[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

The extension of Jeff's query is:  how do you challenge that player from an architectural perspective ?

How do you get him to interface with the architecture which has become equivalent to the Maginot Line?

[JESII]

Pat,

The real question is, how much is it worth to the entire clientele of a course to assure that the elite players are able to interface with the architecture.

Some courses are obviously able to afford it regardless. Others have it in their DNA to allocate a disproportionate percentage of their resources to this effort. The other 99% of courses need to consider the business they're in.

As an experienced committee person at various levels of golf (club and organization), why should Mountain Ridge worry about a few high school kids hitting the ball 300+ yards?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The real question is, how much is it worth to the entire clientele of a course to assure that the elite players are able to interface with the architecture.

Some courses are obviously able to afford it regardless.
Others have it in their DNA to allocate a disproportionate percentage of their resources to this effort.
The other 99% of courses need to consider the business they're in.

Jim,

I don't think money is an issue.

When a PGA Tour event comes to a course/club, I believe that the course/club does very well financially

As an experienced committee person at various levels of golf (club and organization), why should Mountain Ridge worry about a few high school kids hitting the ball 300+ yards?

Because it's symptomatic of the next generation of golfers.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Good point Pat, I agree that it's symptomatic of the next generation of golfers … unless something is done, that is.

[Jim Sherma]

As an experienced committee person at various levels of golf (club and organization), why should Mountain Ridge worry about a few high school kids hitting the ball 300+ yards?

Because it's symptomatic of the next generation of golfers.

I think this quote is an important part of the issue that has not been discussed. How many interesting old courses are just not taken that seriously by most because they are stuck at around 6000 yards or reduced to a par 68 or 69. From a business standpoint would they have been better off extending their courses over the years to remain thought of as "championship" length. Granted many of these courses are land locked and that was not an option. There is likely a good concern for a club to care about the next generation in order to not become a short course that is a curiosity but not serious.

[Joe Hancock]

So from a business operation standpoint, let's say 5% of a club finds the course too short to challenge them, but the other 95% love the course and the roster is full. Does a club invest more than the 5% pay in to keep them happy, or let them migrate to Modern Challenge CC down the way?

Joe

[JESII]

Pat and Jeff,

Play it out for me.

You're on the committee and you have Jeff Mingay in consulting. How do you justify proposing a set of course alterations for the fraction of players concerned?

Money is always an issue! It's the key issue the roll back people lean on. Architectural integrity and equity are not.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jim,

I'm in agreement with you … I'm not in the business of advising clubs to make changes for a small percentage of golfers.

All I was trying to say in my previous post (which I've since modified, because I'm not good at discussing these things on the internet!) is that if Dustin Johnson's length is symptomatic of the next generation of golfers then there's going to continue to be (negative) perception that length needs to be added to 'every course' … then more money's spent on course alterations, golf becomes more expensive, rounds take longer … all that stuff.

But on the on the same hand, if the ball continues to go farther and farther (and, it has for amateurs too over the past 50 years and more), 6,800-yard courses will go the way of 6,000-yard courses at the turn of the last century. They won't be able to attract (enough) new members/golfers because they'll be considered irrelevant, even for 10-handicappers. And that's going to have financial ramifications for clubs and course owners, potentially. It's not a great equation for golf.

[Brent Hutto]

I can only think of one time in the long history of the game that the Rules makers have caused the golf ball to fly LESS far. That was the standardization on the USGA large ball instead of the R&A small ball. Otherwise it's as Jeff just said, the ball will fly farther in the future and that has always been true.

[Jim Sherma]

I can only think of one time in the long history of the game that the Rules makers have caused the golf ball to fly LESS far. That was the standardization on the USGA large ball instead of the R&A small ball. Otherwise it's as Jeff just said, the ball will fly farther in the future and that has always been true.

Off the top of my head I believe that there was a lighter "balloon ball" at one point back in the thirties or so. If memory serves me right, it was deemed too difficult to control and they went back to a heavier and therefore longer ball. This was also the time when the USGA and R&A diverged on their ball standards. Hopefully, someone with better knowledge of this will chime in.

[Richard Hetzel]

Discuss

I doubt it will be recognized as a problem until someone drives the green! Probably not even then.

Let's face it... the game is corrupted and the supposed defenders and protectors don't care too much. What has happened to golf is beyond perverted; now it's just Monty Python laughable.

I recall Geoff Shakelford in a round table during the Merion Open, and he brought up how the course was tricked up (due o the length of the ball)... if I recall correctly. David Fay basically flipped him the bird verbally.

And that's where golf is at the moment. It's been flipped the bird by the governing bodies that could do something.

The problem is EASILY solved: TOURNAMENT GOLF BALL.

[Joe Bausch]

In I think the first or second round of the AT&T tourney at Aronimink a few years back, DJ over-powered the par 5 9th hole, which plays the last half very much uphill.  About 610 yards.

He hit driver, then 4-iron.

You can't make this stuff up!

[David_Elvins]

Watching Dustin Johnson smash it 60 yards past his playing partners is fantastic to watch.

[Matthew Petersen]

Dustin Johnson can hit drives 40 yards past the guys he's playing with, leaving him a wedge into greens other guys are hitting wedges to.

But the other guys still get it inside him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So from a business operation standpoint, let's say 5% of a club finds the course too short to challenge them, but the other 95% love the course and the roster is full. Does a club invest more than the 5% pay in to keep them happy, or let them migrate to Modern Challenge CC down the way?



Joe,

Each club has it's own distinct culture, so what may work or be good for one club isn't necessarily good for another.

But, if you want a golf course to present an ATTRACTIVE, meaningful and enjoyable challenge you can't retain the status quo when the status quo is a 6,100 yard golf course and your user finds the architectural features nothing more than window dressing.

Despite what those on GCA.com may think, it's the end user whose opinion counts.

And, if you have several courses in the area and one is regarded as a pushover or too easy, it will not fare well when compared to the others, unless it offers something really unique.

I don't think you can ignore the modern golfer as he's your newest prospective member

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat and Jeff,

Play it out for me.

You're on the committee and you have Jeff Mingay in consulting.
How do you justify proposing a set of course alterations for the fraction of players concerned?

Jim,

That's what you're missing, it's no longer a fraction, it's the rising tide.

Money is always an issue!
It's the key issue the roll back people lean on.
Architectural integrity and equity are not.


It's one of the issues and money and architectural integrity are intertwined

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can only think of one time in the long history of the game that the Rules makers have caused the golf ball to fly LESS far. That was the standardization on the USGA large ball instead of the R&A small ball. Otherwise it's as Jeff just said, the ball will fly farther in the future and that has always been true.

Off the top of my head I believe that there was a lighter "balloon ball" at one point back in the thirties or so. If memory serves me right, it was deemed too difficult to control and they went back to a heavier and therefore longer ball. This was also the time when the USGA and R&A diverged on their ball standards. Hopefully, someone with better knowledge of this will chime in.

Jim,

At one  time a company came out with a "floater", a ball that would float if hit into the water.
Obviously it was lighter.

I had the opportunity to hit a few of them many years ago, and on a short par 3, with water,  they seemed OK, but, distance wise, they weren't as long.

[Wade Whitehead]

Can anyone here name a single player from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 90s that was in the physical condition Dustin Johnson is in now?

WW

[Brent Hutto]

Wade,

Sometimes I think in the Treehouse's ideal world, the equipment rules would be fiddled so that there was no advantage at all to being as strong, fit and fast as some of these freakish modern Tour guys.

Then we could go back to a Tour populated by schlubby old fat boys and all would be restored to it was in the wooden clubs and rubber-band-wound ball days. The athletes could stick to basketball and the paunchy, slow white guys in Polo shirts would rule the Tour again.

[Jon Wiggett]

Can anyone here name a single player from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 90s that was in the physical condition Dustin Johnson is in now?

WW

I guess Player was pretty fit and from the point of view of upper body then Hogan too.

Jon

[Jason Thurman]

Seriously.

There's a fine line between being pragmatic about dealing with modern equipment and just being a hater.

If you want to complain about how far the ball goes, you shouldn't make Exhibit A the best all-around athlete in the history of the Tour. Personally, I'd find it pathetic if the ruling bodies tried to ensure diminishing returns for guys who work their tails off in the gym and have 1 in a million genetics.

If Paul Goydos reaches 18 with a mid iron, then we have an equipment problem. If Dustin Johnson does it, we just have an athlete on our hands. You can't draw systemic conclusions by looking at outliers.

Jon, Dustin Johnson would knock Gary Player out 20 seconds into the first round and you know it as well as I do. He'd also dunk all over him and beat him by a full second in a 100m sprint. Hogan and Player were fit. Dustin is an athlete.

[jeffwarne]

Can anyone here name a single player from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 90s that was in the physical condition Dustin Johnson is in now?

WW

I like that Dustin can bomb it miles by the field.
But that advantage is negated by a hot ball and clubs that ZACK Johnson can hit 300.
I'd say DJ would benefit from a rollback. i.e. he would be the ONLY player reaching 18, rather than simply having a shorter club.
It just changes the scale of the game.
While super firm and fast greens and narrow fairways can produce high winning scores, that doesn't change the fact that the game being played on such courses is different than years past, with longer hitting players hiitting less than driver MUCH of the time.

Someone stated earlier that people love the long ball and like to watch the long hitters crush it.
So do I, but it's not quite as exciting watching them crush 3 iron.
I loved watching Norman, Nicklaus, Weiskoph kill it at The Masters hitting it 270-300.
seeing a modern player hit it 300-340 isn't ANYMORE exciting as it's all relative.
and frankly, they hit LESS drivers now so where's the excitement?

As Brent states TOUR players are more fit now in general, but most gains are ball, lighter/longer shaft related, as well as optimization.
Jack Nicklaus in his prime was a hell of an athlete, with 32 inch thighs so I'm not prepared to say all players are more athletic now,(maybe more fit) but I know plenty of very fit amateurs who can't hit it out of their shadow.
Fitness does not trump athleticism-no matter how good one looks in his shirt.
Tiger's never looked better-but he's less athletic than he was 15 years ago

[Brent Hutto]

So how many guys on Tour generated more clubhead speed than Jack in 1970? Maybe a dozen?

How many guys on Tour today generate more clubhead speed than Jack did in 1970? If not all of them, then at least a couple hundred. Zach Johnson probably creates as much clubhead speed as Jack did in his prime. Not as good an athlete but better technique, better training, better nutrition and just generally a couple generations of progress (and by "better" in this context I mean "better able to create clubhead speed").a

[JMEvensky]

I'd say DJ would benefit from a rollback. i.e. he would be the ONLY player reaching 18, rather than simply having a shorter club.

Agreed--but I doubt if DJ sees it.

[JMEvensky]

So how many guys on Tour generated more clubhead speed than Jack in 1970? Maybe a dozen?

How many guys on Tour today generate more clubhead speed than Jack did in 1970? If not all of them, then at least a couple hundred. Zach Johnson probably creates as much clubhead speed as Jack did in his prime. Not as good an athlete but better technique, better training, better nutrition and just generally a couple generations of progress (and by "better" in this context I mean "better able to create clubhead speed").a

I understand your point,but I don't think you can dismiss the fact that JN was swinging a 130 gram shaft in his driver and ZJ a shaft about half that.

I don't know how much that affects swing speed,but it has to have some affect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()