Something's really, really wrong around here.

[William_G]

Jeff,

Ron Prichard wrote to the USGA about this problem 30+ years ago.

This weekend I played with a 62 year old who had sextuple by-pass surgery who hits the ball 300 yards.

So, it's not just the tour pros hitting it incredible distances.

But, back to the topic.

Rory's distance seemed to take a quantum leap this week.

WHY ?

he hit perfect high draws in great weather for golf

[Tim_Weiman]

As devils advocate this eve Tim... so they in a fairytale alternate universe as powers that be of golf, R&A, USGA, PGAs and Masters as a pilot trial require persimmon and ballata.  What are the next set of commercials for B&I you may see?  Perhaps the theme, 'you too can hit it as long as the pros with equipment legal for the average hack' (I don't know how far down the skill set you go to allow the high tech stuff).  So, we get 10-15 handicappers hitting the same 260-270 yard tee balls as the elite who are relegated to persimmon/ballata.  Then, as technology always does, improvements get the hacker actually hitting it further than the average pro distance off tee.  Pretty soon hackers get all ho-hum about the skill set of pros and elite on the distance factor and still then ask that their courses be long enough and wide enough to accommodate their longer games with high tech B&I.  Then, once a high-tech equipment player reaches a certain plateau, they want to compete in more elite events and have to re-learn the whole golf swing and dynamics to play with the regulated persimmon and ballata equipment.  

I just don't see it working out...  

Dick,

It will work out fine. The pros will find 7,000 yard courses plenty challenging and that distance will be more than sufficient for the handicap guys playing their social game.

As for the advertising lines, I don't know, but how about:
 
"persimmon and balata......the only way to find out which golfers have real skills"

Or

"persimmon and balata and real people skills"

Or

"Persimmon and balata: clubs and balls for real golfers"

Or maybe something macho:

"Persimmon and balata for men strong enough not to depend on the technology crutch".


Go ahead. Tell me I don't have a future on Madison Avenue.

[Tom ORourke]

It is not just Rory and his driver. It is almost everyone. 185 yard par 3s are now an eight iron. Bradley hit a 7 iron on that hole and flew the green. Are we in need of 250 yard par 3s so these guys can hit a 4 or 5 iron? They are teeing off on 465 yard holes with fairway woods. 135 yard sand wedges. I don't think you can build a course long enough to challenge these guys with length. This week Adam Scott averaged 314, Holmes 326, Schwartzel 307, English 319, Bradley 317, Fowler 319, Bubba 327, and Rory 335. No one is short and they just keep getting longer. I think a ball roll back is not going to be popular but is needed.

[Jim Nugent]

Several years ago, Snedeker did a one-round experiment with older equipment.  Disaster.  He was hitting lots of 230 yard drives, that squirted this way and that.  IIRC he shot around 80. 

So say the USGA, R&A and various pro tours instituted a rollback in ball and clubs.  How would that impact players who built their swings and games around the new equipment? 

[Amol Yajnik]

Clubhead speed, delivered squarely to the ball with an upward angle of attack.
All with a club/shaft/ball combination that is 100% optimized for his swing.

He always did/had that.

Rory has admitted that last year, he didn't have exactly the right setup for him in terms of driver head, shaft, and ball selection.  This year he is more dialed in on the equipment side: http://golfweek.com/news/2014/jul/18/rory-mcilroy-nike-covert-driver-video-british-open/

[Kevin_D]

Confidence. Supreme confidence. Guy is best golfer on the planet and knows it - that allows him to swing without any inhibition.

[JESII]

What happens when McIlroy has a tree hard on the right (fairly close to the tee...he cannot hit it over) that forces him to hit a cut of some sort?

[john_stiles]

I am not surprised at the distances at all.

Go to any high school tournament and there are more than a few hitting it 300 plus. Yeah, some are right or left.

Go to a college tournament and you might see half the team doing the 3-0-0 drive.

It has been going on for a while really, so no surprise really.

As the local PGA pro recruiting for a Div 1 team says,  he can help those hitting long drives way right or left, help with their short game, putting, strategy, and confidence.  It is really difficult to teach someone to hit it longer once they are 18.  

Bottomline,  they will recruit someone with a higher average score, hitting it a ton, over his shorter, better average score brother.

And if you are a football school, sponsored by adidas/taylormade, coach will have a barrel full of drivers with all the shafts, heads, etc. that you can imagine.  I imagine Nike football teams have the same barrel with their drivers.  And they have all the training software, Trackman, etc.

Many only stay at college for 2 to 3 years anymore.  You go to college and get a few things tweaked, voila !

And so it has gone for many years.

Oddly enough, mostly since 2000 or so.

And the manufacturers all employ many researchers who will find something better if only by accident.

[Jim Nelson]

A couple of thoughts:
1.  Can we all agree that the equipment is just fine for us hackers and getting better equipment enhances our enjoyment?  I think that is reasonable and good thing.  Yes, the occasional use of persimmon might be fun, hickory shafts giving a good appreciation of just how good players from another era could be.  But day in and day out?  Nope, give me my SLDR with a hot shaft and irons that give me a chance. 

2.  What about the Tour guys playing another game?  Someone mentioned earlier that they are in the 1% of golfers.  Nope, not even close.  Maybe the .001% or .0001%.  Not sure about the math but you get the idea.  I think we need to stop worrying about their game and just how good they are.  It is another game but then so is the NFL or NBA.  Every sport has players that are bigger, stronger, faster.  The difference is so are the opponents.  So as great as LeBron is, there is someone out there who is almost as good, who can give him fits on defense.  What's golf's defense?  Architecture, conditioning and weather.  We can control the first two, not the last. 

So what can we do and should we?

Architecture
I say design new courses for the masses, the 99.999% of the players.  That's what's good for the game.  If you want to stick a tee box way back there, ala Olympic #16 for the Open, then remove it, fine.  But what's good for us is not the same as being good for the PGA Tour.  There are enough courses out there that can put up a good defense, but many don't want the hassle of the tour event.  That's the Tour's problem and I see no reason why everyone should go crazy trying to defend par with design and destroy the fun for the masses.  And really, I don't care how they play in relation to par.  I just like to see some drama out there, be it 1 under or 20 under.

Conditioning
My home course in Vegas hosts one of the toughest collegiate tournaments with most of the top teams in attendance.  Most teams and individuals shoot over par.  The powers that be grow the rough, pinch in the fairways, firm up the greens and put in tough pin positions.  I don't understand why the Tour doesn't do more of this rather than listening to the whining of players talking about the tough the setup.  These kids are good and they come off the course shaking their heads.

So let's stop worrying about how the .0001% do and set up and design our courses for us.  Don't make it our problem.

[Tim Liddy]

Distance also decreases the "fun" factor. Can the average golfer even see there golf ball land 340 yards away? No enjoyment if you can not see the total flight of the shot.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Who really cares?

There will always be "a guy" who can hit it farther.
Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Norman, Daly, Tiger, Bubba, and now Rory. You still have to make putts.

Now, if they could do all that and play in 3:30 or less , then THAT would help the game.

[jeffwarne]

Who really cares?

There will always be "a guy" who can hit it farther.
Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Norman, Daly, Tiger, Bubba, and now Rory. You still have to make putts.

Now, if they could do all that and play in 3:30 or less , then THAT would help the game.

Ian,
There WILL always be a guy who hits it farther.
Good on them-no issues there.
The point is equipment is exponentially increasing distance for ALL of them(and us for that matter), to varying degrees of course.

They're NOT going to play in 3:30 or less if the courses get longer , with narrower fairways, and deeper rough to rein them in every year.
Can you not see the correlation between increased distance and pace of play?
More walking, more searching, faster greens,bigger scale-it all takes longer.

[Jon Cavalier]

Conditioning
My home course in Vegas hosts one of the toughest collegiate tournaments with most of the top teams in attendance.  Most teams and individuals shoot over par.  The powers that be grow the rough, pinch in the fairways, firm up the greens and put in tough pin positions.  I don't understand why the Tour doesn't do more of this rather than listening to the whining of players talking about the tough the setup.  These kids are good and they come off the course shaking their heads.

So let's stop worrying about how the .0001% do and set up and design our courses for us.  Don't make it our problem.

Is your home course in Vegas Southern Highlands? I ask because I played there this past March a day or two after the Collegiate Masters wrapped, and my god did that place play tough.  

[Jim Nelson]

Conditioning
My home course in Vegas hosts one of the toughest collegiate tournaments with most of the top teams in attendance.  Most teams and individuals shoot over par.  The powers that be grow the rough, pinch in the fairways, firm up the greens and put in tough pin positions.  I don't understand why the Tour doesn't do more of this rather than listening to the whining of players talking about the tough the setup.  These kids are good and they come off the course shaking their heads.

So let's stop worrying about how the .0001% do and set up and design our courses for us.  Don't make it our problem.

Is your home course in Vegas Southern Highlands? I ask because I played there this past March a day or two after the Collegiate Masters wrapped, and my god did that place play tough.  

Yes it is.  They are talking about not growing the rough so long this year because to get it that deep in March, the rough has to be left fairly long over the winter.  Not quite enough time to grow it in.  Our discussion basically was why punish the members for months just to get the rough deep for the college players.  It will be interesting to see how if they adopt that policy this year or keep it long.  Other than the rough, I think keeping the greens super firm and fast is also a good defense, as they keep almost all the pin positions in difficult places.  I walked the course and watch Cal and others go at the flags and with firm, fast greens, they had a tough time 2 putting unless they really played the course strategically. 

[jeffwarne]

A couple of thoughts:



Conditioning
My home course in Vegas hosts one of the toughest collegiate tournaments with most of the top teams in attendance.  Most teams and individuals shoot over par.  The powers that be grow the rough, pinch in the fairways, firm up the greens and put in tough pin positions.  I don't understand why the Tour doesn't do more of this rather than listening to the whining of players talking about the tough the setup.  These kids are good and they come off the course shaking their heads.

So let's stop worrying about how the .0001% do and set up and design our courses for us.  Don't make it our problem.

And if you set up the course that way, you SLOW down the game, and ruin it for who play the course leading up to the event.
Either do nothing, and let them shoot zero(which is OK)
or address the real issue- hot equipment.

Don't create another one which ruins the game for all-especially when courses copy such a setup.

[Jim Nelson]

A couple of thoughts:



Conditioning
My home course in Vegas hosts one of the toughest collegiate tournaments with most of the top teams in attendance.  Most teams and individuals shoot over par.  The powers that be grow the rough, pinch in the fairways, firm up the greens and put in tough pin positions.  I don't understand why the Tour doesn't do more of this rather than listening to the whining of players talking about the tough the setup.  These kids are good and they come off the course shaking their heads.

So let's stop worrying about how the .0001% do and set up and design our courses for us.  Don't make it our problem.

And if you set up the course that way, you SLOW down the game, and ruin it for who play the course leading up to the event.
Either do nothing, and let them shoot zero(which is OK)
or address the real issue- hot equipment.

Don't create another one which ruins the game for all-especially when courses copy such a setup.

Perhaps I didn't explain it quite right, but my opinion is that we have two real choices with the third of taking the distance out of the equipment not being one of them.  I just don't think they will, as there is too much money at stake.

1.  Get over the relationship to par.  Let the pros and high amateurs shoot low scores and get over it.  Again, I just want drama with the relationship to par not being all that important.
2.  Toughen up the existing courses for the weeks leading up to the event.  The unwashed masses will just have to suck it up until the event is over, but it is 2-4 weeks and maybe some will enjoy the challenge.  I say let the Tour deal with slow play.  It is the broadcasters and advertisers problems, not mine.  If advertising dollars decrease and purses go down, maybe the Tour will start to enforce the rules.  I think there is a general idea that what's good for the Tour is good for the game.  I would say not necessarily so. 

Again, design and refurbish courses for the 99.999%.  Let the Tour figure it out for the .0001%.  For the good of the game.

[Peter Pallotta]

What happens when McIlroy has a tree hard on the right (fairly close to the tee...he cannot hit it over) that forces him to hit a cut of some sort?

Too bad they've fallen so much out of fashion, or you could be making a very good living writing koans. 

[archie_struthers]

 

They aren't going to slow the ball down, so maybe architects have to figure another way to slow down the bombers .  It's hard but the combination of fast , small greens might  be the answer. Today at three at our home club , we are going to have some really long hitters at our level  (275 -310 ) try to bomb and gouge our old, Willie Park jr.  course to it's knees . I'm betting no one breaks par on a course that isn't rated hard and slopes at 127 from he tips where we play.  

Perhaps it's the width we love which enables the pros to decimate par these days .  Angles of attack mean little when someone can hit it super high and hold the shot .  However when you hit it in the trees it's hard to go high and hard on your second shot. Maybe we need to forget our preferences and realize that forcing players to shape the shots is our last line of defense, if protecting par is necessary .  I honestly have a chance this afternoon to shoot low gross, even if I'm about the tenth best player in a twenty man field . It's because the bombers edge is negated , and it's fun .   Go figure.

[Tim Gavrich]

Archie's post hits on the real issue here: it's far less about golf course length than about design. Firestone appears to be about as soulless and intrigue-free a course as the Tour plays. Bowling alley-straight fairways, lined with trees, with achingly conventionally bunkered, shaped and sloped green complexes. At such courses, players can turn on autopilot and make driving range-type swings all the way around for four days. Of course the ones who create great clubhead speed, like McIlroy, are going to have success.

I wonder how much of the objection to the distances the pros hit the ball comes from the fact that a large percentage of amateur players play tees that are far too long for them.

[SL_Solow]

I am not concerned about scores in relation to par.  However, if the professional game is to mean anything to the rest of us, and if current players are to be measured against history, then the game should test similar skills.

 As it is presently constituted, unless the fairways are narrowed dramatically, there is essentially no long iron play on the tour.  Put short irons in a pro's hand and he should shoot low scores.  So if we want to test them, the courses must be tricked up or stretched to lengths previously unknown.  The expense of that in maintenance, acquisition costs and slow play is obvious.

 One of the joys of the game has always been that we can play the same courses as the best.  That will disappear if we have different courses.  However, I am dubious that the equipment will be rolled back.  It remains a great game for most of us and only a few find the classics outdated.  But on the competitive level, it is far less interesting because the variety of challenges has lessened.  I don't have any problem with rewarding the long straight hitter; that is part of the essence of the game.  But the game has lost balance largely because of the equipment.  Nicklaus was the longest and straightest of his time but he needed a complete game to become the best player and a long course was less than 7200 yards.  the game was mature; the various factors dictating challenge were in balance.  We lost that.  Major league baseball could have approved metal or fiberglass bats.  It didn't (although from time to time they surreptitiously fiddle with the liveliness of the ball) and the challenges of the game remain relevant.  I suspect in  golf, once the genie has been released, it won't return to the bottle.

[Kevin_D]

And yet, when a little wind picks up at Doral, all you do is hear a bunch of whining about how "unfair" it is...

[Brent Hutto]

Where did the concept arise that golf is about "testing" the ability to hit a certain club a certain number of times per round.

Golf is about overcoming distance with accuracy so that in the fewest possible strokes the ball is moved from a tee and into a hole, separated by anywhere from 100 to 600 or more yards.

Imagine a shot from 2" of rough, up a hill, to a hole cut four paces from the edge of a firm green with the distance being 192 yards. That is a description of the "test" involved in that shot.

You guys are trying to make the into something it isn't. Golf is not hitting that 192 yard shot with a featherie ball (or a gutty ball or a balata ball) and golf is not hitting that 192 yard shot with a hickory shafted club (or a persimmon one with steel shaft or a Macgregor blade). It's about using the player's strength and skill to fairly strike a golf ball with a golf club and overcoming that distance with sufficient accuracy to hole it out a stroke or two later.

Would it be more impressive to see Bobby Jones knock a shitty, out of round, low performance golf ball with a hickory shafted, wooden club four feet from the hole than to see Rory achieve the same result with a Nike 7-iron and urethane ball? Hell yes, it would be more impressive. But only in the same sense that a shot hit into a 25mph wind is more impressive than one hit under still conditions or a putt holed to win a major is more impressive than the same putt holed on Thursday morning at the Greater Nowhere Classic. But it's all golf!

It's not that you need to forget about par. It's that you need to forget about what equipment Jack Nicklaus or Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones or Young Tom Morris played with and appreciate the athletic feats being performed every week on every Tour for what they are. They are propelling the ball consistently accurately over great distances. The skill on display is golf skill no matter whether the ball flies farther than old balls or the clubs allow missing the sweet spot without shanking, whiffing or duffing the shot.

[Mike Sweeney]

As far as I can see, 1999 is the first year anyone (John Daly) averaged over 300 yards:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.1999.html

The driving stats look pretty similar for the last 5 years or so:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2014.html

Rory seems to be some sort of Spud Webb creature right now. Combined with better fitting and dumping the girlfriend, he has an awesome coil that is amazing to watch.

Doubt anything other than the girlfriend status will change, and then maybe the swing gets screwed up...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree that we have to define tournament golf.  For the PGA Tour (and maybe some college events) we need 7400 yards plus.  Even that puts the lower 1/2 to 2/3 of the field at a disadvantage where they probably can't compete.

Hate to say it, but the easiest,  most likely solution is to nominate 50-100 courses that are or can be stretched to that length for big tourneys.  Call those TPC,  or PGA Tour courses.  Try to eliminate or downgrade the label "championship course" or reserve that for courses at 7150-7200 minimum back tees yards.

Create a new label for those courses with back tees at 6800 yards for "club courses" or some such.  label courses at max yards of 63-6500 as "players courses."  Courses under 5K can be executive (if not too sexist). Under 4K can be the bunny slopes. 

Obviously there will be some overlap based on more than just yardage.  And, some marketing needed to change the mindset of Par 72, 7000 yards (the last 4-600 of which I will never see) as the goal.  I actually think more and more players are starting to realize golf is more fun on shorter courses without the marketing, but wouldn't risk it.

For 90% of the courses in those categories, remove the back tees, add forward tees.

Short version, most of us want and need longer drivers, so that won't go away.  The real problems are the notions that every course should be one size fits all.  how popular is that in fashion?  How about restaurants where specialty places outsell general menu places?

The only problem with my approach is that there will be loss of big tourneys on many traditional courses, which might seem like a loss of continuity.  But it has been slowly happening anyway.  And, a financial or prestige loss to those old line clubs.  Not sure most of the public or players will care.  Worrying about the old line, when they are so proportionally small in number probably isn't wise.  Gotta change with the times.

Overall, designing more courses for the folks who play them (top to bottom) makes more sense than trying to retrofit so many courses for tourneys that never come.

[AKikuchi]

Overall, designing more courses for the folks who play them (top to bottom) makes more sense than trying to retrofit so many courses for tourneys that never come.

Jeff, I certainly agree with that. I'm curious though, would you say that the majority of the added length that gets implemented (either on new courses or renovations) really is due to a hope of hosting a big tourney?

I was under the impression that many courses are lengthened just to keep up with the joneses, despite having no hope (or even interest) of hosting professional tournaments.

Also, out of curiosity- what would you say would be a rough maximum length for a course with no interest in hosting a professional event?

-Alan