-30 is Good! Can we get comfortable with that?

[Peter Pallotta]

The Golf Preacher stands in front of his congregation and says:

Brothers and sisters. Brothers and sister - listen to me now. There IS no problem, do you hear? There is NO problem and there is no PROBLEM -- no there isn't, EXCEPT for the one that we see in the MIRROR every single DAY. You see what I'm telling you? The problem is YOU and ME! That's right. That's right. It's not with THE MAN.
It's not with the RICH. It's not even with
the ELITE, the best of the best. THEY don't have the problem - WE do. And why is that? Now, I'm telling you the TRUTH here, and the truth is going to HURT a little bit - but like that bitter medicine that dear old mama used to give, it's going to
make us all right. It's going to do us just fine. And what's that truth? I'm here to tell you -- we've become, you and me both, we've become GRUMBLERS. Hmm hmmm. Yes. We've become COMPLAINERS - yes we have, you know it now. We're plain old fashioned
MALCONTENTS. Now is that the truth, or
is that the truth? You see what I'm saying? We're feeling really SORRY for ourselves. We're having an old fashioned PITY PARTY - hmm, 'Oh what is happening to our GAME?' That's what we're saying. 'Now this wasn't golf when I was a boy --
 no, now THAT was golf, right and proper'. Well, now listen to me friends, I'm a lot OLDER than a lot of you folks - I mean, in golfing terms of Methuselah old -- and I'm telling you: golf was NEVER that way. That's right, and don't be calling me a liar now, because I was THERE. I was walking the fairways when Moses was still in DIAPERS. Yes - and GOLF was never THAT. No, sir. No, ma'am. The problem is with US. And here's what we do: instead of CELEBRATING, we spend our time DENIGRATING. Instead of IDOLIZING, we get all caught up in DEMONIZING. Instead of PLAYING we waste ourselves in BRAYING. That's the truth, that's the truth. Can I hear a 'FORE' here? Instead of STRIVING we're DECRYING, and instead of PARTICIPATING we're CAPITULATING. That's right, brothers and sisters. And shame on us for that, don't you think? SHAME on us for that. May old Bobby Jones forgive us, and may we recognize: there is no problem, except for the ones we CHOOSE to make for ourselves.

[jeffwarne]

The reality is, we can have what Dave pines for, and you can do it for free on any course

When the pros come to town, Carnoustie-ize the course by letting the fairways grow into rough and only mow narrow ribbon-like bowling alleys for fairways....then no one will be shooting those crazy low scores, much less day in and day out.

No extra length needed...

Which is a horrifically wrong (and common)respose to an equipment problem that too many courses follow and keep.
Sure the scores for pros may stay the same but the game changes for the worse and play speed grinds to a halt.

Jeff,


Do you really see this as an equipment problem? My impression is that a large number of your clients probably benefit, in some way, from the steady improvement of equipment and technology without causing any threat to the enjoyment of the game. I see this as a decision maker problem...

Jim,
The game I grew up with was addictive.
Was it harder? Perhaps there were more skied and topped shots. Isn't that all relative?
People have quit playing in every era due to frustration-today is no different.


Somewhere along the line courses got way harder(hazards and deep rough and native everywhere) and recently way bigger. Narrowing a course doesn't stop people from hitting it sideways and changes (ruins)
the game.


We ALL want to compare our games to experts.
Modern equipment exaggerates those differences and results in courses where the scale is massive and there end up being multiple tees and misguided ways to protect par and be all things to all people.
the alternative is of courses that play exceedingly short for experts so all kinds of goofy ways are invented to "protect par"
I honestly would not have a problem super low scores or added power if equipment (at least for experts) had remained relatively static over the years and it was simply a result of more athleticism and more more talent. (which there most certainly is)
Augusta as a tournament course is one of the few places that pulled it off as the scale of the place is so big anyway. Hardly the model for the rest of the world to follow.
What I hate is that equipment has ANNUALLY become a key part of any top players success and preparation.This of course trickles down to the average golfer-some of whom can afford it-some not.
Calling Merion a "boutique" course should've been the wakeup call  (again) to the world that the courses don't need to change scale, simply the equipment regulated/reversed as every other sport does.
Would more people watch baseball if the ball went 400 yards-not feet? (think of the injuries)


The problem is otherwise rational average players are addicted to the "long ball" without recognizing that in 2 weeks they wouldn't even notice-much like playing on 40 degree soft day-one adapts.


I don't expect most to support my view but I'd say those who truly love the game should think of where it's been, where it is, and where it's going.


Where would golf and courses be without Tom Doak who was certainly a voice in the wilderness on the God awful mainstream architecture in 1988?

[BCrosby]

"... Well, now listen to me friends, I'm a lot OLDER than a lot of you folks - I mean, in golfing terms of Methuselah old -- and I'm telling you: golf was NEVER that way. That's right, and don't be calling me a liar now, because I was THERE. I was walking the fairways when Moses was still in DIAPERS. Yes - and GOLF was never THAT. No, sir. No, ma'am. The problem is with US. And here's what we do: instead of CELEBRATING, we spend our time DENIGRATING. Instead of IDOLIZING, we get all caught up in DEMONIZING. Instead of PLAYING we waste ourselves in BRAYING. That's the truth, that's the truth. Can I hear a 'FORE'..."

FORE!!!

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

 
May the spirit of Bobby Jones' original Big Bertha driver guide your path, and the wisdom of Gene Sarazen's first sand wedge be a light onto your feet, and may the power of a young Jack Nicklaus to outdrive everyone inspire you to make your peace with the game...

[JESII]

Jeff,


I think I grew up a decade or more after you (41) and it was addictive then as well. I know dozens of kids, 10 and 20 years younger than me, addicted to the game today. It's an addictive game.


How did any of the USGA's actions in the 50's and 60's effect your addiction? Probably about as much as mine...not at all.


Wherever you grew up, that local culture is what created and fed your passion for the game. That's what's been lost in these conversations. Growth and decline of golf is all local.

[Peter Pallotta]

I understand other potential approaches/POVs on this, but the more I read this thread the more I think this:


That the sooner we can do our part in decriminalizing the low scores shot by tour pros (on both classic and modern courses) the sooner will we be freeing committee members and developers from the pressures of trying to fulfill the law that
says great architecture shouldn't yield low scores

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


I think I grew up a decade or more after you (41) and it was addictive then as well. I know dozens of kids, 10 and 20 years younger than me, addicted to the game today. It's an addictive game.


How did any of the USGA's actions in the 50's and 60's effect your addiction? Probably about as much as mine...not at all.


Wherever you grew up, that local culture is what created and fed your passion for the game. That's what's been lost in these conversations. Growth and decline of golf is all local.

agreed
and it was the 70's


The USGA had less to regulate then though they did go after straddle putting and the Polara


Yes the game is/was addictive but I'd say certain things have made it less addictive for a kid-the scale for one-try walking a modern course and carrying as a 10 year old


My point is the smaller the scale(i.e. samller equipment), the longer we can keep the old subtle courses relevant and therefore intact.

[JESII]

For full disclosure, I used 50's and 60's as the era/decisions that would have preceded your introduction to the game. Honest!!!


On the rest...I agree. There may be environmental laws that dictate some of the poor walking courses...but the rest are based on the chase for yardage to protect par in my view. In my ideal, there's no longer a chase for 7,200 then 7,500 now 7,800 yards...


Ideal being the key word, I know.


Thanks!




Peter, yes. Decriminalization. Imagine if it were so.

[Doug Siebert]

I would allow for:

No-cut balls. 

Today's grips

Metal woods, but no larger than the original Pittsburg Persimmon sizes.  (But honestly, who would play these hideous clubs if not for then performance - the wood woods are SOOOOOO much prettier! )

Hybrids, but nothing bigger than those Adams peanut hybrids.

Today's shoes.

Gore Tex

I would ban leather bags for the sake of caddies everywhere.

And I would ban anything but muscle back forged blade irons. 

The USGA geniuses outlaw a putter that Old Tom would have had orgasms over, but they allow all these cavity backed monstrosity tennis rackets?  GMAFB.  No iron bigger than whatever Jack used to beat Arnie.  Period.

And I would ban graphite.

This is pretty much the way I look at it. New technology in golf used to be primarily about making equipment cheaper and/or more consistent.

Look at balls: featherie -> guttie -> rubber core -> surlyn wound -> surlyn two piece. Each step produced a ball that was cheaper to make, more durable, and had a more consistent result (in terms of less random behavior due to not being round or being weighted off center)

Look at irons: handmade with hickory shafts -> mass produced forged heads with hickory shafts -> forged heads with steel shafts -> cast heads with steel shafts. Same deal, each generation is cheaper, more durable and produces more consistent results.

Look at woods: handmade wooden heads with hickory shafts -> mass produced wooden heads with hickory shafts -> wooden heads with steel shafts -> metal heads with steel shafts. Again, same as above.

At some point in the 80s the equipment manufacturers went away from this, and started making equipment that cost more and promised improved results (and more important for them, a lot more revenue) Graphite shafts made woods cost more but led to faster swing speeds due to longer clubs. Questionable benefit for average players but allows good players to hit further. Titanium heads made drivers cost even more again but made the driver to easiest club in the bag to hit - a benefit to average players but even more of a benefit to good players who no longer had any reason to hold back on tee shots. Multilayer balls cost more but led to improved performance by reducing spin off the tee while maintaining it on shorter shots. Did little for average players but completely changed the game for good golfers (it made a huge difference for me, a mid single digit handicap, so you don't need to be a pro by any means for this to matter)

All those things that made golf a more expensive game to play - with woods costing more and balls costing more, and golf costing more (because courses became bigger) These "improvements" were unnecessary and not in keeping with the spirit of the technological advances of the past. I'm not denying that steel shafted clubs hit the ball further than hickory, or that rubber core balls went further than gutties. Of course they did, past technology changed the game as well. But at least those improvements gave us something else besides just "longer" or "easier".

Golf would be a better game if we still had the same technology we had in 1985. None of the improvements since then have made golf a better game. They've made it more expensive for everyone, made it easier for good golfers, and provided the illusion of easier (other than hitting a driver, where it really is a lot easier) for bad golfers.

[JESII]

How do you think the old dead guys would react if they arrived today and realized exactly that? Think they would strive for a course that would make Jordan Spieth work hard to shoot even par?


If you played a good amateur tournament at Kapalua, what wins? 10 under par?


How about you when you were playing a lot. You'd have been in what, the 99 percentile of all golfers...think you would have broken par in a 72 hole event there?

I think they'd quickly realize that the architecture is just fine and that it's the clubs and balls and maintenance practices that are creating the.  The clubs are tennis rackets.

I agree...and so for their job, their responsibility, they would design courses as they did then.

[John Kavanaugh]

And PXG irons are cavity backs with a flubber injection.

[Colin Macqueen]

Ranters to the FORE!


Cheers Colin

[Don Jordan]

It comes down to whether or not a course can be a good challenge for a pro and an average player (from the same set of tees)? I think it used to be the case that it could but with the improvements in the ball, coaching and fitness standards that disproportionally favour the full time amateur and professional it is no longer the case.

[Sean_A]

Jeff,


I think I grew up a decade or more after you (41) and it was addictive then as well. I know dozens of kids, 10 and 20 years younger than me, addicted to the game today. It's an addictive game.


How did any of the USGA's actions in the 50's and 60's effect your addiction? Probably about as much as mine...not at all.


Wherever you grew up, that local culture is what created and fed your passion for the game. That's what's been lost in these conversations. Growth and decline of golf is all local.

agreed
and it was the 70's


The USGA had less to regulate then though they did go after straddle putting and the Polara


Yes the game is/was addictive but I'd say certain things have made it less addictive for a kid-the scale for one-try walking a modern course and carrying as a 10 year old


My point is the smaller the scale(i.e. samller equipment), the longer we can keep the old subtle courses relevant and therefore intact.

Jeff


If your argument is really about keeping Merion relevant to the pros while still being set-up sensibly for members....why is it you don't advocate bifurcation?  I think that has more truck than any notion of stripping back technology to a degree which would in anyway be meaningful.  Its quite clear golfers love their high tech.  Its also quite clear historic championship hosting clubs will continue to do what is "necessary" to host majors. The USGA and R&A obviously feel the crunch where protecting par is concerned...at least for the storied venues.  The USGA doesn't seem to mind too much about guys going low on newer courses...or at least that is my take.  So...why hasn't...or why won't the USGA properly consider bifurcation? 


All that said...I don't believe you solely worry about the relevance of historic clubs.  You seem to take the position that you want the courses shorter for all, but golfers with less fire power.  I don't mind that approach too much if clubs have first taken steps to make courses more playable by cutting back trees and rough and cutting down the water and feed to create firmer conditions  This approach hasn't been properly explored as of yet. Courses first need to change before golfers agree to giving up their fire power (though I honestly beleive there will never be a meaningful roll back).  In other words, decision makers need to consider who their market is and create courses in line with their level of play and keeping in mind that 3.5 hours should be the goal to get a walking 4ball around.


Just saying the solution is rollback is like saying the solution to my money problems is winning the lottery.  Its way too simplistic and unlikely.


Ciao


 


 

[Doug Siebert]

Doug:  agreed. But you still gotta go back to the early 60s to get rid of the cavity backs.  That was the start of the real problem.  Cavity backs are not golf clubs.  They're tennis rackets.

I wouldn't have an issue with that, but I don't think it is necessary. Cavity backs are more of a benefit for poorer players than good ones. Most pros use cavity backs now but that's mostly because that's what they grew up playing and became used to.

The main technological trend that benefited the game was switching from forged to cast, which reduced manufacturing cost. Cavity backs followed later, since there was now no cost difference versus a standard blade. The fact they could have made cavity backs when irons were forged, but didn't, is pretty interesting - such irons would have cost a lot more, and at the time they probably weren't sure the poorer golfers who would benefit from such clubs would be willing to pay more.

If only that were true...the last 30 years of advances would never have happened!!

[David_Tepper]

"Most pros use cavity backs now"


Doug S. -

Are you sure about that? There are still plenty of pros playing forged blades these days. And there are a sizable number playing forged irons that are a cross between a blade and a cavity back.

Hogan was probably the first to attempt a more forgiving forged blade, with the Directors irons (slightly longer blade & a wider sole) in the early 1980's. Then came the perimeter-weighted Edge irons.

DT 

[Tom_Doak]

If your argument is really about keeping Merion relevant to the pros while still being set-up sensibly for members....why is it you don't advocate bifurcation?

Bifurcation would be great, but it's not the ruling bodies who are against it, as much as the manufacturers.


The manufacturers sell $$$$$ of equipment by getting golfers to believe they are using the same stuff their favorite pro uses, and dreaming that it will get them to shoot 30 under, too.  And the manufacturers pay the pros' salaries, so if the manufacturers are against bifurcation, the pros have to be against it, too.  So the only governing body that we need to bifurcate -- the PGA Tour -- is the one body LEAST likely to make the change.


Bifurcation worked just fine in the 50's, 60's and 70's, when everyone in the UK played a different ball.  But you can't change the ball for the masses if the equipment companies won't make a different spec.

[Sean_A]

If your argument is really about keeping Merion relevant to the pros while still being set-up sensibly for members....why is it you don't advocate bifurcation?

Bifurcation would be great, but it's not the ruling bodies who are against it, as much as the manufacturers.


The manufacturers sell $$$$$ of equipment by getting golfers to believe they are using the same stuff their favorite pro uses, and dreaming that it will get them to shoot 30 under, too.  And the manufacturers pay the pros' salaries, so if the manufacturers are against bifurcation, the pros have to be against it, too.  So the only governing body that we need to bifurcate -- the PGA Tour -- is the one body LEAST likely to make the change.


Bifurcation worked just fine in the 50's, 60's and 70's, when everyone in the UK played a different ball.  But you can't change the ball for the masses if the equipment companies won't make a different spec.

Tom


I would bet dimes to dollars that the USGA could find a firm to manufacture equipment to a certain spec.  Its done now...just not to the spec purists want.  I am also sure manufacturing companies can find other ways to sell their products other than feeding the line that its what your favourite pro uses.  We all know clubs are set up to the person...so what they hit is not really what anybody else hits.  These guys are smart...they can sell practically the same driver repackaged as three models in one year.  In any case, the USGA is not in bed with the manufacturers....I never believed so anyway. 


Ciao   

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
Good posts.
You said what I meant for the most part.
Bifurcation is perfectly fine with me.
The tricky part would be where to draw the line, but as you said. no solution would be simple, but then things that are easy usually aren't worth having anyway.


I'd love to see your maintenance ideas implemented as well, and in my opinion, the "rantings" of those on this board, Geoff Shackelford, and a few others HAVE made a difference with the ruling bodies and SOME of the golf public(see Pinehurst, Chambers Bay-neither perfect but a step)


and as you point out bifurcation already exists-certainly with grooves until 2024.
Additionally, that driver you buy is nothing like the driver the pro is playing, except ironically his is a lot better-bifurcation would take it the other way


The USGA is not "in" bed with the manufacturers, they're under the bed-as in hiding in fear of them due to the PING fiasco.Ironically, this "purist" suffered most when my USGA grandfathered Eye 2 wedge of 25 years was finally eliminated by the "condition of competition".
It wasn't the grooves that I loved, but the grind and variable bounce I've yet to see replictaed, even by an Eye 2 PING copy.


I've never considered myself that much of a purist, I'd have no problem with waffle sized clubs, fancy wedges, or anchored putters as long as the ball/equipment was engineered to reduce/restore the scale of the game-thus reducing cost and time to play.(also along with the common sense maintenance ideas you advocate)
Honestly, I could even live reducing the scale to 1920's size to save more acreage and hiking.
A course tipping out at 6500-6900 yards that a long(Nicklaus/Woods) expert hit it 285,Touring pros hit it 260, I hit it 240, and the average guy played at 5800-6300-perfect.
If maintenance went a bit leaner, drives might even go further via ground game, but the ball would be less likely to fly 280 into someone's house, allowing smaller corridors to be safe.


As far as my money problems-don't throw cold water on my lottery idea

[Dave Doxey]

 I'm with Tom. Manufacturers buy the advertising that pays the bills on the tour. The Tour won't mess with that cash cow.
 
As for the USGA, I don't understand why the USGA would want to 'find a firm to manufacture equipment'. Who would they get to use it?  The best that they could do would be to force different equipment in the couple of big name USGA events and that would be suicidal.  In addition, manufacturers have lawyers who could cost the USGA some serious cash, win or lose a suit on equipment rollback.  The Ping episode illustrates that.
 
Rollback isn't gong to happen.  We'll be lucky if further new developments are controlled to any extent.  Soon we'll see range-finders in pro competition, and all sorts of on-course electronic swing analysis gadgets used by the regular choppers.  That in addition to continued progress by club and ball makers in working around the current definitions of limitations. (Not even ready to think about the "large hole" cuckoos & the like.)

[jeffwarne]

Rollback isn't gong to happen.  We'll be lucky if further new developments are controlled to any extent.  Soon we'll see range-finders in pro competition, and all sorts of on-course electronic swing analysis gadgets used by the regular choppers.  That in addition to continued progress by club and ball makers in working around the current definitions of limitations. (Not even ready to think about the "large hole" cuckoos & the like.)

Well that's a bleak outlook, though may well be accurate.
I'm all for the rangefinder thing if I can watch and listen to less "Bones and Michelson" coversations between player and caddie that for some reason the networks feast on


Why would I support a rangefinder?
I used to think they slowed the game,, but they've gotten so good and they merely provide the same information player and caddie are eventually going to get to anyway-only generally faster in the right hands.

[Dave Doxey]

The reason that we'll see rangefinders on tour has nothing to do with their value to pros - pros have the yardages already.  Manufactures want to show players using their rangefinders, and will buy advertising time from the Tour.


As for their use in club play, I'm ambivalent, although I did enjoy watching  two playing partners discuss why their range finders showed a 5 yard discrepancy  at about 170 yds, while I knew that that neither could come within 50 yards of the green. 


I'm not sold on the idea that they speed up play.  I've watched too many players dig thru their bag to get the rangefinder, take it out of its case, determine that the distance is 150 yards, put it back in the case, put the case back in the bag, hit the ball 70 yards, repeat the process.


People seemed to enjoy golf more before all of these "advancements" than they do currently.  Odd...   Maybe enjoyment will improve when the USGA lets people post their scores from their computer video game golf? As long as they don't play alone 

[John Kavanaugh]

Rangefinders will not be used on tour because it would be a detriment to the powerful players who can afford the best caddies. I would go so far to say that the rangefinder issue is crucial in the settlement talks with caddies who feel under paid or represented. Personally, I hope rangefinders are allowed and caddies go the way of hickory shafts.

[Doug Siebert]

Rangefinders will not be used on tour because it would be a detriment to the powerful players who can afford the best caddies. I would go so far to say that the rangefinder issue is crucial in the settlement talks with caddies who feel under paid or represented. Personally, I hope rangefinders are allowed and caddies go the way of hickory shafts.

I don't think stepping off yardages (after lasering them in practice rounds if you don't already have a good yardage book) is such a rare skill that only the top 20 pros can afford caddies with that ability, and the rest of the field has to make do with guys who can only estimate within 5 yards.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rangefinders will not be used on tour because it would be a detriment to the powerful players who can afford the best caddies. I would go so far to say that the rangefinder issue is crucial in the settlement talks with caddies who feel under paid or represented. Personally, I hope rangefinders are allowed and caddies go the way of hickory shafts.

I don't think stepping off yardages (after lasering them in practice rounds if you don't already have a good yardage book) is such a rare skill that only the top 20 pros can afford caddies with that ability, and the rest of the field has to make do with guys who can only estimate within 5 yards.

Doug,


I know you are a smart guy, I've met you, I've seen your bare feet.  I hope that you don't believe that all yardage books are the same. Did you see those beauties lent to Michelle Wie at Pinehurst? And anyway, it's when you are where you thought no one could hit it that tournaments are won, and mostly lost.


The other thing is the psychological advantage of believing the yardage. You don't get that kind of boost of confidence from just any bag carrying doof. Rangefinders would put everyone on the same page without giving the wealthy players an unfair advantage.