[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

When I see 17 year old high school students driving it past Nicklaus's best and 60 year old guys with septuple bypass surgery hitting it 300, yes, there's a problem with the I&B.

But, let's bring this down to the local club level.

Why did Pine Valley lengthen so many of their holes over the years ?

Why has virtually every local golf course been lengthened over the years ?

At what point do the architectural features, especially those in the DZ, become equivalent to the Maginot Line ?

[JESII]

Pat,

Unlike you, I believe the game always has, and always will, evolved...all aspects of it. The players and their expectations have changed more than golf courses if you ask me. It's my favorite course today, but I don't think I'd want to play the "Opening Day" Pine Valley every day...would you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

No, I wouldn't.

I think there was a time, and remnants of it may still exist, where difficulty was equated with quality or greatness.

At the same time, distance didn't increase in a modest linear fashion, but, in quantum leaps, and I think that's the difference in the evolutionary process the game has recently experienced.

Part of me likes the concept of everyone teeing off from the same spot.
I think there's something to be said for "graduated" architectural features on each hole other than par 3's.

I also think that added length squeezed the "sporty" nature out of many golf courses.

In 2004 I couldn't hit the ball 200 yards on my best day and couldn't get the ball airborne very well, but, I enjoyed my golf in 2004 as much as anytime in my life.

Better athletes will hit the ball farther, but, when 400 yard drives are becoming more frequent, there's something wrong with the I&B that has to be corrected.

[Doug Siebert]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

How is this tail wagging the dog?

It's up to the individual club operators to think with their big head instead of their little one.

Those 99% of golfers who have realized little or no distance gain from the new ball would lose little or nothing if it is rolled back.  No one (sane) is talking about making a ball that loses exactly the same percentage of distance for all swing speeds.  Those who proportionally benefitted to much greater extent would proportionally lose much more in a proper rollback.

I get sick of this argument that because it isn't a problem for most golfers then we should just ignore it.  Using the same argument, let's get rid of the 99% of the rules that consist of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf because those rare circumstances don't apply 99% of the time.  Somehow I'll bet you feel differently about that idea.

[Doug Siebert]

When TOC's 14th is lengthened to 700 yards with a tee somewhere in the middle of the 13th fairway, and hit in two the first Open that is played on it.  I kid, that wouldn't do it, we'd be told how today's golfers are in so much better shape than the old dead guys who sometimes laid up short of Hell Bunker in two.

[JESII]

Doug,

Why would you go to the expense (and embarrassment) of building a tee in the middle of the 13th fairway when 0.01% of golfers will use it?

[Doug Siebert]

Not saying they should or that I want them to, but the way things are going unless there's a rollback the R&A will have to do it if they want to try to maintain the 14th as a three shotter for the Open and have a chance for Hell Bunker to come into play. At 600 yards I suspect in the next Open there will be more than a few golfers teeing off with a 3W and still reaching it easily, unless it is going into the wind, and it would take a mighty wind indeed for golfers to consider laying up short of Hell.

Maybe doing something as ridiculous as building a teebox in the previous fairway of the world's oldest course would be the "aha" moment Patrick is looking for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

If suddenly, everyone played with the ball of 1970, would the game fall apart ?

[Will Lozier]

Jim,

If suddenly, everyone played with the ball of 1970, would the game fall apart ?

The game would be in a bit of discord as modern clubs would not work well with wound balatas - at least Tours pros would gripe about it...but it would be fun to see.  In fact, they should be made to play with Nicklaus' MacGregor ball!  A 5-10% rollback in the modern ball would do the trick and bring so many great courses back into relevance.  ANGC is really the only entity with the power to make this happen on a one week trial basis without legal repercussions from the overly-influencial manufacturers.

Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

In fact, they should be made to play with Nicklaus' MacGregor ball! 

Will:

That's the ticket!  Everyone says they can't make a ball that will roll back correctly ... all they have to do is get the old tech specs for the MacGregor ball c. 1979-80.  It didn't go anywhere! 

In fact, both Ben Crenshaw and Tom Weiskopf have volunteered to me independently that they believe Nicklaus' 1980 season was one of the greatest ever, when he won two majors while using the MacGregor ball and his VIP irons that apparently no one else could hit at all.  But, maybe they are biased, since they were also under contract to play the same ball. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Will,

WHY wouldn't modern clubs work well with a 1970 golf ball.

You are aware that blades are used by the best players today, like they were 40 years ago.

[Sean_A]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

How is this tail wagging the dog?

It's up to the individual club operators to think with their big head instead of their little one.

This is an old tale on this board and its boring.  As far as I can tell, Jim is the only person using his brain in this thread.  The rest of you dullards merely point fingers and ask for the same thing that has been harped on for how long?  One would think intelligent people would change their approach to a problem after failing with passing the buck to strangers for how long?  Mucci, before you green the internet, I have heard your moronic blather many times in the past.  Try a new approach - you don't have enough time on this earth to be successful with your current method.

Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

Distance perpetuates distance.  I can't recall the golfer himself ever asking for a longer ball.  Marketing brought about the distance issue.  It's only natural for a company to try and compete for the best and longest ball out there.  Don't blame the corporate sector.  Blame the the governing bodies.  It's funny how in tennis one never really sees the balls advertised that much.  So when all of these guys go off on Mark King and TMAG for their positions regarding the governing bodies and yet they embrace WU and the Titleist position,  well, it's sort of obvious that Titleist sells the most balls and if anyone needs to keep the ball thing in perspective , it's them. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think the difference in Tennis is akin to MAD, since both players have to use the same ball and who wants to be on the receiving end of a 200 mph serve ?

In golf, I think the quest for distance is innate, inherent in the mind of every golfer, and since golf is one of the few sports where the ball isn't shared, there's no direct consequence to other players, as there is in tennis.

El Gringo,

All that's needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

If you acquiesce, as you have, the problem will only continue to get worse.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem or you can accept and champion continued increases in distance, as you have.

I prefer to constructively criticize increased distance and call for a rollback in I & B.

First "anchoring" and then, the "ball"

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

How about this? During the next Open played at St. Andrews, there is more than one hole-in-one on #18.

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

What truth there be in jest.

I would tend to agree that whatever that singular event would be, it would most likely be at a Major.

[Ian Andrew]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

Safety

The ball goes farther sideways as well as long. In my 25 years I have watched the setback we designed between holes and property boundaries have increased by 50%. That includes the impact of large metal headed drivers, then graphite shafts, but mostly this is a result of the ball.

I can think of three inner city Toronto clubs that have spent over a million each to address liability issues related to where the ball goes off line. The problems emerged after the PRO-V pushed the flight that much further sideways. The ball goes a lot further off line with larger sweet spots and the ability to compress a ball with a hard and out of control swing. It affects everyone. Just not in a way that most think about it. I would say a third of all work I have done in the last 20 years is related to technology. That’s a problem for the game.

Economics do matter and there is a high price to be paid for having a longer ball.

[Sean_A]

El Gringo,

All that's needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

If you acquiesce, as you have, the problem will only continue to get worse.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem or you can accept and champion continued increases in distance, as you have.

I prefer to constructively criticize increased distance and call for a rollback in I & B.

First "anchoring" and then, the "ball"

You must be some sort of right coast moron to believe I "...champion continued increases in distance...".  I am firmly against increasing course yardage as a response to increased distance for whatever reason.  I believe I have made this very clear many times.  I have the power, as we all do, to control ball distance.  I, along with you and countless who proclaim to be against modern tech distance choose not to exercise our power.  I know why I don't, just as I am sure you know why you don't.  However, instead of constructively criticizing, why not use your power to constructively take action? 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

Safety

The ball goes farther sideways as well as long. In my 25 years I have watched the setback we designed between holes and property boundaries have increased by 50%. That includes the impact of large metal headed drivers, then graphite shafts, but mostly this is a result of the ball.

I can think of three inner city Toronto clubs that have spent over a million each to address liability issues related to where the ball goes off line. The problems emerged after the PRO-V pushed the flight that much further sideways. The ball goes a lot further off line with larger sweet spots and the ability to compress a ball with a hard and out of control swing. It affects everyone. Just not in a way that most think about it. I would say a third of all work I have done in the last 20 years is related to technology. That’s a problem for the game.

Economics do matter and there is a high price to be paid for having a longer ball.

+1
bigger,slower,more expensive everything
if 99% haven't noticed they're really not paying attention. If they think it's not a prblem they're OK with paying the additional costs generated by the 1%.

[Sean_A]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

Safety

The ball goes farther sideways as well as long. In my 25 years I have watched the setback we designed between holes and property boundaries have increased by 50%. That includes the impact of large metal headed drivers, then graphite shafts, but mostly this is a result of the ball.

I can think of three inner city Toronto clubs that have spent over a million each to address liability issues related to where the ball goes off line. The problems emerged after the PRO-V pushed the flight that much further sideways. The ball goes a lot further off line with larger sweet spots and the ability to compress a ball with a hard and out of control swing. It affects everyone. Just not in a way that most think about it. I would say a third of all work I have done in the last 20 years is related to technology. That’s a problem for the game.

Economics do matter and there is a high price to be paid for having a longer ball.

+1
bigger,slower,more expensive everything
if 99% haven't noticed they're really not paying attention. If they think it's not a prblem they're OK with paying the additional costs generated by the 1%.

Of course, this assumes that course owners/club members don't want to alter their courses anyway and that archies don't support a culture of litigation by backing up insurance driven decision-making.  I think this is a big assumption.  If a situation is dangerous today my bet is it was dangerous 20 years ago.  I think in many cases modern tech is being blamed when in fact buffer zones have effectively been reduced by new housing and the style of housing with less space.  The entire concept of courses running thru housing is dangerous - yet this type of development drove the golf market 20-30 years ago.  Additionally, roads are far busier than in the past.  Finally, insurance nonsense really can be a load of tosh.  These three factors are more important to the increased danger surrounding golf courses than modern tech, but equipment is an easy target compared to the others. 

Do folks honestly believe surrounding roads and communities will be safer if the ball is rolled back 10%?  Exactly, how much less off line is that for a wild 250 yard drive?  Is that 10% less for a wild drive 50 yards off line?  So is that maybe 5 less yards (and I think I am being very generous with the numbers!) off line?  Is that really the make or break criteria for safety?  It doesn't work for me, but then I think much of the safety stuff talked is a load of tosh - the theory of interior trees for safety is enough to convince me of that. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

El Gringo,

All that's needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

If you acquiesce, as you have, the problem will only continue to get worse.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem or you can accept and champion continued increases in distance, as you have.

I prefer to constructively criticize increased distance and call for a rollback in I & B.

First "anchoring" and then, the "ball"

You must be some sort of right coast moron to believe I "...champion continued increases in distance...".  I am firmly against increasing course yardage as a response to increased distance for whatever reason.  I believe I have made this very clear many times.  I have the power, as we all do, to control ball distance.  I, along with you and countless who proclaim to be against modern tech distance choose not to exercise our power.  I know why I don't, just as I am sure you know why you don't.  However, instead of constructively criticizing, why not use your power to constructively take action? 

What makes you think I haven't ?

[JESII]

Does anybody think the golf ball is a problem for the bottom 99% of golfers?

Safety

The ball goes farther sideways as well as long. In my 25 years I have watched the setback we designed between holes and property boundaries have increased by 50%. That includes the impact of large metal headed drivers, then graphite shafts, but mostly this is a result of the ball.

I can think of three inner city Toronto clubs that have spent over a million each to address liability issues related to where the ball goes off line. The problems emerged after the PRO-V pushed the flight that much further sideways. The ball goes a lot further off line with larger sweet spots and the ability to compress a ball with a hard and out of control swing. It affects everyone. Just not in a way that most think about it. I would say a third of all work I have done in the last 20 years is related to technology. That’s a problem for the game.

Economics do matter and there is a high price to be paid for having a longer ball.

Ian,

Surely you realize it's the 46" drivers and overly litigious world generating that work, not the ProV1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()