[Sean_A]

Suddenly this thought occured to me:
as a collective we seem just fine with courses being built in near-deserts with sinking water tables that will soon have to start piping water in from the Great Lakes so that people with second or third homes in Arizona can maintain their property values while looking out at totally incongruent ribbons of bright green grass for 3 months a year; and yet we all seem terrified at the thought that courses that can well afford to might feel (foolishly in most cases, but that's beside the point) they need to add 500 yards to keep up with the distance gains achieved by .001% of the world's entire golfing population. Compared to the level of idiocy and self-indulgence of the former, I couldn't give a shite about the latter.

Sounds familiar and not to mention the energy required just to get to these far flung places. This argument and the fact that people change stuff all the time, their hosues, their cars, their gardens, their furniture, their carpets and curtains and yes, their golf courses...when there is nothing wrong with any of it...but folks want to change stuff...its human nature.  Take away the we need added yards for the .1% of golfers argument and something else squeezes in...oh yes, what about health and safety.....blah blah blah.  There is no way in hell or on earth that anybody can use the USGA to legislate away the desire to change golf courses. There is such a thing as being wishful and its directly next door to foolishness. 


Ciao 

[Michael G. Miller]

I might suggest that instead of looking at data surrounding driving distance, we should consider distances achieved using iron shots. However much, or little, the USGA and the R&A claim driving distances have changed since 2007, there is no doubt whatsoever that 180 yard 8 irons and 220 yard 6 irons are a new found phenomena. If a hole is 500 yards and the tee shot is 290. what player is intimidated by the remaining 210 if that is a 6 or 7 iron? There was a time ( maybe 10-15 years ago) when only John Daly would attempt a 260 yard carry with a 2 iron. Today, many tour players attempt that shot routinely and some even use less club. On tour, most par fives have become medium to long par 4's. Like the popular, but ridiculously simple, "slam dunk" of the NBA, the fans and the sponsors love the par 5 hit in 2 and the subsequent eagle attempt. Fans who struggle at this most difficult game, marvel at the play of the pros and the distances they achieve. Let's not forget that the PGA Tour is in the entertainment business and to understand the undermining of the foundational principals of golf architecture seen through unrestrained distance technology, by both the PGA Tour and equipment companies, one must simply "follow the money."

[Jason Topp]

I might suggest that instead of looking at data surrounding driving distance, we should consider distances achieved using iron shots. However much, or little, the USGA and the R&A claim driving distances have changed since 2007, there is no doubt whatsoever that 180 yard 8 irons and 220 yard 6 irons are a new found phenomena. If a hole is 500 yards and the tee shot is 290. what player is intimidated by the remaining 210 if that is a 6 or 7 iron? There was a time ( maybe 10-15 years ago) when only John Daly would attempt a 260 yard carry with a 2 iron. Today, many tour players attempt that shot routinely and some even use less club. On tour, most par fives have become medium to long par 4's. Like the popular, but ridiculously simple, "slam dunk" of the NBA, the fans and the sponsors love the par 5 hit in 2 and the subsequent eagle attempt. Fans who struggle at this most difficult game, marvel at the play of the pros and the distances they achieve. Let's not forget that the PGA Tour is in the entertainment business and to understand the undermining of the foundational principals of golf architecture seen through unrestrained distance technology, by both the PGA Tour and equipment companies, one must simply "follow the money."

Michael - I agree that some of those numbers are staggering but do not quite know how to interpret them.  Iron numbers are meaningless.  I believe a 7 iron today is approximately similar to a 5 iron in the 1970's.  The lofts vary significantly between manufacturers.  Clearly - manufacturers have figured out they can help justify a premium price for an iron that goes farther, even if they just are changing the number on the club.

[Tim Gavrich]

Why is it solely the USGA's responsibility - especially when doing so would set Big Golf Equipment against them - to save foolish golf courses, who are adding tees and burdening their members financially out of ego-driven fear of what happens when .001% of golfers play their course, from themselves?


Why not let the free market punish this wastefulness (courses lengthen unnecessarily, need to charge more, golfers take their money elsewhere), especially when the recent dramatic increase in power-swing-driven injuries among pro golfers is suggesting that distances are plateauing?

[Sean_A]

Tim


Okay, I have never been a fan of relying solely on the USGA to control distance as a means to stop classic courses being mucked with simply because I don't think that will do the job. That job is the preserve of club members/owners.  That said, the USGA should be looking at ways to keep the game sensible in terms of sustainability.  If that isn't part of their mandate...it should be. 


Ciao 

[Jason Topp]

Why is it solely the USGA's responsibility - especially when doing so would set Big Golf Equipment against them - to save foolish golf courses, who are adding tees and burdening their members financially out of ego-driven fear of what happens when .001% of golfers play their course, from themselves?


Why not let the free market punish this wastefulness (courses lengthen unnecessarily, need to charge more, golfers take their money elsewhere), especially when the recent dramatic increase in power-swing-driven injuries among pro golfers is suggesting that distances are plateauing?

Under this theory, there would be no need for the USGA at all.  Economics would resolve issues.  I am not saying such a structure would not work but it would certainly be different.

[Tim Gavrich]

Why is it solely the USGA's responsibility - especially when doing so would set Big Golf Equipment against them - to save foolish golf courses, who are adding tees and burdening their members financially out of ego-driven fear of what happens when .001% of golfers play their course, from themselves?


Why not let the free market punish this wastefulness (courses lengthen unnecessarily, need to charge more, golfers take their money elsewhere), especially when the recent dramatic increase in power-swing-driven injuries among pro golfers is suggesting that distances are plateauing?

Under this theory, there would be no need for the USGA at all.  Economics would resolve issues.  I am not saying such a structure would not work but it would certainly be different.

I regard and appreciate the USGA as the keepers of the rules (and the Rules) of golf primarily. Certainly a corollary to that duty is some level of administration of equipment standards, which already exists in the form of COR maximums, etc. From where I sit, what boundaries they have set (and to which golfers and equipment companies have long agreed) have allowed the game to continue to be fun and interesting.


The objection to - and, most extremely, apparent hatred of - the USGA seems to stem from frustration that they won't essentially renege on the covenant they've long held with the equipment makers. But the fact remains that the main imperfections with that covenant, discovered in hindsight, deal with a comically small percentage of golfers.


When Nicklaus won the '65 Masters, Bobby Jones said, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar." That was a gracious and high compliment. It's a compliment we mortal golfers owe to the elite amateur and professional set as a whole. Why can't we be comfortable letting them be rewarded for their skill (yes, the ability to hit a golf ball long distances reasonably straight is a skill) and leave it at that? Why is there such a strong urge to punish them for being better than we are?


The fault is not in our PGA Tour stars, but in our mediocre-golfing selves.

[Garland Bayley]

Why is it solely the USGA's responsibility - especially when doing so would set Big Golf Equipment against them - to save foolish golf courses, who are adding tees and burdening their members financially out of ego-driven fear of what happens when .001% of golfers play their course, from themselves?


Why not let the free market punish this wastefulness (courses lengthen unnecessarily, need to charge more, golfers take their money elsewhere), especially when the recent dramatic increase in power-swing-driven injuries among pro golfers is suggesting that distances are plateauing?

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Rich clubs will mindlessly increase their length as can be seen by Augusta National. If you have been to the British Isles and played some of the low end courses there that are limited by both monetary resources and real estate, then you will see the lengths these course have to go to so that they can remain somewhat relevant. Common solutions are crossing holes, cages around tee boxes that have been moved to close to other play, or just plain dangerous situations like making more blind shots by lengthening or rerouting to gain length.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()