So, let's say that

[JESII]

Let's forget about the PGA Tour Pros and focus on the 99.9 % of golfers and local golf courses.

I don't think anything measurable will happen. Will courses eventually stop maintaining a back tee or two? Could be...but who cares. The lengthening of courses was done under the guise that maybe a Tour level player will show up someday and we'd like to be prepared so if we're ignoring Tour level players for this hypothetical why would anything change?

Why would fairways be widened if people hit the ball shorter? When has there ever been a broad movement to make courses easier?

[David_Madison]

Brian,

Minimal change since 2005. Right from your graph. It's practically flat. But during this time, we've seen two or three generations of new fairway woods and drivers, and no question this equipment hits the ball a lot further than the stuff in the early 2000's. That's why you see lots of tour players hitting 3-woods on par 5's, as all they need to do is get their tee shots in the fairway less than 280 from the green and they still can get there in two. Besides, Pat agreed with my point, so that's all that matters.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

Patrick,
I played 20 years with persimmon.
Swung hard then, played with  players who went at it hard and observed many at ANGC going at it hard.
Gary Player? Young Nicklaus plenty more

[Jason Thurman]

I doubt much would change. The players who play the back tees and shoot over 95 would continue to do so, because they'll still be just as delusional as they are now. The best players will still want to play the back tees for the better test, and their scoring probably won't change much. I do think the overall "test of golf" is improved if people have to hit more clubs from their bag, which would probably happen for most, but I doubt there would be much quantifiable impact. How many courses stretch to over 7400 yards now? .5%? .25%? Anything shorter than that and I don't see tees getting removed or maintenance costs being reduced.

On the bright side, Tiger will be thrilled. It must be awful to be the best long iron player of your generation in an era when long irons are irrelevant.

The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure what the intended outcome of a rollback would be. It will turn people off to the game. Argue all you want, but don't forget about this set of commercials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8SGRf74LnM (sorry for the poor quality). People like hitting it farther instead of shorter. It will also probably slow pace of play, since most ideas for rolling the ball back involve a higher spin ball. More searches in the rough+less distance=longer rounds. And honestly, once you've stretched a course to 7000, you're probably not going back. If the goal is just to decrease maintenance costs, we need to focus on overwatering.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's forget about the PGA Tour Pros and focus on the 99.9 % of golfers and local golf courses.

I don't think anything measurable will happen. Will courses eventually stop maintaining a back tee or two? Could be...but who cares. The lengthening of courses was done under the guise that maybe a Tour level player will show up someday and we'd like to be prepared so if we're ignoring Tour level players for this hypothetical why would anything change?


Jim, I don't know of a single course that added length for that reason, do you ?

Why would fairways be widened if people hit the ball shorter? .

Because the tees would remain static making the course more difficult.

When has there ever been a broad movement to make courses easier?

Probably for the last 60 years or more.

The elimination of bunkers, flattening of putting surfaces.

Just look at the old photos of Hollywood, GCGC, PV and other courses and tell me if, when compared to the courses today, today's courses aren't easier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

Patrick,
I played 20 years with persimmon.
Swung hard then, played with  players who went at it hard and observed many at ANGC going at it hard.
Gary Player? Young Nicklaus plenty more

There's a difference between swinging with great acceleration and swinging so hard that one's balance is adversely affected.

And, you and I know that when you swung those old persimmons hard, the slightest mishit sent the ball veering well off line.

With hollow headed perimeter weighted drivers, that doesn't happen.

If those persimmons performed so well when you swung hard, why haven't you seen a good golfer using one for decades ?

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

In the 97 Masters many competitors, including Love and Leonard, used persimmons. Tiger invoked the if you can't beat em, join em rule with his dominating victory. Tiger spelled the end of persimmon more than increased distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

In the 97 Masters many competitors, including Love and Leonard, used persimmons. Tiger invoked the if you can't beat em, join em rule with his dominating victory. Tiger spelled the end of persimmon more than increased distance.

JakaB,

No, Tiger's drives, leaving him a 7-iron at the most into those difficult greens, almost 16 years ago was the catalyst.
It was his distance that was the key to his scoring.
Tiger had stopped using persimmon well before the 1997 Masters.

The onset of the "bomb and gouge" era had begun.

In addition there was a study/survey that indicated/concluded that a golfer was better off 10-20 yards closer to the green, in the rough, than he was back in the fairway

[Doug Siebert]

Pat,

From the age of 13 until when I had children I was never worse than a 3 handicap.  My friends were the same as we never gave or got strokes in any game we ever played.  We played a wide open course where I could drive four of the par 4's in 1977 where I can't drive any now.  We swung as hard as we could while remaining on balance, exactly as we do now.

There are two very clear reasons why I hit the ball further as a 17 year old in 1977 than I can now.  One is that back then courses were not irrigated so the ball rolled much further than it does today off zoysia.  Two, that was the year I set my high school record for the 400 meters which still stands today and will not be broken in my lifetime. (49.09) I need to go at least one month without fitting that tidbit into casual conversation.
JakaB,

I don't consider "roll" hitting it further.

When I reference distance I usually do so in the context of "carry"
At one of the holes at my club there was a creek that required a carry of 234-240, so roll out distance was irrelevant, carry was the critical factor
Ditto three other holes with Creeks cutting through the DZ.

So, do you carry the ball further today ?

Like John, I used to swing pretty damn hard back in the day, much more aggressively than I do now, but I carry the ball further today (even despite aging, back problems and swing issues costing me probably ~20 yards of carry in the past few years) than I did back then, and back then I carried the ball further than ANYBODY I ever played with.  I played a couple times with a tour pro back in college who was not top 10 but among the longer drivers on tour and there were a couple times when I hit a good one and carried my drive past where his had rolled.  I certainly didn't have the proper boring trajectory you wanted then, instead I hit it very high so I had little roll unless the fairways were very firm.  The type of drives I hit were just waiting for modern technology to catch up to, I guess

The changes in modern equipment has done much more than make drives go further.  They changed the desired trajectory from the old boring "pro" trajectory you wanted in the persimmon/balata days to a high flattening trajectory you want with today's Ti drivers and Pro V type balls.  A greater portion of the today's driving distance is from carry than used to be the case, so if the average pro is hitting it 35 yards further today than in 1980, I'll bet he's carrying it 50 yards further.

This combination of more carry/less roll not only makes carry obstacles like fairway bunkers and doglegs less relevant, it also makes rough less relevant.  The less roll you are losing by landing in the rough versus the fairway, the less of a difference there is between fairway and rough.  Not that playing from the rough isn't more difficult, but if landing in the rough costs you 30 yards of roll it is a bigger penalty than if it costs you only 15 yards of roll.  When you combine that with the way 460cc heads minimize the penalty for mishits, I'll bet John would agree with me that despite lacking the overly exuberant swing speed of youth, a 450 yard par 4 that used to be a truly stern test back then is almost a joke today (by "a joke" I don't mean I birdie and par it every time, I mean I can heel an ugly drive in the rough and the green is still reachable, whereas back then doing that turned it into an instant par 5)

[Ben Sims]

What upsets me is that we now live in a time where it has never been better to be either an amateur or pro golfer. For some reason many people want to make the game harder just when things are getting good. I don't get it unless the people in power want the owners of courses to make more money. This is the time golfers get to eat the center of the bun. Let's eat.

I lost my putter last week. Don't take my damn ball.

I like this thought.  I don't get to practice and play a ton, so technology helps me stay game.  In fact, I'd argue that technology makes architecture attainable to me.  I can choose to do many things with the golf ball that I would be able to do if I was hitting persimmon, blades and balata.  

Once again, here the masses argue technological impact to architecture through the lenses of the professional golfer.  And I agree completely that the ball should be rolled back for professionals and other top level amateur events.  So where does that leave us?  Bifurcation, now!! Professional golf is not even close to the same game that the rest of us play.  It's time the governing bodies understood that and left the technology to the recreational golfers.  It's worked with wooden bats!

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

Patrick,
I played 20 years with persimmon.
Swung hard then, played with  players who went at it hard and observed many at ANGC going at it hard.
oGary Player? Young Nicklaus plenty more

There's a difference between swinging with great acceleration and swinging so hard that one's balance is adversely affected.

And, you and I know that when you swung those old persimmons hard, the slightest mishit sent the ball veering well off line.

With hollow headed perimeter weighted drivers, that doesn't happen.

If those persimmons performed so well when you swung hard, why haven't you seen a good golfer using one for decades ?

Because a longer lighter club was possible with titanium,resulting in more distance,and of course more off center forgiveness

[Patrick_Mucci]

Like John, I used to swing pretty damn hard back in the day, much more aggressively than I do now, but I carry the ball further today (even despite aging, back problems and swing issues costing me probably ~20 yards of carry in the past few years) than I did back then, and back then I carried the ball further than ANYBODY I ever played with.  I played a couple times with a tour pro back in college who was not top 10 but among the longer drivers on tour and there were a couple times when I hit a good one and carried my drive past where his had rolled.  I certainly didn't have the proper boring trajectory you wanted then, instead I hit it very high so I had little roll unless the fairways were very firm.  The type of drives I hit were just waiting for modern technology to catch up to, I guess

Doug,

Your comments and driving style are interesting.
Many years ago Frank Hannigan and I were having a discussion about "play" and "distance".
Now this was decades before "launch angles" and "spin rates" were terms used when talking about driving the golf ball.
I remember him saying that his observation was that golfers who hit the ball "high" were the longest golfers.

I'll never forget, in the late 60's, while playing in the North-South Amateur, that I was paired with a fellow from North Carolina who hit a low running draw that ran forever.  Even though I carried it well past him, he out drove me.  So, I left Pinehurst determined to alter my ball flight with my driver, which I did.  Now fast forward a few years and I'm back at the North-South Amateur playing with Moss Beecroft from the VA/DC area.
We come to # 18 on # 2.
I hit a good drive, really solid, but with my newly acquired low draw, but, the ball doesn't draw that much and goes into the deep right side fairway bunker.  Moss gets up and hits a solid drive on the exact same line..... Except that he's hit a high drive.
It CARRIES that bunker.
From that moment on, I decided that I needed to readjust my trajectory, abandon the low draw, which incidentally didn't fare well in the Spring in NJ,  so that I could carry the ball farther.
I learned how to adjust my trajectory depending on circumstances, but execution didn't always mirror intent.
One of the reasons I was reluctant to adopt a high trajectory was...... The wind.   I was always concerned about its negative influence.
Remember, this is when golf balls moved more.

Now fast forward a few more years and Frank Hannigan and are I are having our discussion about driving distance.

Frank's observations were the prelude to what scientific analysis and hi tech would develop, a combination of I & B that resulted in high launch angles and reduced spin.



The changes in modern equipment has done much more than make drives go further.  They changed the desired trajectory from the old boring "pro" trajectory you wanted in the persimmon/balata days to a high flattening trajectory you want with today's Ti drivers and Pro V type balls.  A greater portion of the today's driving distance is from carry than used to be the case, so if the average pro is hitting it 35 yards further today than in 1980, I'll bet he's carrying it 50 yards further..

I remember when balls would come off the clubheads like bullets, boring for 100 yards or so, then rise, then begin their descent and hitting it harder didn't alter that flight pattern

This combination of more carry/less roll not only makes carry obstacles like fairway bunkers and doglegs less relevant, it also makes rough less relevant.  The less roll you are losing by landing in the rough versus the fairway, the less of a difference there is between fairway and rough.  Not that playing from the rough isn't more difficult, but if landing in the rough costs you 30 yards of roll it is a bigger penalty than if it costs you only 15 yards of roll.  When you combine that with the way 460cc heads minimize the penalty for mishits, I'll bet John would agree with me that despite lacking the overly exuberant swing speed of youth, a 450 yard par 4 that used to be a truly stern test back then is almost a joke today (by "a joke" I don't mean I birdie and par it every time, I mean I can heel an ugly drive in the rough and the green is still reachable, whereas back then doing that turned it into an instant par 5)

For me, there's probably no better example of what you state, than the 7th hole on Ridgewood East
At 470, dogleg left, uphill, with a difficult narrow green.  it was a virtually unreachable par 4.
Today, it's just another good hole, easily reachable in regulation.