[Tony_Muldoon]

Tomas that would make sense but you wouldn't want to cross facts with Paul Turner!
Has anyone ever seen a article listing Henry Longhurst's eclectic 18?  I've seen a few stunning holes quotes as being a part of it.


Names can be so confusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OS17lqHiE

One of Britain's best ever exports. The now current member of The Valley Club of Montecito ruined countless television programmes in my youth.

[OChatriot]

Yes Matthew is probably right. Let's not care. After all, nobody talks of raising the net after a serie of Djokovic aces...that's because not so many do.

Throw in a bit of scottish weather and they suddenly go all defensive. Less 350yds drives and more punched 2 irons.
Shall we blame the weather? Seriously: how many of us play 99% of their time in perfect conditions? That allow you to open your shoulders and hit hard without fear? If the Tour was playing in average conditions that reflect the weather the rest of the world play all year, the statistics would be far different, the scrambling gifted players would beat the machine-types and length advantage would cease to be a definitive factor.
Thoughts?

At least the modern equipment allows us humans to hit some jaw dropping shots once in a while, and it is fun!

[RussBaribault]

First and foremost, this idea that 350 or even 300 yard drives are a problem (due to better golf balls) is such utter nonsense to start. There are so few golfers who actually hit the ball 300 yards let alone 350. Besides the tour pros (PGA, Web.com, etc.) and college golfers it may be .5% of all golfers who can actually hit the ball 300 yards. I am reading here, ONE or TWO guys at my club can do it. So this makes perfect sense, we need major rule changes to golf because of a few individuals who can actually do it. Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, when people spout this 300-350 yard drive stuff, it’s really flying the ball 270 and if its straight and if they get some roll it gets out too 300. I am willing to bet not one person here has actually seen a 350 yard under normal conditions by a golfer on a course. The REMAX Long driver pro’s are hitting them 350 (maybe 400) in competition.  A very good friend of mine owns a range (very busy on the Philadelphia Main Line) and he watches thousands of golfers. His range ends at 280, yesterday he said maybe he see’s 1 or 2 guys in a season that clear his range. Where you will not get an argument, from me, does the golf ball allow guys, who are playing strategic golf to hit a hybrid instead of a driver? Yes. Guys, I understand where you are all coming from about appreciating the great classic courses and playing them the way they were designed, use old equipment. I don’t want to change any of the classic/great course either. If they are really great, they will be great no matter what the equipment. That is what makes them great.  Today, the new courses are rightfully built with many tee set-ups to accommodate the average golf who is just as bad today as he was 20-30 years ago and the better golfers who do hit the ball further. The idea of reduced flight golf balls by rule changes in golf IS SO BAD. I have no problem with the USGA suggesting that golf ball companies make reduced flight balls. Let’s see how they do in the marketplace. The GCAers can play them if they like.

[jeffwarne]

First and foremost, this idea that 350 or even 300 yard drives are a problem (due to better golf balls) is such utter nonsense to start. There are so few golfers who actually hit the ball 300 yards let alone 350. Besides the tour pros (PGA, Web.com, etc.) and college golfers it may be .5% of all golfers who can actually hit the ball 300 yards. I am reading here, ONE or TWO guys at my club can do it. So this makes perfect sense, we need major rule changes to golf because of a few individuals who can actually do it. Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, when people spout this 300-350 yard drive stuff, it’s really flying the ball 270 and if its straight and if they get some roll it gets out too 300. I am willing to bet not one person here has actually seen a 350 yard under normal conditions by a golfer on a course. The REMAX Long driver pro’s are hitting them 350 (maybe 400) in competition.  A very good friend of mine owns a range (very busy on the Philadelphia Main Line) and he watches thousands of golfers. His range ends at 280, yesterday he said maybe he see’s 1 or 2 guys in a season that clear his range. Where you will not get an argument, from me, does the golf ball allow guys, who are playing strategic golf to hit a hybrid instead of a driver? Yes. Guys, I understand where you are all coming from about appreciating the great classic courses and playing them the way they were designed, use old equipment. I don’t want to change any of the classic/great course either. If they are really great, they will be great no matter what the equipment. That is what makes them great.  Today, the new courses are rightfully built with many tee set-ups to accommodate the average golf who is just as bad today as he was 20-30 years ago and the better golfers who do hit the ball further. The idea of reduced flight golf balls by rule changes in golf IS SO BAD. I have no problem with the USGA suggesting that golf ball companies make reduced flight balls. Let’s see how they do in the marketplace. The GCAers can play them if they like.

so the 4500 yard course of 1900 should not have been altered?
Every year certain great courses are either rendered antiques and are not considered for major events, or they are altered.
Myopia is the word that came to mind when I read your post, for more reassons than one
Merion was abandoned for 30+ years, then bastardized, the used for what was called a "boutique Open"
Not a lot of courses looking for that label-dispite the fact I thought it was a fantastic open
Erin Hills, Chambers Bay, Kiawah and Trump National NJ are the future for US Championship golf.
That is incredibly bleak to me, but perhaps I'm the one with my head in the sand.

[Paul Gray]

Russ,

Would you like to see a golf tournament played at Sunningdale? Do you think it would beneficial if golfers saw pros playing such courses? Would it be better or worse if the Ryder Cup could be held on the Kings Course at Gleneagles, rather than the Nicklaus monstrosity?

[jeffwarne]

Russ,

Would ypou like to see a golf tournament played at Sunningdale? Do you think it would beneficial if golfers saw pros playing such courses? Would it be better or worse if the Ryder Cup could be held on the Kings Course at Gleneagles, rather than the Nicklaus monstrosity?

again so much more eloquent than I could type

[RussBaribault]

Are we talking about average golfers or Tour Professionals and 350 yard drives? Yes, I think it would be great if there was an event at Sunningdale. Is there a fear the Pro’s would make the course look obsolete? I just checked and Nick Faldo holds the course record at 62. He was never a long hitter so makes your point mute, does it not? I think the average golfers still would enjoy the course as intended. I am not sure how open the club would be to hosting an event.

[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.

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

Jeff--

I am sure there've been, broadly, not-insignificant changes to "average" PGA Tour course setups over the years. 1) Longer rough, 2) narrower fairways and 3) faster greens, right? What are the acceptable limits of those aspects of course setup, in your opinion? Which regular PGA Tour events regularly transgress them?

In my recollection, the 6,844-yard (I was wrong, the course has gotten only 24 yards longer since 1991) TPC River Highlands has never been publicly accused of giving the players an excessively hard setup. Recently, the reason for this has been that it comes the week after the U.S. Open, so those who play in both events aren't typically subjected to crazy setups two days in a row.

Also, courses that will never host a PGA Tour (or similar level) event that go out of their way to copy those setups don't have the golf ball to blame. They should blame the insecurity of their members, whose pride is wounded by the razor-thin proportion of golfers who hit the ball very, very far (the dumbest thing of all is that most of those extra-long hitters are too young and therefore likely not rich enough to belong to the club). If they want to change their golf courses in order to neuter the abilities of .3-.5% of the people who play the course, they have probably wrought other havoc on the course anyway--havoc unrelated to the increased distance capacity of the golf ball and driver.

[RussBaribault]

Myopia hasn’t hosted a US Open since 1908 and even Chicago Golf Club since 1911. Where they too short in 1940? Ask the USGA why they have not been back in over 100 years. Merion bastardized? How? Because they added 400 yards to the course basically on a few holes and narrowed the fairways? It’s the US Open, it supposed to be the toughest test in golf. It held up great. We should be in disgust because the course was different from Bobby Jones victory in 1930 or Olin Dutra’s 1934 victory? BYW, The average Merion member who brings his three guests to enjoy a day, is not playing the US Open setup anyway. The course has made the fairways wider again and essentially back to playing the same course it was easrly in the 20th Century.

[BCowan]

I recall Scott Hoch saying in the mid to late 90's that the courses were being set up to easy.  Purposely for high scoring, lower rough was one of his points.  Of course one of you will mention a tourney that had high rough as your gotcha moment.  

Russ,

   Keep them coming, don't fear for having an opinion that goes against Allowable opinion.  
PS- As a Faldo fan growing up he was one of the longest on tour, then gave up considerable distance when he started working with lead in an attempt to be a better ball striker.  

[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?

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)

The players growing up using belly putters are ill disposed to change that too. That doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Garland Bayley]

Myopia ...

Mind if we call you Myopia Baribault from now on?

[Garland Bayley]

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.

Alister MacKenzie disagrees with you. He feels the better you are able to take advantage of the workability of a workable ball, the more skilled at golf you are. He does not think that providing balls that monstrously strong people can hit miles and miles is an indication of golf skill.

It would be a good time to revisit The Spirit of St. Andrews by Dr. Mac.

[Garland Bayley]

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

Earlier poster said nobody really noticed.

[DMoriarty]

Russ,  On the on hand you are saying there is no problem, but on the other hand you are suggesting that old classic courses should combat increased distance by narrowing fairways, growing rough, and increasing green speeds.  That seems a problem to me, and I don't think you can have it both ways.

All sports control their equipment rule, why should golf be any different?  

[Garland Bayley]

...

I am sure there've been, broadly, not-insignificant changes to "average" PGA Tour course setups over the years. 1) Longer rough, 2) narrower fairways and 3) faster greens, right? What are the acceptable limits of those aspects of course setup, in your opinion? Which regular PGA Tour events regularly transgress them?...

Tim,

The thing you keep overlooking is the advent of tucked pins that came with the longer ball and wedge approaches.

[Jason Thurman]

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.

Well of course it's unrealistic. Do you seriously think golfers want their course lengthened and toughened because the ball keeps going farther? That's like suggesting men want their (CENSORED: NOT SAFE FOR WORK) to be bigger because their bottom chick's (CENSORED: NOT SAFE FOR WORK) keeps getting bigger.

Club members wanted their course to be the longest and toughest long before the advent of steel shafts, cavity backs, metalwoods, titanium drivers, and Pro V1s.

[RussBaribault]

My comment was that if the GCAers thought golfers were hitting the ball to far a remedy could be to grow the rough, narrow fairways (where the long hitters are driving the ball not the average golfer) and speed up the greens. I never advocated changing classic courses or making them longer. Besides the setup of those sorts of things are left up to the greens committees and superintendent. I also said that if GCAers don’t like what is happening, great. Keep playing your Persimmon woods and Hogan irons. You can show up at NGLA, Chicago GC, or any course of the like and enjoy golf as you want. The argument being made is like the gun control nuts. One wack job kills someone with a gun and we have to ban guns for everyone?  You’re trying to stop technological development of equipment and that is never going to happen. Putting rules in place for one guy in 500 who might be able to hit a 300 yard drive is so dumb. Also, as far as Alister MacKenzie and the workability of golf balls, I assume you have a set of blade irons in your bag and not the more forgiving cavity backs so you can work your golf shots?

[JMEvensky]

My comment was that if the GCAers thought golfers were hitting the ball to far a remedy could be to grow the rough, narrow fairways (where the long hitters are driving the ball not the average golfer) and speed up the greens. I never advocated changing classic courses or making them longer. Besides the setup of those sorts of things are left up to the greens committees and superintendent. I also said that if GCAers don’t like what is happening, great. Keep playing your Persimmon woods and Hogan irons. You can show up at NGLA, Chicago GC, or any course of the like and enjoy golf as you want. The argument being made is like the gun control nuts. One wack job kills someone with a gun and we have to ban guns for everyone?  You’re trying to stop technological development of equipment and that is never going to happen. Putting rules in place for one guy in 500 who might be able to hit a 300 yard drive is so dumb. Also, as far as Alister MacKenzie and the workability of golf balls, I assume you have a set of blade irons in your bag and not the more forgiving cavity backs so you can work your golf shots?

Is the golfwrx website down today?

[RussBaribault]

That's cool...talk down to me like I don't know what i am talking about....I am sorry my opinion and points differ to where you need to make a comment like that. I really would like to see what's in your golf bags? If I see ProV1's, a modern driver and cavity back irons it would make for a bunch of hypocrites.

[Garland Bayley]

My comment was that if the GCAers thought golfers were hitting the ball to far a remedy could be to grow the rough, narrow fairways (where the long hitters are driving the ball not the average golfer) and speed up the greens. I never advocated changing classic courses or making them longer. Besides the setup of those sorts of things are left up to the greens committees and superintendent. I also said that if GCAers don’t like what is happening, great. Keep playing your Persimmon woods and Hogan irons. You can show up at NGLA, Chicago GC, or any course of the like and enjoy golf as you want. The argument being made is like the gun control nuts. One wack job kills someone with a gun and we have to ban guns for everyone?  You’re trying to stop technological development of equipment and that is never going to happen. Putting rules in place for one guy in 500 who might be able to hit a 300 yard drive is so dumb. Also, as far as Alister MacKenzie and the workability of golf balls, I assume you have a set of blade irons in your bag and not the more forgiving cavity backs so you can work your golf shots?

Myopia,

Why do you think average golfers and long hitters are mutually exclusive? Also, why would you want to grow rough where your average golfers are hitting their second and third shots. You seem to know little about aspects of desireable golf architecture that have come down to us from the great architects of history. That is why people here think you belong on golfwrx.

Why do you think cavity back iron don't work golf shots? Is not the ball worked by having an angled clubface at impact? Do cavity back irons square the clubface? Now that would be an invention that would actually help the average golfer, but I doubt it would pass muster with the rule making bodies. Taking the spin out of the ball reduces workability.

[jeffwarne]

My comment was that if the GCAers thought golfers were hitting the ball to far a remedy could be to grow the rough, narrow fairways (where the long hitters are driving the ball not the average golfer) and speed up the greens. I never advocated changing classic courses or making them longer.

So, rather than put in a few tees that would ONLY affect the play of those who would choose to use them,
you would advocate ruining the course for everyone with torturous strategy reducing setups

Nobody's saying the courses are too easy, just trying to avoid the very knee-jerk reactions you suggest.

and I play a modern driver and ball as I still attempt to compete (attempt being the operative word )

[jeffwarne]

Are we talking about average golfers or Tour Professionals and 350 yard drives? Yes, I think it would be great if there was an event at Sunningdale. Is there a fear the Pro’s would make the course look obsolete? I just checked and Nick Faldo holds the course record at 62. He was never a long hitter so makes your point mute, does it not? I think the average golfers still would enjoy the course as intended. I am not sure how open the club would be to hosting an event.

Final Open Championship qualifying is being there this year

[RussBaribault]

I am so sorry I don’t seem to tow the group think mentality or my opinion can’t be correct. Where I sit, I think you guys are dead wrong. I appreciate golf and golf architecture just as much as you, yet I have to go to this WRX site because I don’t agree that 350 or even 300 yard drives are a problem and we don’t need more rules and regs. I am not the one advocating changes, you guys want to change the golf balls back to a bygone era or make rules to do so.  I am not even advocating changing any of the courses, I merely made it a suggestion if one were to think these long drives were a problem to slightly alter the course set-up. Which if you read any of my post; I don’t think long drives or golf modern golf balls are an issue to worry about considering the state of the game. I don't need a lecture that golf is in worse shape now better technology in golf equipment (as previously argued) becuase that is utter nonsense too.

[DMoriarty]

Okay, Russ.  You win.  Everything everyone else thinks is "utter nonsense" and you've got it all figured out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()