[Garland Bayley]

I don't see a real problem that can be addressed and impacted by the USGA/R&A.

Roll back the ball, and the economics improve! Architects won't have to put in so many defenses against better players leading to costs going down to build. Courses can be shorter leading to costs going down.

I think the economic environment has been a negative drag but I think that's cyclical...I think it'll bounce back to a healthier state regardless of what we say or do on here.

A good economic environment does not necessarily mean an optimal golfing one. However, I would argue that lowering golf costs would lead to a better golfing environment than improved economics would.

I think maintenance standards can, should and will be reconsidered with the goal being sustainability and playability...but will readily admit that when the economic cycle rebounds the maintenance standards will creep back up.

As stated above, less length, less cost to maintain.

I think overall pace of play should be improved but cannot imagine how or why the governing bodies should get into that one...

Less length, improved pace of play. The less far the young bucks can spray the ball, improved pace of play.

Let me ask you this, David. What will be the result of an equipment rollback? The practical result for you and I?

Logically, it seems your game has benefited from the new ball. Sean has stated openly that his game has benefited from the new ball. Let's get down to the brass tacks of it. Are those who constantly oppose the ball rollback doing it out of a selfish interest in preserving their game?

[Sean_A]

Garland

There is no question the equipment helps me hit the ball further than otherwise with a driver, however, that doesn't seem to be the case with irons.  That said, I am not in the least selfish.  You don't hear me whinging about distance, yet doing nothing about it. I am happy to play relatively short courses including sub 6000 yarders and you will rarely see me back up to medal tees.  If the USGA wants to roll the ball back thats fine with me.  If the USGA doesn't want to roll the ball back thats fine with me.  I am not one to believe green fees will come down if the ball is rolled back nor am I one to believe that golf is better for having 7000 yard courses. But I also don't care if Joe Blow or Tiger Woods hits the ball 300+ yards every time on the tee nor do I think clubs should alter their courses or lengthen them as a response. 

Ciao       

[DMoriarty]

David,

I said it quite clearly...

"I don't see a real problem that can be addressed and impacted by the USGA/R&A."

Jim,

Yes, you said it.  Maybe it is just me, but I am not so sure what you said is clear.  I still don't get it.  Do you deny the distance explosion has created a "problem" in golf?  Or do acknowledge that there is a "distance problem" but deny that the governing bodies can address it?  I think your post was and is ambiguous on this distinction.

I then listed three 'problems' with golf today and stated that I don't see how the governing bodies can become involved in them. That's it from my end.

So then we agree that these have nothing to do with the distance issue.  Good.

If you're truly experiencing difficulty enjoying a game of golf with a guy who is longer than you and want him 10 or 20 yards closer to you after the drives...well, I'd say your priorities out "out of wack"!

Geez Jim, I was just answering your question about the impact on you and me.   I don't think I claimed to have been experiencing difficulty enjoying the game.    While I wish I could convince those with whom I play that we all should use antiquate equipment at least some of the time, I still enjoy the game.   But I am not so self-centered as to confuse my enjoyment with the good of they game. As you might have guessed by my participation on this website, I am interested in golf course design, particularly strategic golf design in the model of certain early courses and pioneers, and the growing distance gap between long hitters and short hitters is putting sever pressure on these courses, because we longer and shorter hitters no longer seem to fit well on the same courses.

[Andy Hughes]

How many of you posting here find that you hit it too far and your enjoyment has been diminished? I ask that in all sincerity--I sometimes wonder how much is apochryphal and legend ('the guy at the next table said he drove the 380 yard 12th!') and how much is a genuine problem for a large number of golfers.

I rarely play and maybe that's why I don't see it. I am not particularly long but I tend to be as long or longer than most people I play with and for me the game still has all the challenge I can handle.  Jim, I suppose you are head and shoulders above the rest of us and likely longer---are a number of courses not very challenging for you any more because of any distance you have gained since the Pro-V1 showed up?

[DMoriarty]

Jud

So what is an acceptable difference of yardage between players in a match?

 

We can argue about exact solutions, but that is different discussion that acknowledging something is out of whack.  Personally, I would be satisfied with anything more akin to what it was before this latest distance explosion at the top end, or with any other point going backward from there in the history of golf.

It is my understanding this difference has grown steadily (or not) since there were good players and bad players - so since the game was invented.

What is your basis for understanding that the gap between long and short has been steadily growing since the beginning of golf?  What is your basis for viewing this latest leap as part of this progression?  

I ask because, near as I can tell, distance has not steadily increased but rather increased lockstep with the adoption of technological advances, and his latest jump in distance not only dwarfs all the others in terms of sudden distance increases, it may also differ from other advances in that its benefit has been concentrated with those who already hit the ball farther.  

It seems like folks may be saying thaey lament the difference between good players in a match and generally between good and great players.  Perhaps as well that too many people can now hit the ball further than great players.  Is this the case?  If so, I would argue the same thing is said by every generation.

 

You can argue it, but again I don't think reality backs you up.  Near as I can tell the jump is unprecedented in actual increase and concentrated impact.  

So how far is too far for the long ball?

Really Sean?  Look at the increase in 400+ yard drives on tour and tell me that you don't think we are well past the point of asking such obviously rhetorical questions.  

When is a distance differential in a match too much?  Would rolling the back 5, 10 or 20 percent make a difference?  Sure, I ask these questions a bit rhetorically, but only to highlight the individual nature of the responses.  There is no set answer, but I guarantee you that if folks want to control distance to have a fun in a match, they don't need a USGA command to do so.  You really can't figure out a way to have a fun match with your son?  If this is the crux of the argument I have somehow missed the importance of it.  

You seem to be using these rhetorical questions to quibble over the minutia of the solutions rather than even acknowledging the problem.   To answer your rhetorical question, a roll back large enough topreserve our great courses by eliminating the reason they are being ruined would make a hell of a difference.  

I am not trying to be snarky, only straight forward.  Last Saturday I hit a monstrous drive at Burnham's 2nd hole.  I went past all the fairway bunkers and was nearly level with the left greenside bunkers on a 380 yard hole - I guess it was a 325 yard drive - 50 yards past the furthest I have ever been on that hole - once or twice.  The result was a bogey.  I tell you this for two reasons.  First, golf is about getting the ball in the hole.  Second, I figure I hit it 325 yards which is an immense distance.  Most golfers way over-estimate how far they hit it (just as they way over-estimate wind strength).  This has always been the case and will continue to be so in the future.  

Are you denying things of have changed?   Really?  Where have you been the past 10 years?  

Driving distance makes a difference as to how golf holes play, and whether certain aspects of architecture remains functional.   The relative driving distance is also important as to how architecture functions.  These two factors have significantly changed in the past decade or so, and courses are being screwed up because of this.

Your idealistic self-help, grassroots solution has no hope of succeeding, and for good reason.  Whether or not you or I have found a way to continue to enjoy the game despite the technological changes, golf is a game defined by rules, and understandably, many want to continue to play by those rules and do what they can under those rules to shoot the lowest score on to win their match.  That is after all what they are supposed to do under the rules.  So expecting a self-help solution out of them is not only unrealistic, it is arguably contrary to their understanding of how the game should be played. (Is it even within the rules to agree to your own equipment standards, or is that a waiver of the rules?)  It might be nice if the average golfer approached the game as you might, but that ain't going to happen, and if anything changes it will come from the rules, not the golfer.  

And while I very much enjoy playing with old equipment, my doing so isn't going to change the rules and it isn't going to save any golf courses.  It is a game, played by rules, and the rules need to be be addressed.

[Garland Bayley]

How many of you posting here find that you hit it too far and your enjoyment has been diminished? I ask that in all sincerity--I sometimes wonder how much is apochryphal and legend ('the guy at the next table said he drove the 380 yard 12th!') and how much is a genuine problem for a large number of golfers.

I rarely play and maybe that's why I don't see it. I am not particularly long but I tend to be as long or longer than most people I play with and for me the game still has all the challenge I can handle.  Jim, I suppose you are head and shoulders above the rest of us and likely longer---are a number of courses not very challenging for you any more because of any distance you have gained since the Pro-V1 showed up?

How many here can realize their enjoyment has been diminished? How many have interchangeably played a short ball and a long ball. The shorter the ball the closer the relative talents are. Therefore, it may very well be that many more would enjoy playing a game with a ball that traveled less far, but have no way to judge that from their everyday experience.

[Sean_A]

David

I think the gap in distance between players has been growing since day one because there has been an increase in players since day one.  With more players comes a greater variance in playing quality.  It is only logical that this latest leap is part of a long progression of increased distance which has come hand in hand with technology and better methods designed to hit the ball further.  Golf has never been a static sport and indeed I would say its most dynamic.  Even if the increases in the past ten years has eclipsed all other eras (not sure this is the case, but I don't really care), the progression of increased is not a new concept invented in the past 10 years.  I know many here whinge on about who is gaining that recent extra distance, but that seems to confirm that we do not need to carry on with the knee jerk reactions of changing courses to cater for these very few big bombers who are bombing it even further.  What happens o tour can stay on tour.  I don't care to make judgements about the game or architecture based on tour players or other folks who can bomb it, but still can shoot par with any consistency.  We preserve our great courses by looking at the big picture, not the picture presented by the tour.  People change courses and they have the power not to.  You seem to be saying that if the balll isn't rolled back there is no other choice, but to alter courses.  I vehemently disagree.  Unlike some who would like a hole or course to play virtually the same everyday, I welcome the concept of a differing challenge each and every time on the links.  Some days that means I play a hole as a drive/pitch and other days its a drive/hybrid.  I take it all as it comes and don't worry about what the elite player does.  You don't like the self-help approach to solving your problem with distance - fine, but I have no time for whingers when they don't act - worse, many aggrevate the problem by buying the very equipment they say they despise.  If your confidence in the USGA is that low, why are you waiting on them?  Grow a pair and take a stand.  Its a simple as that.  

Ciao    

[Melvyn Morrow]

How many of you posting here find that you hit it too far and your enjoyment has been diminished

Or

I don't see a real problem that can be addressed and impacted by the USGA/R&A.

I just can believe that I am talking to people who care about the game let alone play it.

Q. How many of you posting here find that you hit it too far and your enjoyment has been diminished.
 A. When the ball has travelled to far over the Green and not stopped by a bunker but run happily on into the deep rough – admittedly that is not that often due to the modern trend to surround the Green with traps to stop this happening.

Q. I don't see a real problem that can be addressed and impacted by the USGA/R&A.
A. Every part of the game can be resolved by the Governing Bodies apart from the attitudes of the individual players.

Those who care to bother with history will have seen the total lack of performance from the R&A dating back to the early days. Wake up and take a look, it’s become the norm, it’s been the same for over a century, hence why I am saying change is urgently needed.

If Jim is right in his opinion then we need no authority be it local or national. If the current financial problems facing the world cannot be resolved by our Governing Bodies, then who the hell else is going to sort it out, the bloody banks who caused this, come one, get real.

Golf is ill, it’s morals are in decline, its being played to any Rule anyone whats to make up. It allowed walking, non walking, aids and non-aids, and it’s just total mixed up all because the Governing Bodies do not know what is going on. Distance shots are just the current issue which is causing problems because mods are having to be made to some courses not to combat the long hitters by clever use of design but yet again appeasement, we extend the course to allow them their vanity and the ability to pose, wow, but can they actually navigate a course that today we define as penal. No, they do not have to, just moan about it and if the changes are deemed too difficult for the modern golfer, it’s not actioned. Now that I believe is something the Governing Bodies can deal with, if not they need to resign and apologise to all us golfers for the appalling performance over the last century.

There is a problem and only the Governing Bodies can resolve it, but that requires action and some desperate action at that. The game is in a worse mess than the world finances but many do not want to look, following the R&A like Lemmings.

Question should the Governing Bodies worry, well no, not when we have answers like. I don't see a real problem that can be addressed and impacted by the USGA/R&A.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

David

I think the gap in distance between players has been growing since day one because there has been an increase in players since day one. to

It's not a simple matter of the gap growing. It is an artificially engineered, magnified expansion of the gap. Take the gutta percha for example. Made of one substance. If you make it soft, it will spin lots. If you made it hard, it will spin less. However, if you were to plot the line of spin vs club loft, you would get similar slopes between the two. The creation of the new ball was the first to get significantly away from this relationship. With the new ball, if you make that plot, you will get a much steeper slope. The player no longer has to make a trade off between distance vs control in picking a ball. He gets both through modern engineering capabilities, not through the use of naturally occurring laws of substances.

[Sean_A]

Garland

Not sure I understand what you are on about, but it seems like you are saying you blame the latest and greatest ball for the accuracy achieved in distance gains of the last tens years (or whatever time limit) and that these gains are in some way bad.  Maybe you are right, but I don't see how that leads to the necessity of altering courses to accomodate these gains.  My line has always been that people change courses and they do so because they can.  Technology is used as the excuse, but even when technology wasn't drastically changing, courses were being altered.  It must be some sort of hard wire issue, because succcessive generations seem to feel a need to alter courses and the arguments are always made that the changes are for the best.  I am not saying improvements can't be made, but if we use added distance as the primary (or even secondary) reason for making changes, I'll bet you dimes to dollars the work is a waste of time and money.  Perhaps this is why golfers whinge about technology then stand in line to buy the next big driver and ultimate ball.  Then can then turn around and use technology as the crutch for the changes they wanted make anyway.

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

...but if we use added distance as the primary (or even secondary) reason for making changes, I'll bet you dimes to dollars the work is a waste of time and money. ...

If you don't change courses to accommodate added distance, you are changing the game. Do you want the same game? Or, a different one? All GCAs past and present design courses to allow expansion as distances changes. However, I doubt they designed to allow a discontinuity in change. Change had always been continuous before, and my position is that rules should be put in place to get back to that continuous change, not extraordinary discontinuities.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

So what you're really saying is that only when every hole on your beloved links becomes a drive and pitch FOR YOU will it become a relevant issue.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

I think Jud has it about right.   You seem to be in your own little world on this issue, and only concerned with your own personal experience and impossible ideals.

What happens o tour can stay on tour.  I don't care to make judgements about the game or architecture based on tour players or other folks who can bomb it . . . .

Nice application of the cliche, but unfortunately entirely unrelated to the reality.   What happens on tour impacts our courses, whether used on tour or not.   That is the reality.  Likewise regarding judgments about the game and architecture.  It is irrelevant whether you care to make such judgments, they are nonetheless being made whether you care or not.   Plus, it is not just an issue on tour.  It just so happens that the tour is about the only source of statistics.  

We preserve our great courses by looking at the big picture, not the picture presented by the tour.

 

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?  Courses are being ruined because of what happens on tour, and no one is looking at the "big picture."    

Your statement is just more idealism entirely divorced from reality.    

You don't like the self-help approach to solving your problem with distance - fine, but I have no time for whingers when they don't act - worse, many aggrevate the problem by buying the very equipment they say they despise.  If your confidence in the USGA is that low, why are you waiting on them?  Grow a pair and take a stand.  Its a simple as that.

Respectfully, this is too much.  You have no time for whiners who don't act?  I have no time for apologists who insist I demonstrate my sincerity through exercises in futility.  And for you to tell me to "grow a pair and take a stand" when what you perceive as me "taking a stand" would be nothing but pointless posturing?  Perhaps you should grow a pair and face reality instead of focusing on token irrelevancies that deflect and diverting attention away from more realistic approaches to addressing the problem.

Best,

DM

[Sean_A]

Garland

The reason you don't change courses for increased distance is it doesn't matter for the vast majority of golfers.  Distance just isn't an issue.  My experience tells me a well designed course at 5800-6500 (or even less yardage) yards can provide fun, interest and challenge for practically every golfer on the planet.   

Jud

No, the overwhelming majority of golfers are in the same position as me distance concerning distance.  Distance just isn't an issue.  My beloved links will never become a drive and  pitch for me nor the great majority of golfers currently on the planet.  Are you trying to design for distance god knows how many years into the future? 

David

What happens on tour only impacts our courses so far as we allow.  There is no direct correlation between the tour and Joe Blow CC.  Courses are altered because people choose to do so.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  There is no tour or USGA directive to change courses; that power lies with owners and club members.  When they figure out how to excercise that power properly we shall all be better off.   

Every cause has to start somewhere.  You have failed with whinging.  I would have thought human experience would have taught you its now time to try something else.  At the very least, if what you say has any application to yourself, you will enjoy the game more.  It sure beats fretting about what the USGA will or won't do.   

All - we are at an impasse.  You aren't going to convince me that the survival of great golf architecture rests in the hands of the USGA and I am not going to convince you that the survival of great architecture rests in the hands of golfers through clubs and owners.  Its not the end of the world.

Ciao
 

[David Kelly]

What happens on tour only impacts our courses so far as we allow.  There is no direct correlation between the tour and Joe Blow CC.  Courses are altered because people choose to do so.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  There is no tour or USGA directive to change courses; that power lies with owners and club members.  When they figure out how to excercise that power properly we shall all be better off.   

What color is the sky in your world?

[Sean_A]

What happens on tour only impacts our courses so far as we allow.  There is no direct correlation between the tour and Joe Blow CC.  Courses are altered because people choose to do so.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  There is no tour or USGA directive to change courses; that power lies with owners and club members.  When they figure out how to excercise that power properly we shall all be better off.   

What color is the sky in your world?

David

Today is what Brits apparently call a white cloud day.  Not sure how that is distinguished from cloudy. 

Considering the incredibly small number of courses hosting a tour event, can you explain how the tour alters courses?  It would also be interesting to know just what percentage of courses are actually adding length these past 10 years.  Are we guilty of focusing too much on the limelight courses for our sources of info?

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

So in the modern time honour traditions of the game we watch while no one does a bloody thing. Just too much crap has been allowed to water down the game of golf to the point that anything goes but we will still call it golf

It’s great that many don’t care what others do, just a great big fu@&ing pity you don’t feel the same thing for the game you are supposed to love.

Just why do we have Rules, could it be to maintain a consistency, so where ever we play we have the same game. But hey that’s not right or fair, people have taken up the game but are not committed to it as they play by their Rules. The R&A have taken the 30 pieces of Silver allowing outside aids to assist the golfer, yet they have been clever enough to keep the Majors pure. How the Hell can you have the Major Tournament playing one way, then the Pro game has some other options leaving a free for all for the general public. Well just play the game whatever way you want. Wow, now that is what I call a great big dereliction of duty on behalf of the Governing Bodies send out different messages about the game it is supposed to govern.

Interesting how many are happy with the Rules in Baseball, yet seem unwilling for Golf to maintain a similar consistency in the equipment. After all, is this not what many of us actually seek consistency or are some of us so desperate and vain that we need the equipment to assist us in either keeping or reducing our score. Golf was once regarded as an Honourable Game assisted by The Course Etiquette Rules

If the Governing Bodies are not willing to put a stop to the long distance drives, why can’t the Designers do it after all its part of their job to combat and challenges the players. Simple placement of appropriate hazards could force the player into having to navigate the course rather than to fly over it. Perhaps after all we may be blaming the wrong people as the faults lie with a poor design, nevertheless much has been made legal which should not have.

Melvyn
 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

The reason you don't change courses for increased distance is it doesn't matter for the vast majority of golfers.  Distance just isn't an issue. 

...

That simply does not hold up historically. Nor, does it hold up to what appears to be standard operating procedure for architects who design and build for the possibility of increased distance.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Considering the incredibly small number of courses hosting a tour event, can you explain how the tour alters courses?  It would also be interesting to know just what percentage of courses are actually adding length these past 10 years.  ...

Do you even read this forum? Practically every report of a restoration, or renovation of an old course describes what was done to add length.
When have you read of a developer asking a GCA to build a "5800-6500 (or even less yardage)" course?

It may be a white cloud day where you are, but it seems for you it is all blue sky.

[DMoriarty]

Sean, Like others I'd have to conclude that you seem to be in denial about the impact of high level golf on low level courses.  Like it or not, the impact is there.  The say "courses are altered because people choose to do so" is a truism and avoids the issue.   The reason people choose to do so because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive that long hitters no long fit on the courses. 

Likewise regarding your experiences.  Your "experience" may tell you and me that a well designed 5800-6500 yard course is plenty long enough, but "your experience" and your opinion isn't going to stop courses from being butchered and changed to keep up with technology. 

I enjoy my game just fine.  I enjoy old equipment.  But this isn't about me and what I enjoy and what I think.  And it isn't about what you enjoy and what you think.  It is about what is being done despite what you enjoy and you think.

[Brent Hutto]

Sean's point is correct. New drivers don't force a club to butcher a perfectly good member's course. Neither do stronger players. Neither do the events on television. I don't know what leads clubs to do what they do (maybe as many reasons as there are courses renovated) but I suspect it's mostly that the membership thinks their collective dick will shrink if they fail to keep up with what they perceive as the "requirement" to be 7,000 yards long. Or 7,500 or 8,000 or whatever they think the magic number is.

[DMoriarty]

Brent and Sean don't perceive a problem or a need to change the courses, and so they have decided that those who change our courses are misguided, or macho, or whatever.   So their apparent solution is to leave the misguided and the macho to do what they please with the great courses??  These guys are really helpful.  

What am I missing here?

Brent and Sean, what difference does it make whether those ruining the courses are doing so in vane?   If we could disincentivize such actions by a simple rules change, why shouldn't we?  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gentlemen

Whatever the reason, be it technology or that some think big is beautiful, the underline problem is that we are losing the great Holes and Courses that have stood out for a 100 to 150 years because of these changes. My view is that The Governing Bodies are not outwardly encouraging clubs to expand, more pushing the issue from behind the scenes – why, who knows but the lure of having a Championship course seem very attractive to many clubs and golfers.

Those in charge, be it at club or R&A level have a duty of care for the game, that means looking after the course and maintaining it not destroying it out of all recognition.

These changes will continue, no doubt at a quicker pace in the coming years hoping to attract these long hitters  at the cost of real; players who play the game by utilising their skill (at what ever level) to combat the designer and Nature. These high fliers can continue as far as I am concerned as they add little to the game, or enjoyment in watching, but then that’s my opinion.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

Sean's point is correct. New drivers don't force a club to butcher a perfectly good member's course. Neither do stronger players. Neither do the events on television. I don't know what leads clubs to do what they do (maybe as many reasons as there are courses renovated) but I suspect it's mostly that the membership thinks their collective dick will shrink if they fail to keep up with what they perceive as the "requirement" to be 7,000 yards long. Or 7,500 or 8,000 or whatever they think the magic number is.

No, it's not fear that their collective member will shrink. It is a justifiable fear that their collective membership will shrink.
It is the ball, and the distance discontinuity brought about by it that influences this. Obviously, you can play any course with any ball, so if you want to be pedantic about it, you can say the courses don't need to be changed.

[Sean_A]

Brent and Sean don't perceive a problem or a need to change the courses, and so they have decided that those who change our courses are misguided, or macho, or whatever.   So their apparent solution is to leave the misguided and the macho to do what they please with the great courses??  These guys are really helpful.  

What am I missing here?

Brent and Sean, what difference does it make whether those ruining the courses are doing so in vane?   If we could disincentivize such actions by a simple rules change, why shouldn't we?  

David

You miss the point entirely.  First, dialing the ball back however far you like is in no way a guarantee that memberships won't decide to alter courses.  Courses have been altered from the start, regardless of tech advances.   Your reasoning that tour golfers force change is flawed and so is your reasoning concerning a dial back to save courses from change.  Do you have any direct evidence to support the idea that courses will stop being altered if the ball is dialed back?  Second, memberships will do as they please with their property.  No USGA rule ever has or ever will alter that.  At some point you have to begin to realize that people like to change things.  Sometimes its necessary (the play on tour cannot be defined as a reason to necessarily alter a course) and sometimes its because they can.  

I am not in the least worried if the USGA should decide to dial the back.  It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but I am under no illusion that a rule change will somehow be the saviour golf courses.  Memberships and owners are the stewards of courses, the USGA is the steward of the game.  Get that straight in your head before you get pie in the sky ideas. 

Ciao  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()