[Tim Martin]

Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong

So, your response to my general trend is to put up a single anecdote? Seriously?

So, by following your logic, white men need not apply come next presidential election.

I agree that it is more difficult for tall players to control their swing. But there will be those "special" athletes with freakish hand-eye control who will be able to control their power, and more and more of them are going to try golf instead of other sports. Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.

Rich-Bubba Watson has -0- PGA tour wins and -0- Nationwide tour wins. If he is the future then we don`t have to wait 10 years to prove you are wrong. My point with Phil Blackmar is that he was 6`7' and the biggest guy out there and I don`t think he is going to the hall of fame. Its easy to make a silly argument with absolutely no statistical data to back you up and then say we have to wait for another 10 years to see if your whimsical notion comes true. As far as your analogy to the next president once again you miss the point.

[Richard Choi]

Bubba is a big guy with freakish hand eye coordination. That is the future. He may never become a consistent winner, but if enough guys like him come to PGA Tour, they will win and they will win big.

Tim, I would give your comments more weight if you just said there have been tall players in PGA Tour before but generally, they did not excel. To pick out one guy and say "see, tall guys suck" is just a lazy and poor argument.

[Tim Martin]

Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.

[Garland Bayley]

Bubba is a big guy with freakish hand eye coordination. That is the future. He may never become a consistent winner, but if enough guys like him come to PGA Tour, they will win and they will win big.

Tim, I would give your comments more weight if you just said there have been tall players in PGA Tour before but generally, they did not excel. To pick out one guy and say "see, tall guys suck" is just a lazy and poor argument.

What about your argument that the players are taller today than yesteryear? The people today are taller than yesteryear.

[Tim Martin]

Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.

Oh, bite your tongue...

Richard was a master debater in high school.

Dave-It`s always been painfully obvious to me that all you ever needed was a good straight man.

[Pete_Pittock]

This thread if now on Shakleford's blog.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/

[Kyle Harris]

Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.

Oh, bite your tongue...

Richard was a master debater in high school.

...and quite the cunning linguist.

[Richard Choi]

Man, I will try to suck less next time...

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

Never trued words were said in your reply to Bill ...

Bill,

I don't know, can they?  That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?

"I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards.  And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots.  That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour.  Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.

I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences."

The simple fact is that so long as the Cor ceiling stays in place and drivers cannot go beyond a certain length the idea that tour players will hit 400 yards is inane. The sky is falling routine is getting to the point of roll-on-the-ground laughter.

Carry on all of you self-appointed protectors of the game.

[Matthew Petersen]

Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.

As to standardization, a good example is the baseball used at Coors Field. They built a ball field with fences too close in for a city that is a mile up in the air. The balls were flying out so frequently that they decided to keep the balls in humidors so that they would fly less. A specialization that only applies to this one stadium, no one else does it. Other sport is not as anal about uniformity as we are in golf.

Richard,

Baseball does make for an interesting comparison with golf as one can look at the varying sizes of fields as somewhat analogous to the varying lengths of courses. Players are expected to use equipment that does meet certain requirements, but certain aspects of the playing field vary.

Coors Field is a bit of a strange example, however. Knowing that altitude was an issue, they built Coors Field as the biggest ballpark in the majors. Balls still flew out of the place at record rates. What the humidor addresses is not altitude but the fact that the climate in Denver is so dry that balls were drying out and becoming harder, and thus being hit harder and further. So the purpose of the humidor isn't to change anything about the ball; it is to help keep it as alike as possible to the ball being used at lower altitudes. Now, fly balls will still go a long way at altitude and CF still is among the leading ballparks in home runs, but the humidor has cut don on it some (CF will always be a big run scoring park because it's so big that even if you don't hit it out, the outfield is a gigantic area to cover and you end up with lots of extra base hits). Meanwhile, Chase Field in Phoenix is a bit of a microcosm of Coors Field--it's in a very dry climate and at some altitude (not much, but more than any other stadium besides Coors). It's also among the bigger fields in the majors but they don't use a humidor (I wonder if they've ever considered it?) and it is also among league leaders in home runs and offense in general.

The field size is not unlike golf--courses in Colorado(or others at altitude) are typically built with more length because of the understanding that players can hit the ball further there than at sea level. But dry climates don't effect the condition of the golf ball in the same way they do a baseball.

Bill McBride, meanwhile, raised a complaint that the long ball (in golf) wasn't ruining his game but was ruining many a classic course (his excellent example is the now 450+ yard 7th at ANGC). But I am not sure we ae right to simply blame technology. The ProV1 did lengthen Augusta (or grow more rough there or plant extra trees), the club did that themselves. Now, their claim is of course that they take all such steps as a response to "technology" but surely they don't have to do this! If the 7th at ANGC was still 350 yards it surely would not play quite the same as it did a century ago, but then the hole as it exits today doesn't play like it once did, either. The question is how to respond to technology. I am in the camp that finds it more interesting to leave a hole at 50 yards and test the wedge game. ANGC chose to add length and rough and trees, but they didn't have to.

[John_Conley]

Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports.  Golfers getting bigger?  No, it is not happening.  I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.

My son was born in January of 2002.  That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour.  It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein.  In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..."  Huh?  Based on what?

I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address.  He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me."  I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion.  He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen."  As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer.  He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.

Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer.  About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two.  Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be.  What is an average American male?  5'10" +/- 2"?  Nearly everyone fell in that range.

Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s.  Here is a list done quickly.

Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"

Where are all these big golfers?  Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds.  I don't see many of them succeeding in golf. 

[John_Conley]

I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school.

Sadly, Rich, Gordon Sherry never did anything in professional golf.  Dude, they aren't out there.  No more so than the occasional Faldo, Els, Archer, or Blackmar. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gents,

I have re-read this thread and remain convinced that it is mostly much ado about nothing.

For the record, in the last dozen or so remodels I have been involved in, only a few have added length to the golf course.  Most are to improve maintenance, so overall, I can't say that length is ruining golf courses.  A few of you have pointed out that your concern is with the handful of "classic" courses that are being extended for tournament play, which again is worrying about such a small percentage of courses.

Personally, if a course I designed in this era is considered in a few decades for a major tourney, and all they feel they need to do is add a few back tees, I will consider the design a real success!  What an honor and tribute to the design of TOC that a few new tees is all that is required.

As to stronger athletes, while we say baseball hasn't changed, I do think the newer ball parks are bigger overall, unless they specifically shorten one field or another specifically to create more home runs.  Its kind of like the driveable par 4.  While other sports fields have stayed similar in dimension, I think there is pretty general agreement in hockey that the bigger ice would suit modern players better, but they can't change the existing stadiums economically.

So, the comparisons are not all accurate and every situation is unique.  But again, when you start with the premise that we want our older courses to test modern players like they tested Hogan and Snead then we set in motion a whole lot of changes to keep things stagnant, which just goes against human nature.

Some worry about losing golfers to longer play times, cost, etc. which are very valid concerns.  But how many of those came to the game once they thought they could play better and hit it further?   A bunch, I am sure!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

I think the point is it went too far ages ago... Courses sat at about 6,900 yards for the pros for about 40 years... That was as far as it should have gone...

Anyway, it's not just about ruining the classic courses, it's about ruining the game... long courses mean long rounds, NO sustainability, more expense and less fun for just about everyone... therefore less growth of the game and no jobs for you or more likely, me...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,

I wonder if the longer course equals longer round is totally true, as well. Most of the worlds 5 hour rounds are probably played at 6300 yards by 90 shooters.  If they were playing 700 yards longer, it would result in 3-4 extra shots at an average of 155 yards, or about 12 minutes.  I do think the spreading out of courses through housing has added time that wasn't there before.

I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres).  As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time.  And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?

Sometimes, its human nature to extract low scores and long drives on the PGA tour as the norm, and they are so far from the norm they don't count.  Its kind of like my grandmother seeing some crime on TV from anywhere in the world, and believing she will get mugged tomorrow.  Don't we all, via human nature, long for the "good old days?"  And do we sometimes overlook just how much better we have it today?

For that matter, writers were saying in nearly any decade that the ball should have been rolled back and that the old days were better.  What makes this period of time any different?  Or what makes taking any current "classic" course out of the tournament rotation any different than when Prestwick held its last Open?

Short version - I am convinced nostalgia shouldn't drive policy positions.

[Jud_T]

Ally,


I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres).  As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time.  And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?

As to expense, last time I checked land was sold on a PER ACRE basis.....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

I fundamentally disagree with most of what you say above...

In short, long courses are not sustainable because:

- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play (even those 6,300 yard golfers are playing on 7,200 yard courses with all the extra walks)
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)

All of these factors make golf more expensive to play, more of an arduous day long task (rather than a quick walk in the morning or evening) and therefore less fun and less attractive to a new generation growing up...

And that is before even talking about the environmental side of it all...

[Chuck Brown]

Ally,

I wonder if the longer course equals longer round is totally true, as well. Most of the worlds 5 hour rounds are probably played at 6300 yards by 90 shooters.  If they were playing 700 yards longer, it would result in 3-4 extra shots at an average of 155 yards, or about 12 minutes.  I do think the spreading out of courses through housing has added time that wasn't there before.

I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres).  As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time.  And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?

Sometimes, its human nature to extract low scores and long drives on the PGA tour as the norm, and they are so far from the norm they don't count.  Its kind of like my grandmother seeing some crime on TV from anywhere in the world, and believing she will get mugged tomorrow.  Don't we all, via human nature, long for the "good old days?"  And do we sometimes overlook just how much better we have it today?

For that matter, writers were saying in nearly any decade that the ball should have been rolled back and that the old days were better.  What makes this period of time any different?  Or what makes taking any current "classic" course out of the tournament rotation any different than when Prestwick held its last Open?

Short version - I am convinced nostalgia shouldn't drive policy positions.

Jeff, I'll stipulate that recreational golfers are demonstrating no particular problem with technology-produced distance gains, if you will in turn stipulate that there is a technologically-produced distance issue for elite-level players.  And the elite-level problem is proven by no more and no less than the need to perform severe distance-protection architectural changes to classic championship courses.  (To say nothing of gigantic distance increases shown statistically in the Pro V era.)

Are we on, on that basis?

I'll wait for your answer before proceeding with the next level of inquiry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Last time I checked, very few golf courses had the land cost in their budgets - they are either on donated land from a developer (where the extra length and frontage creates value) or in city inventory and long ago paid for.

Ally,

Disagree if you want, and your points are somewhat valid as acknowledged, but much of this "debate" is driven by theoretical items that don't apply.  In reality, we are talking about lengthening existing classic courses here.  Except for the new land for the 13th tee at Augusta, I can't recall many of these clubs buying new land.

In any event, there are two debates - defacing classic courses and whether the ball should be rolled back to keep new ones shorter.  I will point out that there are many desert courses with only 90 acres of turf, and many midwest courses of over 7000 yards that don't water 150 acres of turf.  The additional cost of length is related mostly to irrigation of all the added turf, but it doesn't have to be added. In fact, there aren't real water shortages in many areas of the midwest (except cyclical ones that have existed forever)

You also assume that new 7400 yard courses are also designed to be difficult defacto.  That may not be true.  The extra walks are figured in the 3 minutes per shot, and extra walks between holes on a non housing course are routing dependent.

Again, I wouldn't design anything based on your broad based assumptions.

Chuck,

There is no doubt that the Pro V1 and new drivers have added distance for pros.  I just feel that the greater good for the greatest amount of golfers is served by making the game somewhat easier via getting the ball airborne, and that there is little evidence that new clubs have hurt the popularity of the game.  The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers?  Should the "right" of a few dozen old courses to be tournament ready trump the right of 25 million golfers to have the hope of playing better?  Or of the mfgs to offer excitng new products?

That seems to be a pretty narrow view of the "dire" consequences of the longer ball. IMHO, of course.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers?

A simple question the flying of ones countries flag or honouring the head of your country is that nostalgia, should we not do away with that for the good of the 8 Billion people in the world today.

Antiques are not just old pieces of junk, they are quality items that are precious to us so reflect its rare value in excessive money terms.

With out our history where would we be, where would your country be.

Jeff, if we are keen supporters or lovers of the game, then these old courses are worth more than perhaps the game itself, it all down to our own view point, passions and lets not forget that’s one of the reasons we go to war and kill.

So my friend the answer IMHO is a very much Yes it is a factor and for me a very big factor.

Melvyn 

[Chuck Brown]

...

Chuck,

There is no doubt that the Pro V1 and new drivers have added distance for pros.  I just feel that the greater good for the greatest amount of golfers is served by making the game somewhat easier via getting the ball airborne, and that there is little evidence that new clubs have hurt the popularity of the game.  The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers?  Should the "right" of a few dozen old courses to be tournament ready trump the right of 25 million golfers to have the hope of playing better?  Or of the mfgs to offer excitng new products?

That seems to be a pretty narrow view of the "dire" consequences of the longer ball. IMHO, of course.

Well, I'll take that as your agreement as to my premise, Jeff.

I agree that there is no "distance" problem for recreational players, and you agree that there is a distance problem with respect to elite players on classic championship courses.

So then the question is what do we do about that?  Nothing?

What I say, Jeff, and I dare you to disagree with me, is that the Pro V era has brought a distance explosion to elite-level golf that has widened the gap between recreational and elite golfers.  Recreational golfers are now simply further behind elite golfers, than ever before.  That is not something that most recreational golfer ought to celebrate, in my view.  

If there were a thoughtful and carefully crafted rollback of golf ball specifications such that recreational players lost little or nothing (they have certainly gained little or nothing in the Pro V era, since only a minority of recreational players even buy urethane balls; most recreational players buy budget surlyn or ionomer balls), but elite players were significantly rolled back, I'd think that would be a very, very good thing for golf.

It might be a very easy matter, to just bifurcate the Rules, and apply different ball specs to elite players.  But I won't take that easy route.  I think bifurcation is inherently bad, and that there should be one set of Rules for the entire game.

But you seem to think that the status quo ante is okay.  It can't possibly be because the Pro V era has made the game better for recreational players.  Because it hasn't.  The Pro V era has just made a lot of great courses unusable for elite level competitions.  And led to some exceedingly bad architectural changes at some courses that do host elite events.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...

...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...

Ally

[Richard Choi]

Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports.  Golfers getting bigger?  No, it is not happening.  I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.

My son was born in January of 2002.  That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour.  It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein.  In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..."  Huh?  Based on what?

I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address.  He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me."  I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion.  He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen."  As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer.  He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.

Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer.  About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two.  Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be.  What is an average American male?  5'10" +/- 2"?  Nearly everyone fell in that range.

Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s.  Here is a list done quickly.

Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"

Where are all these big golfers?  Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds.  I don't see many of them succeeding in golf. 

John, this is good stuff. I admit my data is lacking. I need to some research to see if there is any trend at all. I will let you know if I find something.

[Chuck Brown]

Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports.  Golfers getting bigger?  No, it is not happening.  I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.

My son was born in January of 2002.  That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour.  It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein.  In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..."  Huh?  Based on what?

I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address.  He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me."  I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion.  He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen."  As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer.  He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.

Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer.  About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two.  Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be.  What is an average American male?  5'10" +/- 2"?  Nearly everyone fell in that range.

Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s.  Here is a list done quickly.

Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"

Where are all these big golfers?  Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds.  I don't see many of them succeeding in golf. 

Well, I for one agree with John Conley.  With or without that list.

Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0".  And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list.  And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases.  Those guys are not that tall.  It's hilarious.  Why do they do that?

[Ken Moum]

Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0".  And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list.  And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases.  Those guys are not that tall.  It's hilarious.  Why do they do that?

They aspire to the NFL and NBA, and we all know that lying about your height is a sure way to get there.

K

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()