[jeffwarne]

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.

AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.

I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).

I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated

[Peter Pallotta]

The irony seems to be that those 2-3% of top club players are trying to 'keep up with the Jones' -- while the Jones themselves (Woods, Els, Poulter...anyone) rarely belong to home clubs/courses much longer than 7,200 yards.

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

If they want a major and the governing bodies deem that the course needs to be lengthened to 7700 yards, I don't see the problem.  I'd look at the back tees from time to time, but I wouldn't dare subject myself to the humiliation of playing from them!  That's not to say that technology isn't a problem; it is causing difficulties in using classic courses for professional tournaments and majors.  It's dramatically helping the rest of us mutt golfers.  That point is scarcely deniable, unless one is a hickory fetishist or a Luddite.

[John Kavanaugh]

I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated

Jeff,

I had no idea you were such a stud. Few things in life are more satisfying than when you can brag under the cloak of good intention.  Don't you think there are enough Championship courses in that neighborhood already?  Perhaps the restoration of Southhampton was more for the playing intent of it's members than you.  You remind me of myself when I was younger and hated seeing the speed limit reduced to 55, we are not all young at the same time.

[jeffwarne]

I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated

Jeff,

I had no idea you were such a stud. Few things in life are more satisfying than when you can brag under the cloak of good intention.  Don't you think there are enough Championship courses in that neighborhood already?  Perhaps the restoration of Southhampton was more for the playing intent of it's members than you.  You remind me of myself when I was younger and hated seeing the speed limit reduced to 55, we are not all young at the same time.

Southampton is a great course.
Always has been.
It stacks up quite well every time it hosts local/regional events.

and John, if my quibble were with Southampton, which it's not (in fact I'm thrilled to see they haven't over reacted by lengthening wherever they can), wouldn't my vote as a member count as much as another's?

Doesn't mean the ball isn't a joke.
Just because most don't benefit from more distance(because we suck in so many other ways), doesn't mean the challenge and intent of original design doesn't change.
What kills me is the denial by the regulators as it happens right in front of them and they do bizare things such as target a stimp meter reading of 14.5(which they didn't get) at their championships.

We're all getting old.
It helps the longer hitters more, which is the real joke.

and we still deal with the speed limit of 55 out here on Long Island

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

Don't forget that at par 70 that equates to close to an 8,000 yard par 72 golf course.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Who pays for the long courses, and all the modification to these courses, is it the TV companies, the PGA, the Clubs or the poor ordinary golfers who use the facilities on a regular basis.

Technology is great, long courses please some, some of the time, but who ultimately pays the price for all these continued changes, would it the equipment manufacturers or yet again the poor ordinary golfer

If you want these facilities then should not those who use them pay for them rather than spread the cost out to the rest of us who still believe in the integrity of the older designs and courses.

Yet the truth seems to be those with ability who make money out of golf do not actually pay for the  services they receive. I do not want to pay to watch someone bypass the fairways, but I do not mind watching a good golfer navigate and overcome the hazards and traps without resorting to the full aerial game – which in truth is no more than a glorified game of Pitch and Putt. Where is the skill the test the challenge, not only do these guy bypass the fairway they bypass the game which we call of golf in preference to their game of Professional Pitch and Putt.

Melvyn

[Pat Burke]

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.

Tom,
I have heard that you try to keep the clubs from over reacting.  And as I said, my opinion is very UN scientific.  As an instructor now, I do see kids hitting it longer.  I see a few members who can really move it.  What really concerns me is bifurcation of the rules.
The simple difference between a ProV1 and a ProV1x creates about a 1 or two shot difference for me.  I hit the X further, but don't spin it enough to keep my long irons in the air.  Wedges and pitches with an x are really bad for me.   With a ProV1, one of my students spins it too much, and even hitting an extra club to "chip" a shot, spins it way too much.  The point?  Say there is a "Tour ball".  Rolls back the distance, keeping the architectural intent in play.  Mini tour, college, and any player wanting to play will be faced with playing that ball at a disadvantage to those that do not, or playing the current ball to stay competitive.  The second choice then sets them at a disadvantage when competing against tour players who have been playing the tournament ball.  And believe me, subtle differences in playing characteristics make an enormous difference in a game where 1/2 shot a round means the difference between success and failure.

In a nutshell, from my standpoint, I have no idea what to do.  I would lean towards an across the board roll back before separate rules.  BUT, the game is too hard for the paying/playing public.  IMO opinion, I have said before, leave the great old courses to the people who pay the bills, and if it isn't good enough for a major, let them take the major to the Chambers Bays/Whistling Straits etc.  I'll keep playing Cypress and Kingston HEath!

[Doug Siebert]

Pat,

Why is it a problem?  If they simply make rules that bring back the former relationship between wedge spin and driver spin we'll be back to where we were 20 or 30 years ago ball-wise.  If you want to get a lot of spin on your wedge and short game, you'd have to accept the fact you'll have a lot more spin on your drives - which would mean a much lower ideal launch angle and no 300+ yard carries.  If you want to hit the bomb, that's fine, but you're going to give up most of your control around the greens.

Many handicap golfers would choose to play the modern equivalent of a Rock Flite, just because their ego is too wrapped up in bombing the drive, nevermind that when they are greenside on a 340 yard par 4 they're only able to come up with a par.  But you won't see many really good players using them, so courses wouldn't feel so much pressure to keep lengthening to deal with the issue.

[George Pazin]

It's not quite as simple as "let them play the 7700, I'll play 6700" or whatever. Many classics have maxed out back tee yardage, so significant changes have to be made. And newer courses end up having walkability sacrificed for a handful of players. Other than that, I don't much care what the pros play.

There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.

[Steve Kline]

It's not quite as simple as "let them play the 7700, I'll play 6700" or whatever. Many classics have maxed out back tee yardage, so significant changes have to be made. And newer courses end up having walkability sacrificed for a handful of players. Other than that, I don't much care what the pros play.

There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.

And they are changing greens to accomodate faster speeds a nd deepening bunkers to make the courses harder because they are too short for the 1%. They are doing far more than just adding some back tees.

[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.

AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.

I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).

I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated

Jeff,
Don't misunderstand; I am NOT opposed to finding ways to keep classic courses relevant, to whatever extent they are not.

However, the use of a tournament ball in golf (aka bifurcation) is NOT like other sports.  There is a relationship between the professional SPORT of golf and the BUSINESS of golf that is absolutely, 100% unique.  The BUSINESS of golf depends on the identification of the average guy with the Tour; trying to do what the pros do with the same equipment (more or less) on the same playing field (more or less).  That is NOT the case with baseball, football, hockey, et al.

Having the tour guys go out with a ball that is in some way fundamentally different than the ball that you or I play on Saturday morning would be a massive change to the dynamic of the game and business, and it is one that would have unpredictable (and very  possibly undesirable) consequences.  This is especially worrisome when the ball is only one of the changes that accounts for modern distances.  My personal opinion is that it will NOT grow the game to bifurcate the rules, and it will NOT grow the game to make the grass roots players play a ball that makes a very hard game harder.

That's what I mean by a simple answer maybe making things worse.

[A.G._Crockett]

There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.

George,
This is the heart of it.  Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less! 

Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor.  The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.

I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those.  That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule.  Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.

[jeffwarne]

There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.

George,
This is the heart of it.  Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less! 

Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor.  The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.

I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those.  That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule.  Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.

The MCGuire anecdote is amusing, but useless.

Length has always been important.
No one's saying it's not.

The groove rule?
Really?
Call me a knee jerk guy then.(a while ago I was a simple guy)

the ball goes way longer than ever before  and has changed the game.
Why change something other than the ball?

The best the stuffed shirts at the USGA can come up with is a groove change?
Why because wedges were going too far?

If baseballs started going 100 feet farther due to a seam breakthrough, would you alter the gloves?
That's the equivalent of a groove change in an era where the ball goes WAY farther than it did 20 years ago (for anybody swinging 100 mph or more)

It really is simple, but there are so many agendas in conflict with a rollback that theri well planned  smokescreens deceive otherwise reasonable people.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Pat Burke is right on. Guys train far more now than they used to. Fit clubs, strength training and other things contribute just as much to distance as technology, if not more. When I switched from a Titleist Professional to a ProV1, I gained 8-10 yards, maybe. In the past 11 or so years, I've picked up about another 30 yards because of being custom fit for a driver and because I'm much stronger than I was 11 years ago, the same weight, but around 8% less total body fat (a decrease from like 23% to 15%). Take a guy like Bubba Watson, didn't he play fairly high level basketball? I also remember Jack Nicklaus was the same way, I seem to remember him saying he played football and all other sports as a kid, then took up golf "seriously" after he won the US Am. A friend of mine's father served in the USMC with Lee Trevino, I can tell you that requires some serious physical fitness. So, generally, I think the best golfers have always been great athletes, just not all of them are great athletes, and they all hit it a ton. 300 yard drives are not a new occurrence, Jack used to do it, Bob Jones used to do it. Now, a lot of guys do it.

People think length is the key in golf courses, its not. Make them shorter. Make the greens crazier. Make angles matter. That's what you do, not add length. Although the architects intent issue brought up earlier is major, a different ball won't fix that.

Oh, and other sports don't differentiate the rules. Tennis is played on the same court and the balls used in Pro tennis are actually "hotter" than the balls you can get at Dick's. Football is played on the same field with the same ball; times can be different. Baseball uses the same ball through the levels, bats are different. Basketball is the same from high school to NBA (regulations are slightly different from NCAA to NBA, but I suspect that is a cost issue). I can go on.

[jeffwarne]

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.

AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.

I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).

I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated

Jeff,
Don't misunderstand; I am NOT opposed to finding ways to keep classic courses relevant, to whatever extent they are not.

However, the use of a tournament ball in golf (aka bifurcation) is NOT like other sports.  There is a relationship between the professional SPORT of golf and the BUSINESS of golf that is absolutely, 100% unique.  The BUSINESS of golf depends on the identification of the average guy with the Tour; trying to do what the pros do with the same equipment (more or less) on the same playing field (more or less).  That is NOT the case with baseball, football, hockey, et al.

Having the tour guys go out with a ball that is in some way fundamentally different than the ball that you or I play on Saturday morning would be a massive change to the dynamic of the game and business, and it is one that would have unpredictable (and very  possibly undesirable) consequences.  This is especially worrisome when the ball is only one of the changes that accounts for modern distances.  My personal opinion is that it will NOT grow the game to bifurcate the rules, and it will NOT grow the game to make the grass roots players play a ball that makes a very hard game harder.

That's what I mean by a simple answer maybe making things worse.

AG,
I bowl, and I have no idea what ball the PBA players use.
Doesn't change the fact I need to go buy a bowling ball.
Same with tennis.
i still need to buy balls to play.
No idea what they use at Wimbledon.

Golf enjoyed pretty steady growth for years.
Over that time equipment adavances were minimal.
For instance in the early 80's, the best driver to have was made in the 50's, and I used late 60's Wilson staffs, much to the envy of my low handicap friends.

The last 10 years equipment technology has exploded, yet participation has dropped.


perhaps we were better off when golf attracted people who wanted to practice using their static older equipment in order to improve , rather than buy a better game
with adjustable clubs and claims of 10 more yards and ultimate forgiveness.

[A.G._Crockett]

There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.

George,
This is the heart of it.  Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less! 

Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor.  The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.

I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those.  That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule.  Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.

The MCGuire anecdote is amusing, but useless.

Length has always been important.
No one's saying it's not.

The groove rule?
Really?
Call me a knee jerk guy then.(a while ago I was a simple guy)

the ball goes way longer than ever before  and has changed the game.
Why change something other than the ball?

The best the stuffed shirts at the USGA can come up with is a groove change?
Why because wedges were going too far?

If baseballs started going 100 feet farther due to a seam breakthrough, would you alter the gloves?
That's the equivalent of a groove change in an era where the ball goes WAY farther than it did 20 years ago (for anybody swinging 100 mph or more)

It really is simple, but there are so many agendas in conflict with a rollback that theri well planned  smokescreens deceive otherwise reasonable people.

Sorry, Jeff; I didn't mean to post a "useless" anecdote.  Thanks for pointing out my flaws.

My attempted point, lost apparently, was that lengthening golf courses to combat length off the tee is folly. 

And in order to be precise, let's be clear; the ball has NOT gotten longer, not one bit. 

What HAS happened is that the manufacturers figured out how to make a COVER for the ball that would fly like a Pinnacle and spin (more or less) like balata.  And so Bubba Watson now uses a Pinnacle off the tee and a tour balata with a wedge.  So how do you roll that back, exactly? 

USGA/R&A distance standards haven't changed, and I don't hit my Bridgestone B300 RX any farther than I used to hit a Top Flite.  But I sure can hit it farther than I used to hit a Tour Balata.

I know that you know that, but it seems to get lost in these absurd discussions of a "rollback" to something that never existed anyway. 

I'm done.

[Dan_Callahan]

People saying longer distance is a result of improved fitness have clearly not seen the Golf Guys video. Bubba and Rickie crush the ball, and I don't think Hunter is very short either. Those dudes have more flab bouncing around than a beached whale. Ben Crane is the fittest guy in the video, and he's the shortest hitter.

Among other players, Justin Leonard might be the fittest guy on Tour and can't hit it past his own shadow. Nick Faldo is absolutely jacked and probably can't outdrive Michelle Wie. Meanwhile, in his prime John Daly was the poster child for the red neck, lard ass couch potato and he led the Tour in driving for almost a decade.

Fitness is waaaaay overrated.

[Pat Burke]

Dan, as I mentioned before,
I had tried many trainers and work out programs as a player.
Finally worked with a guy that helped me increase my distances by an entire club with my irons,
and driver carry by 8 plus yards carry.  No equipment change, but these distances went up in less than 4 months!
I was never confused for Bill Glasson ripped wise back then!

Guys work out much differently.  Norman was ahead of the curve.  Faldo was huge, but not fast.
I have had students increase their distances significantly with the correct work out.
The problem of our classic courses being attacked comes from many directions.  I don't believe it is the ball, though I believe the ball is most controllable as a fix.  Fitness, lightweight longer clubs, completely different club and ball flight ideals, agronomy, and forgiveness of equipment have created speed!

[Jud_T]

These guys are BORING.  Why don't we just take those long drive contest football fields and add some small "fair" greens, flanking bunkers and rough and call it a day.

[Melvyn Morrow]

To really sort these testosterone boys out from real golfers, just crater bunkers across the fairway in the vicinity of their LZ, as No Man’s Land in WW1. It will give them the opportunity to navigate the course showing their full understanding of the complexities of the game.

As for us poor mortals, well we will see the approaching hazards with enthusiasm  knowing that it will test what little skills we possess to perhaps the limit, but we will persevere because  WE ARE GOLFERS. Not only will we make it through, we will have the time of our lives rising to the challenge, armed only with our less than super human bodied but a good golfing brain (well that those who do not use distance aids  )

I suppose we could call these long hitters,’ Long in the Arm, Thick in the Head’ if they fail to successfully navigate their creeping bunker zones.

In other words design courses to discourage these most boring of players. Perhaps some of the old ideas are not really dead and could combat this current problems, First as I mentioned cross fairway creeping bunkers on the LZ and then of course we have the old blind shots. I believe the latter demise was greatly encouraged because many players just seek lower scores  rather than make a game of Golf. Perhaps, just perhaps we will again make a good game out of the Royal and Ancient Game called Golf. Well there is always hope, they say it springs eternal (like following a 4 ball carting group, progress is so very painful and there is hope they will wave you thought – but don’t hold your breath as hope tends to hide most of the time just to cause mischief).

From ‘The Campaign to Save our Great and Noble Golf Courses’ by  Brothers In Arms

[Adam Clayman]

Jud. Your suggestion sounds really boring.        Great players having a great day should go low. Shorten the courses, let them get in more trouble because lengthening them hasn't stopped the desire to go deep. By shortening them maybe, just maybe, the desire to longer will be squashed, eventually.

[Mike_Young]

The ball may be one issue but clubhead speed is still the engine that drives the ball. And with the new balls it gives more advantage to the higher clubhead speeds.  Was it the ball in tennis or the size of the racquet head.  IMHO the USGA also needs to reduce the size of the driver heads which would most likely reduce the length of the shafts which would reduce speed.  BUT...I think the biggest difference in golfers is whether they began to play as a child or after 30 years of age.  And so many of our courses are too difficult for a person to pick up the game.  I really don't know how a country like China or many of these other countries will ever use the courses we are delivering because there are no players that were taught the game as children and it's too hard.  So why should we make it more difficult for them by toughening equipment and ball standards.  Let's just watch the pros shot 58 on a few days per year.

[Melvyn Morrow]

These are the Pro’s, the top people in our game and what do we want to do watch them utilise equipment designed not to show skill but the make it easy for them to perform their trick of wonder.

Have we all gone senile? We must be the stupid ones for spending all that money which fuels the Golfing industry and for what, to sit back and watch the experts utilising clubs designed to enhance their performance.

Wonder why some of us are sick at heart at these clowns and the many ring masters pushing their products, just so us gullible nuts can keep our heroes in the comfort they feel they deserve. WE are being short changed, we are being treated as morons for accepting this disgraceful circus, there not for the glory of Golf but to make Money.

I want to see skill used which I regret I do not possess, I want to see shots that show that talent with determination and bloody hard work, can do. That’s golf.

I am sickened by this easy attitude, I am surprised that the designers are not looking to increase the hazards to combat the manufacturers, or have the designer decided that they cannot combat these new changes – please surely not, because we need your flare more now than ever before, we need you to push your customers to actually go out and visits the simple great courses in the world before deciding upon their own requirements. We need developer so ship themselves and clients over to courses like Machrie, Machrihanish and Askernish, to see what the environment can maintain and preserve for minimal costs yet through good design achieve a great raw experience of Golf.

Please Guys persuade your Clients, be they old, current or new to venture out there and look, not just at the courses but behind the scenes noting maintenance procedures and their costs.

Design is paramount, its way in advance of any architectural gimmick and given the chance it can pull players away from the monoculture of long drives, back to facing the Hole you designed in the hope of pushing the golfer to display his/her real skill they actually possess and certainly not generated by some expensive club that does the work and takes the credit for the shot.

In the end its all down to what it all means to you, and generally apathy rules, yet I was told this site was special, it’s had people of likeminded ideas and thoughts. Golf being the game and its all about the golfer and his/her battle with the designer, yet we have a ménage a trios with the equipment manufacture pushing in and now dictating the games we are to play. As I said in the end its all down to you.

Melvyn

[jeffwarne]

The ball may be one issue but clubhead speed is still the engine that drives the ball. And with the new balls it gives more advantage to the higher clubhead speeds.  Was it the ball in tennis or the size of the racquet head.  IMHO the USGA also needs to reduce the size of the driver heads which would most likely reduce the length of the shafts which would reduce speed.  BUT...I think the biggest difference in golfers is whether they began to play as a child or after 30 years of age.  And so many of our courses are too difficult for a person to pick up the game.  I really don't know how a country like China or many of these other countries will ever use the courses we are delivering because there are no players that were taught the game as children and it's too hard.  So why should we make it more difficult for them by toughening equipment and ball standards.  Let's just watch the pros shot 58 on a few days per year.

I'm with you Mike,
but that's not what's happening.
Athens CC is the perfect model to play golf at every level, particularly when learning as there is room, yet challenge for players of all levels.
New courses get tougher and longer with more "out of play " areas with brutal native grass, OB, water, etc. as a "knee jerk" reaction(just read the suggestions to "protect par"of many on this forum)

They don't allow baseball manufacturers to create balls/bats that go 100 feet farther , then enlarge the stadiums and move the mound closer.
but then again they do let them tale steroids...

Honestly, would it be that hard to regulate equipment for pros like they do in many sports?
Who cares if the #98 player in the world has to adapt his ball/technique because it's not his preferred ball?

and AG your point about Pinnacles and Balatas is well taken.
"Useless" was a poor word choice by me as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()