[Paul Gray]

Russ,

Fundamentally the issue is, without wishing to sound too prosaic, whether or not golf is the creative art it once was. For the first of no doubt many times, let's run the tennis analogy (again). Tennis technology meant that the powerful serve became so key that those competing with a deft touch simply found themselves blown away. This applied at tennis clubs all around the world and participation dropped. So, even if we put aside the many and varied arguments about the unsustainable nature of the ever lusher fairways with almost no roll, the managed thick grasses and the ever growing land masses required to build ever longer courses on, we're still left with a game which differentiates more than ever between the skilled and the strong.

I'm sure you don't want a lecture so, again, keep reading this site and learning from it and you might just discover a game infinitely more varied than the one you current appreciate.  

Actually Russ, I've just noticed the thread about Painswick has reappeared near the top of the thread list. Now compare it to the hideous wrist breaking exercises which have passed for US Opens in recent years and ask yourself which one you'd rather see as a representation of golf.

[Brent Hutto]

So in the end it comes back to you want each US Open to consist of a new field of guys playing exactly the same course in shot-by-shot the same manner as it was played 10 years before and 25 years before when the same venue was used by a previous generation.

That is not going to happen no matter what you do to the golf ball specification. Today is not 2004 and it's not 1989 and the game is different. You can't isolate one thing that you think enabled the game to evolve and somehow press a reset button on the entire game. The entire impulse is retrograde and sentimental. Giving today's Tour players a Caiman ball isn't going to run the time machine backwards.

If the USGA had slapped down solid-core urethane golf balls before they ever hit the market then the game would perhaps be played differently than it is. But you can't undo something that happened 15 years ago and unwind the entire recent history of the game. The whole thing is path dependent, you can't unwind history just by fiddling around with one particular contingency, no matter how key that one contigency may have been at the time.

[Sean_A]

Actually Russ, I've just noticed the thread about Painswick has reappeared near the top of the thread list. Now compare it to the hideous wrist breaking exercises which have passed for US Opens in recent years and ask yourself which one you'd rather see as a representation of golf.

Paul

Painswick is much more relavant concerning the long ball than a conversation about long rough.  While there are holes where power works at Painswick, there are just as many or more where power must be throttled back unless one is DEADLY accurate.  Painswick doesn't feature much rough, but it is as tight a golf course as I know.  But, unlike many courses where it is falsely claimed that many can lay-up in an effort to avoid trouble, Painswick is less than 5000 yards.  In effect this means a much larger percentage of golfers can lay back without fear of having to hit miraculously long and straight second shots.  In other words, Painswick is the perfect sort of course that EVERYBODY can enjoy and be challenged by. Of course, the walk is quite rough, the conditions are usually crap, its very dangerous in spots and people are everywhere.  Nowhere is perfect  

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

I'm pretty sure we actually agree, although your comments lead me to think that I wasn't too clear. 

I mentioned Painswick simply to give Russ a feel for, if I can use this somewhat pompous term, 'proper golf,'  as opposed to clubs-hit-the-ball-further-so-we-need-longer-rough mentality Russ is familiar with. I simply offered it up as a taster, so to speak, of the sort of course which might broaden his frame of reference. I'm certainly not sure that Painswick is quite right for a US Open!

[Bill Brightly]

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.

Russ,

My club has two players who can hit 350 in April and October when the fairways are firm. We have at least a dozen who easily hit it past 300 in the air. In case you missed my earlier post on this thread, I played from the tips (6950) last Sunday with our current club champ. He an easy 69 and did not interact with the architecture. Except for going for all of the par 5's with a long iron, he hit wedges and 9 irons to every par 4.

Here is the point in a nutshell: If someone developed a baseball that traveled 20% further in the air and that ball was put into use, it would quickly make all major league ballparks obsolete and they would have to consider moving the walls back. (Except Shea Stadium )  Of course, MLB would never allow that. The USGA and the R & A NEVER should have allowed the Pro V1, but they were scared off by the loss of the Ping lawsuit. And so all the great ODG courses are now under pressure to move the walls back. Yes, we can resist, but the pressure is there.

[Bill Brightly]

Can someone tell me why this does not make sense:

Why would the golf companies fight a rollback in the ball? Especially if the ball manufacturers were encouraged to be part of the specification-writing process. Wouldn't they sell the same amount of golf balls?

And if they made the old balata ball the standard, wouldn't they sell MORE balls because they cut so easily?

[Dave Doxey]

I still do not understand the need to make courses longer.  Leave them alone.

Why go to that trouble and expense to change classic courses simply because a small percentage of golfers can now hit the new equipment a long way?

The vast majority of players do not hit 300+ yard drives.

Let those that do score whatever they end up scoring.  Who cares if pros shoot in the low 50s?

Score is just a number.  Par is just a number.  Why the obsession with score for a few top players?

Leave things the way they are and the large majority of golfers will not be affected.

Messing with course distance & design will never undo the changes in equipment with top players.  It may, however, reduce enjoyment by average players and drive them away.

I'd love to play the great courses, knowing that they are still the same courses that the greats of the past played.  I can't do that.  Even the Old Course has been changed.   I could care less what pros score on these courses.  If they miss out on being able to appreciate the work of the great architects, it's their loss, not mine.

As for equipment rollbacks, I simply don't care.  I expect that it would hurt me more than the pros. Again, I don't care what number pros end up with. 

[JMEvensky]

Can someone tell me why this does not make sense:

Why would the golf companies fight a rollback in the ball? Especially if the ball manufacturers were encouraged to be part of the specification-writing process. Wouldn't they sell the same amount of golf balls?

And if they made the old balata ball the standard, wouldn't they sell MORE balls because they cut so easily?

Except for the manufactures' ability to claim "new and improved", I'm with you. Maybe they figure they can more easily differentiate themselves with multi-layer balls.

Plus,it's hard to put balata and game improvement in the same sentence.

The manufacturers have promulgated the myth that we can buy a golf game--and there's no bigger schmuck than a golfer with a credit card.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm sorry, playing an NXT Tour or a Pro V1 certainly does improve the game over having choice between a Rock Flite and a wound Balata ball. Distance aside the current golf balls are improved in every other conceivable way over those of 25 years ago.

But by god Adam Scott doesn't hit 2-iron into the same holes that Jack Nicklaus hit 2-iron so the game is a travesty.

[JMEvensky]

Brent,the new balls certainly make the game easier for a lot of people;whether they've improved the game of golf itself is debatable.

[Brent Hutto]

They are cheaper, more durable, more consistent and available in every conceivable combination of spin, feel, trajectory and price. The entire golf ball industry is producing a product that's as superior to a 1989 golf ball as a 2014 Chevy Malibu is to its 1989 namesake.

[DMoriarty]

RussBaribault,

The reason I mentioned building back tees is because you held up Merion 2013 as an example of how the architecture doesn't have to change.   Merion did everything I mentioned in preparation for the 2013 Open, and it seems pretty obvious they'd had done more if they'd only had the room to do it.  You don't really think Hugh Wilson intended the 3rd hole to play around 280 yards, do you?  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not advocating that all the equipment be pushed back to 30 years ago.  But I would like to see changes to the distance specifications for the ball, so that we can all fit on the same courses again, and so that we can avoid the narrowing and the lengthening and the deep rough and the stupidly fast (and consequently, flatter) greens.   Because for me your solution of just tricking of the courses to make them harder bastardizes the architecture.

I know some people are really afraid they will lose some precious distance, but as MacKenzie pointed out long ago, distance is relative.   Or don't think it was fun to hit the ball 250 off the tee when everyone else was hitting it 240?   And for most people, an intelligent modification of the rule would not cost them much if any distance anyway.
____________________________________________

Dave Doxey,

It is easy to say, leave them alone, but it just isn't going to happen.  

[JMEvensky]

They are cheaper, more durable, more consistent and available in every conceivable combination of spin, feel, trajectory and price. The entire golf ball industry is producing a product that's as superior to a 1989 golf ball as a 2014 Chevy Malibu is to its 1989 namesake.

I'm not arguing the superiority of today's golf balls-- except maybe price.

I just don't necessarily agree they've improved the game of golf. It was a great game with balatas.

How do you think Pro V's have improved the game?

[jeffwarne]

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.

This site does chip away at that mindset.
 Look at the improvement in architecture in the past 15-20 years, often by participants on this site.
If a rollback can't be championed here, it can't be championed.
I believe it can.

[jeffwarne]

...
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.

+1
and every goofy setup to "protect par"
that is inevitably copied adds 30-40 minutes to every round

[jeffwarne]

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.

Here is the point in a nutshell: If someone developed a baseball that traveled 20% further in the air and that ball was put into use, it would quickly make all major league ballparks obsolete and they would have to consider moving the walls back. (Except Shea Stadium )  Of course, MLB would never allow that. The USGA and the R & A NEVER should have allowed the Pro V1, but they were scared off by the loss of the Ping lawsuit. And so all the great ODG courses are now under pressure to move the walls back. Yes, we can resist, but the pressure is there.

Elegantly put.
pretty simple really.
The amazing thing is, if there was a rollback and players played a strange course with no yardage information, they would never know the difference.

[BCowan]

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.

Russ,

My club has two players who can hit 350 in April and October when the fairways are firm. We have at least a dozen who easily hit it past 300 in the air. In case you missed my earlier post on this thread, I played from the tips (6950) last Sunday with our current club champ. He an easy 69 and did not interact with the architecture. Except for going for all of the par 5's with a long iron, he hit wedges and 9 irons to every par 4.

Here is the point in a nutshell: If someone developed a baseball that traveled 20% further in the air and that ball was put into use, it would quickly make all major league ballparks obsolete and they would have to consider moving the walls back. (Except Shea Stadium )  Of course, MLB would never allow that. The USGA and the R & A NEVER should have allowed the Pro V1, but they were scared off by the loss of the Ping lawsuit. And so all the great ODG courses are now under pressure to move the walls back. Yes, we can resist, but the pressure is there.

    Using MLB as a moral example is hilarious.  The same organization that I stopped watching due to there slap on the wrist Roids issues, 50 game suspension.  They sure loved the resurgence in numbers when the roids were flowing like candy!  However they do use wood to hit the ball with, unlike the modern day Professional golf game.  As Norman hit his old persimmons on the golf channel it carried 237 yards with the modern day ball (yes it was sea level so that is another thing).  I'm sure he gets it out there 280+ with his newer equip.  Now people are advocating going back to a ball that has to be replaced 1-3 times a round when playing well (balata).  As if the cost of golf isn't enough.  Bifurcation seems the only logical solution.  It would be great to see pro's using actual woods vs metals.  The golden age designers embraced ball busters, even for the avg golfer!  The biggest problems imho is lack of real hazards (bunkers) and flat ''green speed arms race'' greens.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

I neither support the "arms race" nor worry about it at all. There is a near-zero chance of any significant rollback in USGA golf ball specifications and if such a rollback were to take place (either by USGA or by some entity adopting a "tournament ball") there is an absolutely zero chance that it will lead to shorter golf courses being built or existing courses ceasing to be lengthened/toughened.

You guys choose to believe in a magic bullet that will undo the past 20 years of changes in the game at the stroke of a pen. Pure Utopian wishful thinking. Any club that lengthens their classic course by 250 yards next year will do so whether Tour players are hitting a Pro V1 or some rolled back ball that flies 20% shorter. To believe otherwise is ludicrous.

Brett:

Lots of rationalization, IMO. Sure sounds like you (and others here) do support the golf technology arms race.

[Bill Brightly]

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.

Russ,

Reading your post brings me back about ten years, before I joined GCA.COM and I am reminded of the saying: "you don't know what you don't know." I used to be in the camp of the "young guns" at my club and spout things like: "we have to find a way to get our greens faster and need to grow the rough, it is the course's only defense." I was thrilled with my newly acquired length off the tee (at age 48 I was finally learning how to swing; it had nothing to do with the Pro V1... ) Then I started hanging out here and learned so much about golf course architecture, until one day I found myself playing Royal Melbourne. The width of the course was stunning: I felt like I could not miss a fairway. But as I played the course I realized that while I was frequently in the fairway, I was often on the wrong side and had no real shot to the pin. The light bulb went off, and I realized the importance of width and playing angles in a superbly designed golf course. (It also occurred to me that Tom Doak HAD to have been profoundly influenced by Mackenzie.) Thick rough was not required to "punish" a golfer. Courses set up like that that are merely difficult slogs that test your ability to hit a straight tee ball and nice, high, lofted irons. Terrain means little, angles are irrelevant. Hit it far, hit it straight, and make putts. Be mindless, be mechanical, score well. It is a GREAT formula for any pro golfer. And pro bowlers, for that matter...

I played Merion the fall before the US Open and I was just sad. I saw incredibly narrow fairways lined by rough that covered my shoes, and thought: "THIS is what we need to do to our golf courses to test the best players???"

I don't love bowling, I love golf. Wisdom can be a drag...At the risk of sounding condescending, I hope your time on gca.com increases your appreciation for good design, and some day you think back on the sentiments that you expressed in this thread and laugh, as I do now at my previous opinions. Your words tell us that you are at the beginning of the journey. You joined the site, so we have hope!

[DMoriarty]

Just to be clear . . . while Bill did throw out an idea about going back to the balata ball, I don't think that many are seriously talking about requiring an undurable balata and/or old rock-flites.  At this point I think manufacturers could cut back on distance performance w/o sacrificing feel and durability.

Titleist and other manufacturers built a reduced distance ball a few years ago at the request of the USGA, and if I recall correctly the feel and durability were reportedly in line with the high end modern balls.  I think a few posters here did get a chance to play them, and maybe if they see this thread they will comment.

ADDED:  In fact Dan Herrmann is one of those who played the reduced distance ball and it is discussed in his thread on rolling back the ball, also on the first page.

[mike_beene]

How was the move from the small ball received in the R and A governed lands ? I believe that was a roll back.

[Doug Siebert]

Brent,

17/18 year old high school Seniors are hitting it farther than Nicklaus in his prime.

I've met 18-year-olds who produce more clubhead speed than Nicklaus in his prime.

How's that relevant?  They wouldn't if they were using the same 43" steel shafted wooden driver Nicklaus did, not if they wanted to hit it square and straight.  Nicklaus could have swung faster if he wanted to, and would have if he had a lighter, longer driver with a massive sweet spot.

I used to be able to gain about 30-40 yards swinging harder back in the day, though it was risky as the downside for being 1" off the sweet spot was far far worse for a wooden driver than it is for a big Ti driver.  Nowadays I can squeeze out maybe 20 yards extra, partially because I'm not as strong as I was back then, but also because my normal driver swing is probably a higher percentage of my "max" than it used to be.

If I was 17 with today's equipment, I'm sure I'd be swinging at 100% on every drive, because why not?  The driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now.  It used to be the hardest.

[Doug Siebert]

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?

That's a very interesting idea.  I suppose if its true the USGA and R&A are worried about lawsuits, waiting until the patents expire would at least mean the amount they could be sued for would be greatly reduced since all the technology they're rolling back would be in the public domain.

The risk is that a whole generation of golfers will have grown up playing this equipment, and be ill disposed to change.  Those of us who played the game before, and play it today, are at least able to see both sides, even if some don't agree that anything should be done.  I'm not sure what would happen, but I suppose if enough demand existed equipment makers would keep making the non-conforming equipment (balls or whatever)

[Tony_Muldoon]

Actually Russ, I've just noticed the thread about Painswick has reappeared near the top of the thread list. Now compare it to the hideous wrist breaking exercises which have passed for US Opens in recent years and ask yourself which one you'd rather see as a representation of golf.

Paul

Painswick is much more relavant concerning the long ball than a conversation about long rough.  While there are holes where power works at Painswick, there are just as many or more where power must be throttled back unless one is DEADLY accurate.  Painswick doesn't feature much rough, but it is as tight a golf course as I know.  But, unlike many courses where it is falsely claimed that many can lay-up in an effort to avoid trouble, Painswick is less than 5000 yards.  In effect this means a much larger percentage of golfers can lay back without fear of having to hit miraculously long and straight second shots.  In other words, Painswick is the perfect sort of course that EVERYBODY can enjoy and be challenged by. Of course, the walk is quite rough, the conditions are usually crap, its very dangerous in spots and people are everywhere.  Nowhere is perfect  

Ciao

I have been revisiting those Painswick threads and was struck by Paul Turner remarking that the 6th was one of Henry Cotton's favourites! Now Cotton LOVED hanging out with Kings and Queens and was quite the sybarite but apparently he also made time to play Painswick! Yes there are a lot more courses and they are busy chaps, but can you imagine a 3 time major winner today playing there?  Many things have changed the way golf is now, but how far the ball can fly is one of the biggest influences.

[Thomas Dai]

Actually Russ, I've just noticed the thread about Painswick has reappeared near the top of the thread list. Now compare it to the hideous wrist breaking exercises which have passed for US Opens in recent years and ask yourself which one you'd rather see as a representation of golf.

Paul
Painswick is much more relavant concerning the long ball than a conversation about long rough.  While there are holes where power works at Painswick, there are just as many or more where power must be throttled back unless one is DEADLY accurate.  Painswick doesn't feature much rough, but it is as tight a golf course as I know.  But, unlike many courses where it is falsely claimed that many can lay-up in an effort to avoid trouble, Painswick is less than 5000 yards.  In effect this means a much larger percentage of golfers can lay back without fear of having to hit miraculously long and straight second shots.  In other words, Painswick is the perfect sort of course that EVERYBODY can enjoy and be challenged by. Of course, the walk is quite rough, the conditions are usually crap, its very dangerous in spots and people are everywhere.  Nowhere is perfect  
Ciao

I have been revisiting those Painswick threads and was struck by Paul Turner remarking that the 6th was one of Henry Cotton's favourites! Now Cotton LOVED hanging out with Kings and Queens and was quite the sybarite but apparently he also made time to play Painswick! Yes there are a lot more courses and they are busy chaps, but can you imagine a 3 time major winner today playing there? Many things have changed the way golf is now, but how far the ball can fly is one of the biggest influences.

I thought it was a different Henry, Longhurst, who praised the 6th at Painswick, although HC may have visited too. Also Peter McEvoy, who I believe lives not that far away from there, is apparently on record as having praised it. Damn good hole - would have been a 'par'-3/4 once upon a time - see the recent NGLA/Redan thread.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()