking for more spin to achieve distance and stopping power. 


In the second case, you'd get tons of accuracy with very little variance. It would be like t-ball whiffle ball with the big red bats.

[Jim Hoak]

I am in full agreement with Lou's post at #162.
We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate.  But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal.  So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2)  Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()