[Sean_A]

Jeff Warne:

It is surprising that so many on this Board, supposedly knowledgeable people about golf architecture, support the golf technology arms race.

I guess we need an 8,000 yard US Open course for people to finally get it.

Tim

That isn't the case for me.  I don't support the arms race, but I don't worry much about it either.  I did make representations to my club not to extend the course when it last hosted the Brabazon, but my please fell on deaf ears.  While I would hope that other clubs would be smarter and choose not to fall into the trap of joining the arms race, their decisions are beyond my control.  In fact, I rarely care how clubs alter their courses and when I do care, its usually about something which has nothing to do with added yards.  Each club or owner must do as it/he sees fit.  That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be.  My raising hell about 300 yard drives on GCA.com isn't going to change that fact.

Ciao

Ciao   

[Paul Gray]

Whilst the pessimism is entirely understandable, I'm not sure that dismissing opinion on this website is necessarily correct. Granted, the mainstream consensus won't change overnight but I truly believe this site chips away at the mindset within the game.

All cultural changes begin somewhere and, with golf being inherently conservative, change will only be gradual and come byway of a drip-drip effect. Nonetheless, attitudes can and will change and I fully expect a period of critical disagreement to present itself at some point before too long. Just look at Taylormade and tell me they're not already strategizing for it. Some attitudes are just too entrenched, too much money is involved and too many reputations are built on 'dark age' thinking for progress to involve anything but a fair amount of ugly conflict.

[Brent Hutto]

Paul,

Taylormade are out there pitching for all they're worth on various fronts, staking out a position to cash in if/when this bifurcation you lot are so gung ho about comes to be. All it will take is for "good players" to begin playing a ball adhering to one set of Rules while "casual golfers" use a ball that's allowed to fly farther. Shortly thereafter, all bets are off. It will now be a free for all and Taylormade is the obvious beneficiary to market new lines of equipment to all the scattered tribes of golfers, each playing according to their own, mutable set of equipment rules.

And you guys will then have EXACTLY what you're wishing for...along with golf courses that continue to be lengthened and toughened just as they always have. Then who are you gonna blame?

[Dave Doxey]

I don’t believe that equipment rollback efforts OR course lengthening will ever yield much benefit.

I don’t understand the need to lengthen courses to “protect par”.

Leave the courses alone & let the pros & bombers shoot whatever they shoot.  Why does it matter if a pro scores a 49?

Various changes have eliminated the ability to compare scores of today with scores of the past. Changes in physical fitness, equipment, and course conditioning have each affected scoring and the nature of play.

It’s simply not the same game anymore.

Course changes are a waste of resources and equipment rollbacks will never overcome the power of money & profit.

[Jason Thurman]

I don’t believe that equipment rollback efforts OR course lengthening will ever yield much benefit.

I don’t understand the need to lengthen courses to “protect par”.

Leave the courses alone & let the pros & bombers shoot whatever they shoot.  Why does it matter if a pro scores a 49?

Various changes have eliminated the ability to compare scores of today with scores of the past. Changes in physical fitness, equipment, and course conditioning have each affected scoring and the nature of play.

It’s simply not the same game anymore.

Course changes are a waste of resources and equipment rollbacks will never overcome the power of money & profit.

Bingo. The only way to stop butchering of classic courses is to just top butchering them. You simply have to have the guts to let the game evolve instead of trying to keep it the same as everything within it evolves.

[DMoriarty]

Bingo. The only way to stop butchering of classic courses is to just top butchering them. You simply have to have the guts to let the game evolve instead of trying to keep it the same as everything within it evolves.

Weren't you the one who wrote that the hope that USGA might eventually do something about the equipment was "hilarious."   Yet your proposed solution is to just-stop-butchering-the-classic-courses?   That is pretty funny, too.  But even less realistic.

[Brent Hutto]

We could think of 100 risible, never going to happen "solutions" to the presumed problem of classic golf courses being made ever longer and ever "tougher". So far we've got two on the list

1) Make the golf ball fly shorter
2) Just stop butchering courses

Would you guys like to come up with more? Whether we talk about one thing or two things or 100 things with no casual relationship to the presumed problem, they're all still balloon juice.

3) Two stroke penalty for hitting a shot that travels more than 280 yards in the air
4) Change the Rules of Golf to make the maximum 18-hole course length 6,500 yards
5) Declare every golf course built prior to 1980 to be on the National Register of Historical Places

I'll let someone else take it from there.

[Paul Gray]

Brent,

I've actually long been muttering about the possibility of a split in the game.

If a split does occur and one of the resulting products sees golf course architect come out of it well, I'll be happy. Ultimately, I, like many others, will be a happy golfer at a club that refuses to adopt 'ultra multi max flight deluxe super shot golf' and instead prefers to continue with a sustainable model which is as healthy now as it was 121 years ago when the club was formed.

If proprietaries and the like want to chase a flighty market, they are very welcome to continue to fail.

[Brent Hutto]

Again, I don't see how in the world setting up two set of Rules (which will quickly involved into much more than two sets) is going to generate any business for golf architects. It will be the single biggest change the game for at least 100 years, if not ever. Just how do you forsee an Anything Goes approach to the concept of Rules of Golf lining the pocket of golf course architects?

[Tim Gavrich]

This year, Bubba Watson is leading the Driving Distance stat, at about 315 yards. The 50th longest players on Tour to this point are Stewart Cink and Tommy Gainey, at 294.1 yards. The 100th longest players on Tour are Jonathan Byrd, Kevin Streelman and Boo Weekley at 288.6 yards. Spencer Levin is #150, at 281.2

In 1991, here was the breakdown:
#1:     John Daly            288.9
#50:   Ken Green            266.2
#100: David Sutherland   259.7
#150: Curtis Strange       255.3 (tied with Bob Tway)

So the Tour was approximately 30 yards longer all the way through.

1991 was the first year what we now know as the Travelers Championship was held at the TPC River Highlands. Billy Ray Brown won it in a playoff at -9.

Last year, Ken Duke won it in a playoff at -12. He certainly didn't consistently hit 350 yard drives en route to his victory. He was T170 in Driving Distance last year, at a shade over 275 yards.

The kicker, at least in my mind, is that TPC River Highlands is only 26 yards longer than it was in 1991, and yet while the Tour has gotten markedly longer, it yields roughly the same scores it yielded when the Tour didn't hit it so far and there was no call for the rolling back of the golf ball. Since 1991, the winning score has been 15 or more under par seven times (and three of those were pre-ProV1). I find interesting (admittedly not conclusive, but at least complicating), at the very least, as a counterpoint to the "The ball goes too far"/"The sky is falling" argument.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The kicker, at least in my mind, is that TPC River Highlands is only 26 yards longer than it was in 1991, and yet while the Tour has gotten markedly longer, it yields roughly the same scores it yielded when the Tour didn't hit it so far and there was no call for the rolling back of the golf ball. Since 1991, the winning score has been 15 or more under par seven times (and three of those were pre-ProV1). I find interesting (admittedly not conclusive, but at least complicating), at the very least, as a counterpoint to the "The ball goes too far"/"The sky is falling" argument.

Tim,

You are not aware of the changes in setup they have begun to do since the advent of the ProV1?
If the course were set up as in 1991, I suspect they would be shooting -30.

[Paul Gray]

Again, I don't see how in the world setting up two set of Rules (which will quickly involved into much more than two sets) is going to generate any business for golf architects. It will be the single biggest change the game for at least 100 years, if not ever. Just how do you forsee an Anything Goes approach to the concept of Rules of Golf lining the pocket of golf course architects?

'Hit ball with stick' has already evolved into a great number of games. It's really nothing new.

As for rules, I'd imagine there would be all sorts of different sets of rules for all the different sports which would emerge. So long as the courses I love stick with golf, I'll be happy.

Seemingly, it literally will take different strokes......but maybe, just maybe, not. Never underestimate the effect of peer pressure. It often creates order where laws fail. And that's why expressing a believe in a seemingly utopian ideal isn't so pointless after all.

[Garland Bayley]

Patents on the new ball technology begin to expire in a few years. The USGA waited for patent on grooves to expire, before acting again on them. What's to say they aren't waiting likewise to act on the ball?

[Tim Gavrich]

...
The kicker, at least in my mind, is that TPC River Highlands is only 26 yards longer than it was in 1991, and yet while the Tour has gotten markedly longer, it yields roughly the same scores it yielded when the Tour didn't hit it so far and there was no call for the rolling back of the golf ball. Since 1991, the winning score has been 15 or more under par seven times (and three of those were pre-ProV1). I find interesting (admittedly not conclusive, but at least complicating), at the very least, as a counterpoint to the "The ball goes too far"/"The sky is falling" argument.

Tim,

You are not aware of the changes in setup they have begun to do since the advent of the ProV1?
If the course were set up as in 1991, I suspect they would be shooting -30.

Certainly the setup of courses for Tour events has changed over the years, but I'm not sure in what ways and how much, at least here in Connecticut. I don't believe the widths of the fairways at TPC River Highlands have changed all that much since 1991, and I am not sure if the rough has been lengthened a huge amount. I remember seeing the tournament a couple times when I was quite young--this was pre-ProV1--and noting how long the rough looked. Also, I don't think the greens have gotten either appreciably firmer or faster in that time; those factors are largely weather-related, anyway.

I guess my main point is that there's a 6,800 yard PGA Tour course that in this era of excessively long drives presents more or less the same, generally acceptable challenge to the Tour as it did when no one complained about how far people were hitting the golf ball.

Furthermore, Bubba Watson and Ken Duke won the event in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Pretty polar opposite in terms of playing styles, which speaks well of the course as an enduring test of the highest levels of golfers.

[RussBaribault]

I have to wonder how many of you have actually seen a 350 yard drive that is not down hill, down wind and hard fairways?? This idea that 300 or 350 yard drives are hurting golf is such utter nonsense. With golf hurting as much as it is, you would think the USGA, R&A, PGA of America ect, ect would be encouraging a “full court press” for better technology to make the game more fun for the average golfer. Instead, the ban the long putter (for what??) and I see Jack Nicklaus railing against the golf ball too. Just because Bubba, Rory and a handful of other golfers whatever professional tour can hit their drivers over 300 yards does mean it’s bad for golf? I suggest anyone go play Philadelphia Cricket Militia Hill (longest course in Philly area where I am from that I am aware of) and pay it from the tips. Is it enjoyable to have hybrid, 4 or 5 irons in on most of the par 4’s? NO. I also don’t see anyone hitting anyone hitting persimmon drivers. I wonder has anyone hit a persimmon driver this year. I have and if I had to play a round with one I could, but the round wouldn’t be nearly as enjoyable. Golf is supposed to be an enjoyable leisurely game. If better golf balls, better driver technology and yes anchored putters makes the game more enjoyable. What is the problem? If the classic courses from the early 20th century are becoming too short, grow the rough and speed up the greens to counter. It worked for Merion in 2013 US Open and it can work on any other course too. On a side note, the average handicap has stayed the same since the 1970's, with better everything (balls, clubs, range finers, fitness) why has it not gone down? hhhmmmm.

[DMoriarty]

With golf hurting as much as it is, you would think the USGA, R&A, PGA of America ect, ect would be encouraging a “full court press” for better technology to make the game more fun for the average golfer.

We've had a full court press for the last decade or so.  How's that working out for golf?  

If better golf balls, better driver technology and yes anchored putters makes the game more enjoyable. What is the problem?

You've assumed away the real question.  Does this technology make the make more enjoyable in the long run?   Judging from my own experience as well as what is happening with golf over the last decade, I'd say no.

If the classic courses from the early 20th century are becoming too short, grow the rough and speed up the greens to counter. It worked for Merion in 2013 US Open and it can work on any other course too.

I hope those advocating the just-stop-butchering-the-classic-courses approach take note of this last point.  Sheesh.

[Paul Gray]

Tell us Russ, have you tried GolfWRX? 

[cary lichtenstein]

So what's next? Will par 4's be drivable with 425 yard drives?

[Matthew Rose]

Maybe there should be more par 70s and less 72s.

Par 5s are the easiest holes for pros and the hardest for beginners. Maybe less of them is the answer? I play a muni often that was a par 71 and changed to a 70 with the removal of a par four hole along a road; the replacement hole was a par 3. I haven't heard anybody complain about it. This course now has three fives and five threes. Maybe having a fifth par-3 isn't a bad idea. I guarantee you ladies and juniors won't complain about it. I've certainly never heard anyone ever complain about a course not having enough par-fives.

I noticed TPC River Highlands is a par 70... maybe that is part of the reason why the scores are consistent there without a billion yards being added to it.

[RussBaribault]

I have not tried GOLF WRX? What is it? Should I? As for the architecture aspect narrow the fairways where these super long drives are landing and with thicker rough to penalize that player. @ DMoriarty..If you don not enjoy golf more now than you did in the 90's I suggest you play your tour balata golf ball, Ping eye 2 irons and a callaway bertha driver, your problem is solved. I enjoy hitting long drives. Also, I was at the US Open at Merion every day walking the course Hugh Wilson's design was intact and was a great example why we do not need to change the architecture of our classic courses, just the set-up. @Cary and anyone else who thinks 350 eyars drives are an bad thing for golf (which as i mentioned before almost never happen except by a very few people) when was the last time a REMAX long drive constant won a PGA Tour event?

[Paul Gray]

Matthew,

I'm personally all for courses with lower pars, but not if that simply means changing a number on a scorecard so that par is seemingly protected. Of course, standard yardages for pars have evolved over the years but not at the rate we could theoretically be talking about now.

Then again, since all 18 holes are going to end up being par 3s anyway, I guess we might as well call a few more of them exactly that.  

[Paul Gray]

Russ,

It was a joke. Despite the huge temptation to tease you, I'm no bully and won't indulge. Safe to say however that GolfWRX isn't what most around here would consider to be a home for intellectual discussion about golf. I'd recommend steering clear.

You're new here so don't be put off if you get the odd jibe. Sit back and take it all in as there's a lot for you to learn here.

[DMoriarty]

RussBaribault.  

The equipment you suggest would mostly be an upgrade for me, but my game is really not at issue here.  This is a website about golf course architecture, and the changes in technology have put increasing pressure on the quality of golf course architecture, old and new.  

If you think growing thicker rough, narrowing fairways, speeding up (and flattening) greens, and building ridiculous back tees is not changing the architecture, then we are probably too far apart to intelligently discuss the issue.  

[RussBaribault]

What's with all the doom and gloom Paul? No one is stoping anyone from playing with old technologies (clubs, balls) and playing classic courses to experience the course as the architect designed it. Anyone can do that. Don't punish all of golfdom with rules and banning stuff.

I worked at a golf course for 14 years...breaking balls is in my blood. It's all good.

[RussBaribault]

I never said anything about building more back tees. I feel I have been very clear about designer intent with the Merion example twice. I fully understand the point you are trying to make about how technology is changing how people play courses and shotmaking as a function of course design.

I don't understand what everyone is advocating is it to stop technoligical development of clubs and balls so we can all play the way the game was played 20 30 years ago? I really thing this idea of 300-350 yard driver is way overblown.

The average club, of it's entire membership might have 2 or maybe 3 guys who hit it 300 yards. 350? No chance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()