[Garland Bayley]

...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....

Depends on what the meaning of fundamentally is.

[Brent Hutto]

...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....

Depends on what the meaning of fundamentally is.

If my wife walks into the TV room and watches Jack Nicklaus playing Tom Watson at Pebble Beach then I switch the channel to Dustin Johnson or somebody hitting 3-wood, 6-iron into the 18th hole she will notice not one thing in a world different about the game being played.

If you have to be familiar with the course and/or have to be told the distances of the shots and the clubs being used by an announcer, then nothing is fundamentally different.

[Garland Bayley]

...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....

Depends on what the meaning of fundamentally is.

If my wife walks into the TV room and watches Jack Nicklaus playing Tom Watson at Pebble Beach then I switch the channel to Dustin Johnson or somebody hitting 3-wood, 6-iron into the 18th hole she will notice not one thing in a world different about the game being played.

If you have to be familiar with the course and/or have to be told the distances of the shots and the clubs being used by an announcer, then nothing is fundamentally different.

With that definition, I agree.
Pretty weak definition of fundamentally though.

[JESII]

How would you define it?

I think, if anything, Brent erred on the side of caution by using Tour players as his example. How would your regular group be fundamentally different than a foursome 30 years ago?

[Brent Hutto]

I can only compare myself and some of my 50-something year old hacker cohort to my memory of how 50-something year-old hackers when I first took up the game in the mid-1990's. That was the pre-ProV1 and pre-Titanium but post-metalwood/cavity-back/graphite era.

Back then there were a mixture of guys playing Balata balls and buys playing wound or two-piece hard cover Surlyn balls. I think a 50-year-old bogey golfer probably hit a Titleist DT with a 170cc metalwood much like he hits a Titleist NXT with a 460cc driver nowadays. A little lower trajectory, more rollout, maybe a bit more crooked.

With irons and wedges guys back then would be either:

1) Hitting a club more than today and unable to hold a firm green with a Titleist DT or
2) Hitting two clubs more and spinning the ball back off the green with a Titleist Tour Balata.

But those guys would have probably been playing about the same tees as today, to greens that were a little slower and hitting slightly longer irons on a given hole. Very, very few of the 50-something guys I play with would be reaching the green in two at Pebble Beach's 18th hole today. And zero of them would have done so 20 years ago. I'm thinking it would be driver, fairway wood, mid-iron for me today. Back then it would have been a driver and two fairway woods (assuming the same playing length as today).

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I doubt the game has changed much for a "'regular' group" but, IMO, the game has changed drastically for the top golfers, and IMO the  "fundamental difference" can be found in the growing gap between these two.  We don't fit on the same courses anymore, and this puts a strain on the architecture and the game.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think it's easy to say, what's the big deal, the ball's only going really far for a very small percentage of players (the world's best).

It's looking at the game from the perspective of the world's best players that's lead too many developers of golf courses to build big courses on big properties that, as a result, take a lot of money and a lot of time to play. I don't think this is a good equation.

Long hitting is relative too. If a long drive was 225 yards, 6,500 yards would be a really long course … and the longest driver would still be that, the longest driver. But we'd spend less on course construction and upkeep, and it might take 2 hours to play instead of 5.

I know golf's not going that far backwards any time soon, but that's my idealist perspective

[Tony Ristola]

You know, when 90% of golfers and nearly 100% of the golf "establishment" flip you the bird, so to speak, for banging on about how the game is being destroyed maybe you ought to consider that the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it issue is merely a minority personal opinion.

A great many people do not care AT ALL about what Dustin Johnson's club selection means to "the game". And there are a few others who actually think the distances strong players hit the ball nowadays is a great thing, a positive development.

It's true, the majority doesn't care, but that they don't care doesn't mean those who do care should just watch the rot.

In fact I suspect strongly that it would not have mattered. As friend Sean often repeats, people are gonna do what people are gonna do.

What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?

[Garland Bayley]

How would you define it?

I think, if anything, Brent erred on the side of caution by using Tour players as his example. How would your regular group be fundamentally different than a foursome 30 years ago?

The game is fundamentally a game using balls and implements, on courses. If the interaction of balls, implements, and courses changes, the game fundamentally changes.

Brent's definition was weak, because it used casual observers over a remote medium.

[Brent Hutto]

The game is fundamentally a game using balls and implements, on courses. If the interaction of balls, implements, and courses changes, the game fundamentally changes.

Brent's definition was weak, because it used casual observers over a remote medium.

So your definition of "fundamentally" is something like "can be detected by a trained observed he looks closely enough".

[Garland Bayley]

The game is fundamentally a game using balls and implements, on courses. If the interaction of balls, implements, and courses changes, the game fundamentally changes.

Brent's definition was weak, because it used casual observers over a remote medium.

So your definition of "fundamentally" is something like "can be detected by a trained observed he looks closely enough".

NO!

I use the dictionary.

Definition of fundamental (adj)
Bing Dictionary

    fun·da·men·tal
    [ fůndə mént'l ]

    basic: relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something

[Brent Hutto]

What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?

I think you severely underestimate the clubhead speed Dustin Johnson generates with a 6-iron compared to the clubhead speed Jack Nicklaus generated. There's more of a power differential between Johnson and Nicklaus than there was between Nicklaus and Hogan.

But I'm sure you're going to propose that the ball be rolled back not just to 90's era performance (pre-ProV1) or for that matter to 70's era performance but however far back is necessary to make Dustin Johnson's 6-iron go no further than Bobby Jones' 6-iron. Gotta see each year's US Open be a club-for-club yard-for-year repeat of US Opens from half a century ago. That's where these thread usually end up.

[Steve Green]

Lost in the shuffle of Dustin Johnson's disaster at the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits is that his grounded-club bunker shot was hit with a 6 iron... from 240 yards.

He's a freak. Probably the best athlete in golf. Call me when Zach Johnson does the same thing, and we'll talk.

Great answer Jason. 

This issue is what is wrong with the USGA and the R&A.  Their concern is for the 0.0001% of players like Dustin Johnson and his cronies who play a way different brand of golf than folks like me.  By protecting par from these freaks they create courses on monstrous length and expense.  What about the rest of us who play.  Where is the USGA concern for our enjoyment of the game.

I am not a roll back guy, I support every effort by the guys making the equipment to make me believe I can buy a better game.  I believe it would be healthy to create a perspective within the governing bodies which preserve the traditions of the game with a focus on the broader golfing universe rather than the very best players in the world.

[Tony Ristola]

What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?

I think you severely underestimate the clubhead speed Dustin Johnson generates with a 6-iron compared to the clubhead speed Jack Nicklaus generated. There's more of a power differential between Johnson and Nicklaus than there was between Nicklaus and Hogan.

But I'm sure you're going to propose that the ball be rolled back not just to 90's era performance (pre-ProV1) or for that matter to 70's era performance but however far back is necessary to make Dustin Johnson's 6-iron go no further than Bobby Jones' 6-iron. Gotta see each year's US Open be a club-for-club yard-for-year repeat of US Opens from half a century ago. That's where these thread usually end up.

I've written an article about this for one of Paul Daley's books. In short... keep all the advancements... big heads, long and light shafts... and roll the ball back to 1980 lengths when coupled with this equipment. Roll it back to when Dan Pohl was longest on tour with 274 yards, and the tour average was 255-yards. Steel shaft, 43 inches long, pea sized wood head with pressed paper inserts.

It's doable. They eliminated the small ball... they can recalibrate the ball so golf isn't a joke. And most golfers would never know the difference in their game because "they don't care" and they don't hit it solid enough, consistently enough.

In 1980 I hit it pretty far as a Junior, and my 7-iron was used at 150-yards. Now eligible for Senior events, my 9-iron is 150 (yeah, the is loft stronger and the club longer... my old PING ISI 9-iron was good for 140.) It reminds me of the guy who goes to the Doc, and says as he's gotten older he's been able to bend his member further from side to side... and then asks the Doc... "Am I getting stronger?!".

The USGA and R&A have the power. If not them... who?

[Tony Ristola]

I think it's easy to say, what's the big deal, the ball's only going really far for a very small percentage of players (the world's best).

It's looking at the game from the perspective of the world's best players that's lead too many developers of golf courses to build big courses on big properties that, as a result, take a lot of money and a lot of time to play. I don't think this is a good equation.

Long hitting is relative too. If a long drive was 225 yards, 6,500 yards would be a really long course … and the longest driver would still be that, the longest driver. But we'd spend less on course construction and upkeep, and it might take 2 hours to play instead of 5.

I know golf's not going that far backwards any time soon, but that's my idealist perspective

Yep...  fewer resources to maintain. Fuel, water, fertilizer, machine hours, repairs. For a game that is in the environmental cross hairs, you'd think the ruling authorities would act and add this to their case.

[Lou_Duran]

Tony,

I agree with DMoriarty.  I don't understand why clubs change their courses for such a tiny % of golfers, but I suppose that if the members see greater value and significance is doing so, it is their prerogative.

The probability of rolling back the ball to the 1980s probably approaches zero.  Bifurcation has a better chance.  It needs to take place in the rules (I understand that John Morrissett is involved in such a project), and there is precedence in other sports for support.  Besides, the balls and equipment the big boys play with are very different than those in most of our bags.  BTW, do you think that most golf fans want to see the power game dialed back?  Is the LPGA drawing that much better even though their games are much more relevant to our own?

[Jason Thurman]

In what universe do you guys envision bifurcation happening? Augusta isn't going to introduce a tournament ball, and Tim Finchem isn't nearly stupid enough to handcuff his professional entertainers to a ball that goes as far as the one the average GCAer tees up for his Saturday morning round at his home course. The average golfer has no clue who the USGA or R&A really are. If they try to write bifurcation into the rules, the Tours would be stupid not to just ignore them and play under their own rulebook.

Finchem and Co. will deal with the banning of anchored putters. Putting doesn't sell tickets. But the long ball does, and you can trust that the Tour will take their ProV1s and go home if someone tries to tell them to play with dimpled marshmallows instead. Nobody wants to buy tickets or turn on their TVs to watch Tiger hit the ball Mingay distances. The game is what it is at this point. We all need to just deal with the fact that guys with 125 mph swing speeds and dime-sized wear spots on their irons are really freakin' good, and can hit the ball obscene distances as a result.

[DMoriarty]

The ball could be fixed without bifurcation and without going creating the absurd situation imagined by Jason where the PGA's pros would be "handcuffed . . . to a ball that goes as far as the one the average GCAer tees up for his Saturday morning round at his home course."  (Nicklaus didn't need to hit it 120 yards past the average player to be considered the best, and these modern players don't need to either.)

It most likely won't happen, but it could be done.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it's easy to say, what's the big deal, the ball's only going really far for a very small percentage of players (the world's best).

Jeff,

I think increased distance extends far beyond the tour player.
High school kids are routinely bombing it further than Nicklaus did in his prime.
I know guys on Medicare who routinely hit it 280, unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

It's looking at the game from the perspective of the world's best players that's lead too many developers of golf courses to build big courses on big properties that, as a result, take a lot of money and a lot of time to play. I don't think this is a good equation.

I'd agree.
I also see local clubs lengthening their courses when their courses will never host a significant event.

At one course that I'm familiar with, they wanted to add length and I asked them, "for whom" ? as only one or two guys broke 80 qualifying for their club championship over the last 5-10 years.

Long hitting is relative too. If a long drive was 225 yards, 6,500 yards would be a really long course … and the longest driver would still be that, the longest driver. But we'd spend less on course construction and upkeep, and it might take 2 hours to play instead of 5.

I know golf's not going that far backwards any time soon, but that's my idealist perspective

I hear you, but, I've just about given up hope on a competition ball from any source.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

I don't think the USGA would ever endorse bifurcation, at least that's what I gleaned from a conversation with a former President that I played with last November.

I had always hoped that after the Ohio Golf Association experiment with a tournament ball, that ANGC would come out with one for The Masters, but, that hope is fading with each passing year.

[Keith Phillips]

My memory may be fading, but I seem to recall the general awe when Tiger was the first to reach 18 in two, with a 3-WOOD...that was 12-15 years ago, so YES I'd say anybody hitting 19 in two with 3W/6i is a big deal

[Jeff_Mingay]

My memory may be fading, but I seem to recall the general awe when Tiger was the first to reach 18 in two, with a 3-WOOD...that was 12-15 years ago, so YES I'd say anybody hitting 19 in two with 3W/6i is a big deal

This is kinda what I was getting at … thanks Keith

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

I don't think the USGA would ever endorse bifurcation, at least that's what I gleaned from a conversation with a former President that I played with last November.

I had always hoped that after the Ohio Golf Association experiment with a tournament ball, that ANGC would come out with one for The Masters, but, that hope is fading with each passing year.

I think you're right. Surely the USGA knows that they can't pull it off. The Tour wouldn't take it, and we'd end up with a split between the governing bodies and the most visible ambassador of the game to the public. It'd be a disaster. And I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Augusta National has no interest in implementing a tournament ball.

David, you're right that a rollback could be done. But it will have to happen without bifurcation, and anything significant would risk pushing players away. The reality is that people like hitting it farther rather than shorter, and if you give us all a ball that doesn't go as far we're going to be annoyed. The only way I can see a rollback actually working is if it happens in tiny steps over a long period of time so that no one notices.

[Pat Burke]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/01/sports/olympics/racing-against-history.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/01/sports/olympics/racing-against-history.html

Nicklaus was considered a pretty good athlete,
but guys like Dustin are absolute freaks.  Big and explosive.
When Usain won, I remember the announcer saying that they were shocked that a guy his height could
win the 100.  There was a myth that the height of 100 meter guys had topped out.

I don't have an answer, but I do work in a business that is flat lining, and don't believe a roll back would help.
Of course, the arm's race hasn't helped the business of golf either.
So, I am utterly useless, but absolutely certain I'm against bifurcation.  
Imagine if I drank, this post could really get frightening!

[Sean_A]

People get wound up about courses being altered, especially the well known classics.  That has been going on forever and really started to get notice when Jones mucked with Oakland Hills - how long ago - certainly before I was born.  As Brent says, people are people and most like to change things.  I don't think extreme length in the top echelons of golf has been a positive for the game, but I don't think it is anywhere near its biggest problem.  Besides, the solutions of rollback and bifurcation don't seem to have gained any momentum.  To me, by far the easiest "solution" is for clubs to stop worrying about what the best players do and concentrate on whats best for their members.  Seeing as how so many clubs seem to have no self control (people like to change things!) in these matters, the next best "solution" is bifurcation.  I think it is better than rollback because I don't believe for a second that manufacturers won't eventually figure out ways around the rules.  Are we going to just start rolling back every five years?  To me its much easier to set broad guidelines (as now) and  reduce the number of clubs to 8 and set a loft range of 15ish to 50ish, for the elite golfer.  The hacker like me can play what he does now, but I would still say reduce the clubs to at most 11.  The elite golfers play scratch on par, and the hackers play a bogey score with handicap.  Its bifurcation which makes complete sense to me for two main reasons:

1. There is still the chance of "preserving" classic courses without having to constantly battle manufacturersmin what I think will always be a losing situation. 

2. The gap between elite and hackers is bridged by the card (difference between a newly lowered par score and bogey score of maybe 7-10 shots higher than par) rather than by crazy numbers of tees cluttering up courses and added yardage.  Remember, golf used to be run this way - during a time when a lot of the courses we admire were built! 

At the end of the day, I think golf has bigger fish to fry than how far Dustin Johnson hits the ball. 

Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()