This is a joke....the technology has to be controlled...

[Paul Carey]

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/124902774.html



Brooks said Aronimink, which is playing at 7,237 yards this year for the AT&T National, has a long-term plan on the books to lengthen the course to as much as 7,700 yards should the PGA or the USGA deem it suitable for a major. Any plan, he added, would be subject to the approval of the membership.

7700 yards.   

[Matt Kardash]

Are you really that shocked by this?

[Kalen Braley]

Are you really that shocked by this?

Matt,

I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.

A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!

[Tony_Chapman]

I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations. That's why they hit it so far. It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies. Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile. I mean there are very few fat guys out there anymore. I could give a crap if they are playing a course of 8,000 yards; I'm never going back that far. Apparently it needs to be 7,700 yards because Watney's card on the back nine today looked like he was playing at Pirate Jim's Putt-Putt. THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!

[Kalen Braley]

I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations. That's why they hit it so far. It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies. Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile. I mean there are very few fat guys out there anymore. I could give a crap if they are playing a course of 8,000 yards; I'm never going back that far. Apparently it needs to be 7,700 yards because Watney's card on the back nine today looked like he was playing at Pirate Jim's Putt-Putt. THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!

Tony,

While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour.  Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35.  Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.

[Tony_Chapman]

Tony,

While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour.  Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35.  Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.

Why is this bad?

[Kalen Braley]

Tony,

While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour.  Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35.  Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.

Why is this bad?

I don't think I made the claim that 55 yrs old hitting it longer than they were 35 is bad.

But what is bad, is the current crop of PGA Tour players who are making a mockery of the original intent of golf courses everywhere.  This has been debated at length on this site, but to me I don't know why the following isn't done:

A)  Have a tourney ball for the pros and let amateurs use the non-limited stuff.  Differnt equipment is used in virutally every sport on every level.  Different baseballs and bats in the majors, different footballs in the NFL, different basketballs in the NBA, etc, etc.

B)  Its far cheaper to rein in the distance on how far the ball will go instead of spending untold millions on adding tee boxes to courses that rarely get used, except when the big boys are in town. It also sets a very bad precedent in the monkey see, monkey do world of golf course setups worldwide.

[jeffwarne]

I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations. 

That explains why I'm hitting it 30 yards further now than I did 30 years ago at 18 (without even working out)
Clearly I'm a better athelete now.

Technology is way out of whack.
get a TOUR ball-stop ruining classic courses

[Matt Kardash]

Matt,

I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.

A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
[/quote]

Why do you care about the yardage of the back tees if you have no business playing there anyways? 6800 is long for you, but it wouldn't be long for me. 7700 would be long for me (not because I can't hit it long enough (I can) but because I am simply not good enough. 7700 is really not ridiculously long for a pro golfer these days.
I do, however, find it unfortunate that things have gotten out of control and that certain golf courses have to spend all this money to stay"relevant" to the pro game. But 7700 yards honestly seems about right for the pro game of today.

[David_Elvins]

I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.

A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!

kalen,

If a course is too long for me, I just convert everything to the metric system.  6500 metres is less intimidating that 7200 yards. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

If these guys are so good then they will accommodate technology induced change. I see no need for long courses (over 6500 yards) if a rollback ball gave the rear option to utilise skill over distance.

Somewhere these long hitters have missed the whole point of the game concentrating on making money via sponsorship deals and the winner’s purse. That I believe is the sad reflection upon the boy wonders a betrayal of the game for simple financial reward. Alas the problem does not end there; they are the vanguard leading the charge for longer courses, certainly not for the good of the game nor the majority of the ordinary players who ultimately have to foot the bill.

It’s totally understandable why people are leaving the game, the boredom of the repetitive long shots, lack of watching skill incorporated within the GCA and finally the financial burden of these bloody expensive golf courses, be they due to length of poor site selection combined with the modern approach of strip back and reshaping the course.

Technology can be a good friend to golfers and GCA, but we need to define our game. Due to various reasons, many are starting to turn to Hickory Golf, as its plays well on the majority of older courses and more skill is required to achieve a low score. The benefit being we keep our old courses intact and unchanged for future generations, Technology is not the introduction of clubs and balls that have the facility to travel long distances nor should IMHO it be used to help golfers select clubs by judging distances.

Anyway I want to see the old fairways and traps coming more into play rather that watch the ball fly high over what was one great Fairways. The modern game is getting closer and closer to a simple game of Pitch and putt.

Melvyn

PS Lets not forget that some places in the world cater for a 36 hole game of golf in a day with a luch break - now that's golf as I know it. 7500 yards plus more or less kills off the 36 Hole

[John_Conley]

It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies.

Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile.

Tony, Gary Woodland is listed at 6'1" on the Kansas U website, in his PGA Tour bio, and on Wikipedia.  He hits it a very long way, but he isn't unusually tall.  Athletic, yes.  As evidenced by playing legitimate college basketball.  (He appeared in 32 games, averaged just under 20 minutes, and scored 6.0 ppg.  He is a great shooter with 87.2% made from the line.  He was just 37.6 from the floor, but almost all his attempts were from beyond the arc.)

As for your first point: a decade ago Tom Marzolf, a design associate with Tom Fazio, said their working premise is that golf would go the way of tennis and become a young man's game.  Players were swinging so hard they envisioned wear and tear. 

[Doug Siebert]

Are you really that shocked by this?

Matt,

I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.

A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!

The main reason for this is the way ball technology has benefitted longer hitters disproportionately more.  If 6800 yards is long for you, you probably saw little benefit from the modern ball.  I saw some benefit - enough to even notice the improvement between the Pro V1 and V1x - but certainly not as much as a Bubba Watson.  If it was the same percentage of help for everyone that would be one thing, however it provided essentially no help to the shortest hitters who need that help the most, but more like 10% for the guys who don't need help at all.

Change the rules to eliminate the engineering that was done on the balls to get them to spin less off the driver while still spinning great for short irons and short game and the problem is pretty much taken care of.  You wouldn't see 310 or 320 yard driving averages on tour anymore, because the balls would allow that would cost you two strokes a round in the short game, and then there's no need for 7700 yard courses, and all those "double black" tees can be left to go to seed.

[Steve Kline]

Are you really that shocked by this?

Matt,

I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.

A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!

Ding, ding, ding on the problem being the Pro V. It all started when the best players could use a hard cover ball but still get the spin of a balata. I think for the goo of the game we should the kill the Pro V and similar balls.


The main reason for this is the way ball technology has benefitted longer hitters disproportionately more.  If 6800 yards is long for you, you probably saw little benefit from the modern ball.  I saw some benefit - enough to even notice the improvement between the Pro V1 and V1x - but certainly not as much as a Bubba Watson.  If it was the same percentage of help for everyone that would be one thing, however it provided essentially no help to the shortest hitters who need that help the most, but more like 10% for the guys who don't need help at all.

Change the rules to eliminate the engineering that was done on the balls to get them to spin less off the driver while still spinning great for short irons and short game and the problem is pretty much taken care of.  You wouldn't see 310 or 320 yard driving averages on tour anymore, because the balls would allow that would cost you two strokes a round in the short game, and then there's no need for 7700 yard courses, and all those "double black" tees can be left to go to seed.

[Pat Burke]

I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of  1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry.  This with all the same equipment as I started with.  The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering. 
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice.  I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury.  I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played.  My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades.  I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432.  On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both.  In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes.  Irons flew pretty much the same.  I was pretty shocked!

I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed.  The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well.  The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.

I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs).  BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment.  I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.

[Sean_A]

I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment.  I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.

The bottom line.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

1% today perhaps but maybe 10% tomorrow – we do need to wake up to this problem before it overtakes us or more importantly our existing great courses, both normal and Championship .

It's a a wake up call

Melvyn

[Tony_Muldoon]

I only started watching pro golf in the past decade.   But watching old films it seems a lot easier to relate to the distance players of Jack's generation and earlier, hit it.   The increased hang time and the aerial bombing of greens is a big turn off.

I’ve seen these guys in action.  I have always had good eyesight but have needed reading glasses since I turned 50, 3years ago. They literally hit it out of sight.

My belief is that the distance increase is hurting professional golf as a spectator sport and long term that is not good for the game.

[Craig Sweet]

The modern golf swing is soooooo different, generates soooooo much more club head speed, than the swing I learned when I was in my teens....

Equipment, in my opinion, is only a small part of this explosion in distance....

And, as I have said before, and others have commented, they are not lengthening the course to accommodate me...the equipment I use, the swing I use, and the distance I hit the ball, provide plenty of challenge for me when I play the proper tee's.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of  1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry.  This with all the same equipment as I started with.  The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering. 
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice.  I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury.  I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played.  My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades.  I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432.  On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both.  In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes.  Irons flew pretty much the same.  I was pretty shocked!

I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed.  The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well.  The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.

I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs).  BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment.  I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.

Bingo.  Great post.

Beware of people with simple answers (i.e., tournament ball) to complex issues (i.e., distance gains).  They generally cause far bigger problems than the one they purported to solve.

[Melvyn Morrow]

That’s another problem, this ever increasing need to play the Professional Tees. Is it to prove to oneself that  ‘I am The Man’,  I have the balls or testosterone to prove my manliness.

Play the right Tees in competition by all means but utilise the other when playing for enjoyment or practising control or skill shots during a casual game, remembering we all can’t be a Tiger, ops sorry a Rory McIIroy.

The art of golfing has rapidly been extinguished due to some seeking in technology that which they have acquired via that little blue table Viagra. The result for the game is we now see so many dick heads chasing the money trail with permanent mental erections of their own abilities, although for some reason we have not seen them pick up ‘The Claret Jug’ or wear ‘The Green Jacket’.

Melvyn

[John Kavanaugh]

The real problem is that many architects are looking for work. If the distance issue creates jobs then it is selfish for us to fight it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

John

Trust you think more of your country than you seem to do about golf

Melvyn


PS Its not about jobs but what we get from the coal face - a very little return for our money, so the future = higher costs, higher Green Fees - that equates to less numbers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Melvyn,

I care more about people than my wallet.  I do believe the right architect can modify a course and reduce maintenance costs at the same time.

[Tom_Doak]

I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs).  BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment.  I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.

Pat:

I agree completely with this, and have tried for the last 20 years to convince the clubs where we consult not to over-react.

However, it's getting harder, and I think it's because these gains apply to more than 1% of the players now.  It's still only 2-3% of players, but that is 5-10 guys at each good club -- not just Jay Sigel at Aronimink.  [I haven't seen Jay in 15 years, but he'd be 65 now, and probably still among that 2-3%.]  And those are influential guys at the clubs.

Also, the talk of 7700 yards is a red herring to me.  You should tell us how long a course would really have to be to challenge the Tour pros today.