News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matt Wharton

  • Karma: +1/-0
Matthew Wharton, CGCS, MG
Idle Hour CC
Lexington, KY

Peter Pallotta

Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2017, 12:34:46 PM »
Thanks, Matt.
Geoff continues be a very thoughtful and clear communicator.
Everyone in the bifurcating/roll back thread should read this.
His last line about Seve B is a strong way to end.
Peter

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2017, 01:00:27 PM »
He kind of lost me here:


At the start of the article, he talks about how players tell the equipment makers what they want.
Then he states the manufactures give the Pros what they want.
But by the end he says its all the Averages players fault for all of this?  Because they don't devote the time to learn the game properly?


He sure seems out of touch with a complete lack of understanding of the monkey see/monkey do aspect at play here.


The average joe sees Tour Pros chasing distance and better equipment and he thinks the average joe won't do the same to get better,,,,and then blames Average joes for doing what the pros do?


P.S  I also disagreed with his thoughts on TOC.  How is a short iron not always better than a long iron when approaching a green of any type?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 01:04:39 PM by Kalen Braley »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2017, 01:06:52 PM »
I read to the bottom of the article and expected a page 2. Something seemed a bit odd for an article written by GO, who usually puts his point across in a succinct and easily understandable way. Almost as though a few paragraphs are missing from the article somewhere?
Arb

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2017, 01:15:21 PM »
Thomas,


Agreed, the article sort of rambled on and the examples he gave were a bit silly.


It still doesn't change the obvious solution... Flight limited golf balls for pro play. If pros really have to be adaptable as he says, figuring out how to hold a small green with a 4 iron instead of an 8 iron would be the way to go,

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2017, 01:20:34 PM »
I think he is right, to a point.  Way too many people are influenced by the golf they see on TV, and golf architects not least among them.  Most designers have reacted in their own designs to the "onslaught of distance," even though the players who have gained the most from it are not paying customers at the courses we build.


If, instead, we had just built courses with a bunch of 380-yard par-4's, where the scratch player's distance superiority was of least advantage to him, the smarter players among them might have focused less on distance and more on other skills.  But, too many architects have done the opposite and made their courses longer from all sets of tees ... and those are the courses that have been celebrated by hosting tournaments, thus reinforcing to many architects that's the way to go.


But it's not just architects, of course.  The guys who select courses for championships, and then insist on making changes for championships, are really the ones who have put their thumb on the scale for what kind of courses everyone "should" be building.  And the length thing has gotten so far out of control that it's difficult to emphasize placement over distance, because every par-4 is a wedge for the better player.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2017, 01:25:04 PM »
Tom,


I guess my point here is that its illogical to think this behavior would be otherwise.


The average joe is always going to look to the top notch guys to figure out how to get better.  And this isn't just golf, we look up to the best examples in every walk of life...work, family, church, leaders, etc.


If anything it seems a bit defensive in not wanting to admit as one of the best he is apart of the problem...




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2017, 04:45:32 PM »
Well, Geoff is an architect, and presumably, also, on the payroll of a golf ball manufacturer.  So that gives him two reasons to take this tack on the subject. 


The idea that things have evolved as they have because of a "free market" for equipment and design is exactly what some people would like to hear.  But I'm sure Geoff understands as well as anyone how many different forces conspire to make things as they are.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2017, 06:07:07 PM »
Thanks, Matt.
Geoff continues be a very thoughtful and clear communicator.
Everyone in the bifurcating/roll back thread should read this.
His last line about Seve B is a strong way to end.
Peter


I'm hoping Geoff's not pleased with the way that article came out-I'm assuming some clumsy editing which is very common.


Let's start with Seve
With current equipment, I seriously doubt he would have won on all three venues-His shotmaking and imagination would be neutered by modern equipment, and older spinnier equipment that suited him would be too short for now ANGC-maybe not TOC(though it's lengtherned nearly unrecognizably) Royal Melbourse would've been his best shot.


The rest of his dialogue is backwards logic "blame the average American golfer?" huh? They only follow what they see on TV.


I do like his logic on 10 at Rivierra, in that thougtful architecture would be a far more fun way to play the game-but it aso depends upon turf conditions being firm-not always possible on non sand in our widely varied US climate.
If you want the architects and setup guys to shorten the courses, most likely you need to shorten distance the ball goes (of course it's not just the ball, but the ball can be the tool)
He's right that in 50 years we'd face the same problem, but what if we do nothing? What will courses look like in 50 years for Championship play?
Again, if we have to amp down the ball in 20 years and in 20 yearas agian, isn't that simpler than continually amping up ever diminishing space? (though the best investment might be to buy land surrounding courses that host champonships ;D )
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2017, 06:24:20 PM »
Maybe I'm as muddled and  clumsy a writer as many of you think this essay was, because to me Geoff's main point/argument  was crystal clear.
1- The pro game influences the amateur game.
2- Pros can and will quickly adapt to any merely technical & equipment change
3-Thus any roll-back/bifurcation alone will not reign in ever-longer golf courses
4- The trick is to *channel* the pros' ability to adapt in a different direction, outside of the distance 'framework'
5- Architecture is one means of/avenue for creating this new framework.
Since it was GO speaking, I thought point #2 was particularly worth noting.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2017, 06:39:43 PM »
Maybe I'm as muddled and  clumsy a writer as many of you think this essay was, because to me Geoff's main point/argument  was crystal clear.
1- The pro game influences the amateur game.
agreed
2- Pros can and will quickly adapt to any merely technical & equipment change
agreed-or at least new ones who can will emerge
3-Thus any roll-back/bifurcation alone will not reign in ever-longer golf courses
of course it will-until new tech kicks in and further rollbacks are needed
4- The trick is to *channel* the pros' ability to adapt in a different direction, outside of the distance 'framework'
That would be a trick-but I'm not holding my breath-and how exactly does that relate to traditional tournament venues, without changing them yet again?
5- Architecture is one means of/avenue for creating this new framework.
agreed 
Since it was GO speaking, I thought point #2 was particularly worth noting.


I'd say he's a player first, idealist second, and architect third-and thoughtful at all three.
But I'd also say there was some poor editing ;)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2017, 08:26:38 AM »
I'll believe the tripe about Amateur golfers imitating Tour Pros when the spend 2 of their 3 hours per day practicing golf within 50 yards of a putting green.

If Amateurs practiced like Tour Pros range tees would be far easier to maintain and practice greens far more challenging.

Kalen Braley,

Ever play in a 20 mph wind?
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2017, 02:35:19 PM »
"When the ball doesn’t do much after it lands, the flight it takes en route is less important than it would be if the turf were firmer."

The professional game is time regulated these days. If golfers have no idea where the golf balls are going, time distorts unpredictably. The conditions have to be regulated to some degree. Since no two minds will agree on that degree ...

"All the manufacturers are doing is providing the products their customers want. If there wasn’t that demand, the clubs and balls would not be selling."

And professionals would not be sponsored and would have to run donut shops, as Tim Horton the hockey player used to do in the summer time, to make ends meet.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2017, 04:16:13 PM »
I'll believe the tripe about Amateur golfers imitating Tour Pros when the spend 2 of their 3 hours per day practicing golf within 50 yards of a putting green.

If Amateurs practiced like Tour Pros range tees would be far easier to maintain and practice greens far more challenging.

Kalen Braley,

Ever play in a 20 mph wind?


Kyle,


Just because they try to mimic doesn't mean they have the time, money, discipline, or the ability to actually do/execute as they do.


Equipment, clothes, pre-shot routines, balls, etc... these are all the easiest things they can "copy"


As for 20 MPH winds....Yes a few times  ;)

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2017, 11:29:42 AM »
I think the clubs need to be amped down:
- no graphite shafts
- no titanium
- 260 cc head max size
- no club longer than 43.25"
- max number of 12 clubs (or even 11)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 11:35:44 AM by Carl Rogers »
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Cal Seifert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2017, 11:37:12 AM »
I think the clubs need to be amped down:
- no graphite shafts
- no titanium
- 260 cc head max size
- no club longer than 43.25"
- max number of 12 clubs (or even 11)


This is a great idea but would never happen.  Today's pros complain if the sand isn't the right texture, imagine telling them to lose a wedge?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2017, 07:05:09 PM »

- max number of 12 clubs (or even 11)


I think the maximum number of clubs for the Tour should be 5, or maybe even 4.


You have to get to the point where they can't just take a club for the right distance very often, so they have to play by feel.


With five clubs, it would be harder to justify the big driver, because they'd want to be able to hit them all off the fairway.  With four clubs, it would be harder to justify the 60-degree wedge, too.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2017, 04:42:41 AM »
I can get behind the reduction in clubs idea.  What I really care about is seeing players hit shots...they are good enough so lets see it happen.  Its a snoozefest watching stock shots all day long.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

James Reader

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2017, 05:58:21 AM »
The European tour seem to be ready to try new things - shot clocks; golf 6s; etc.  A tournament with a reduced number of clubs on a classic links course would be great fun to watch.
Can’t see it happening though!

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2017, 06:44:30 AM »
I'm not certain why people suggest the things written above. What is the purpose in restricting golfers?


Human excellence spans all fields. We strive to go farther in science and art, so why should athletics be different?


This picking and choosing would be very restrictive, say, if we said that Ian Andrew could no longer use this implement to build bunkers. That Kyle Franz could no longer use that machinery to build greens. And on I could run, but I'm one man with short fingers.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2017, 07:55:21 AM »
I'm not certain why people suggest the things written above. What is the purpose in restricting golfers?


Restrictions are already in place, it’s more a question of the level of restrictions.


For what it’s worth I’d firstly go with a 7 club limit, with no club having more than say 50* loft, and depending on how this goes I might then introduce other not necessarily club related restrictions.
Let’s see a return to shotmaking. As Sean says above, stock shots are a snooze fest.
Atb

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2017, 09:30:16 AM »
RM,


Creativity doesn’t lie within the tools. In fact, I would say that limited resources increases the level of which one has to be creative. More tools usually results in more being done, which has little to do with creativity, and often results in an inferior product.


I play with half the number of clubs allowed. I don’t shoot as low as I might with a full set, but it’s not a lot different. What is different, however, is the level of creativity needed to play certain shots....as well as a more creative strategy.


Iwould love to watch the pros play a tournament with 7 or fewer clubs....and I imagine we would be in awe of their creativity.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2017, 12:52:27 PM »
Brings to mind the stories of Trevino betting that he could beat people playing with only one club. Trevino, Seve, Faldo and Aoki once played TOC with one club for a TV thing. Each of them chose a 5 iron.


Ira

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2017, 01:05:55 PM »
The club number reduction (no 360cc driver or ultra high lofted wedge) in the bag would;
1. shorten the courses to 6300 to 6500 yards
2. force the ground game back into golf
3. make bunkers serious and stroke losing hazards
4. make club selection included in the bag for that round a real strategic decision(s)
5. make chipping and pitching a more important of the game (the player could not shoot at as many flags, because of aerial shot making limitations)
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ogilvy - Golf Magazine Australia
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2017, 03:31:39 PM »
The idea that things have evolved as they have because of a "free market" for equipment and design is exactly what some people would like to hear.  But I'm sure Geoff understands as well as anyone how many different forces conspire to make things as they are.

Wow!  Have the Russians also managed to "conspire to make things as they are"?  That damned Putin must be one hellavu multi-tasker!

I guess I must have been contemplating the various strategies offered by Riviera's 10th hole the day "free markets" were discussed in the remedial course for Econ 101.  Here I thought that the "free market" was millions of individuals expressing their informed preferences through their purchases (products, services, ideas)- "average Joes" and "many different forces" included.  We like our ProV1s- nobody is forcing us to buy them- despite there being any number of other cheaper alternatives that suffice.

Though I haven't found Geoff's past comments on golf and its architecture particularly insightful or unique, I can only quibble with one idea in the subject piece: that the emphasis on length is relatively new.  I remember 40+ years ago when graphite shafts in drivers first appeared at my then home club (at around $150), there was considerable excitement.  Ditto for when the TaylorMade metalwoods were introduced.  I was a couple of cycles behind the early adopters, but I too enjoyed knocking the trees down close to where our balls would normally roll out to with our persimmons.  Distance and strength in most sports I know have always been highly valued.

I am also alarmed at how many of my friends here wish to impose your individual preferences via regulation on the rest of us.  One of the major reasons given for the decline of our game is how difficult it is to play reasonably well, even with occasional practice.  I've seen many GCAers play over the 15 years on this site and making the game more difficult vis-à-vis a roll back in technology and a reduction of clubs permitted under the rules is going the wrong way 180°.

In this I am with Bill Buckley when he said "I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty."  Really, the intelligentsia here couldn't be more wrong.  The advantage of a pro over a 15 handicapper would only increase if instead of 14 clubs, both players are limited to 7 (or 10 or 5).  I can't think of a single pro I have ever played with who had one single deficiency greater than any of my own.  In nearly every case, that 385 yard-hole is much easier for Mr. Oglivie with a half-wedge or pitch than for me with 9 iron or wedge.  Cut my club options in half, and the level of difficulty for me increases, maybe geometrically.

As to the construction of courses and tools of the trade, would Mr. Hancock be good with an esthetic that has the requisite power to determine that horses and scoops are the only allowable implements for future construction?  Why would anyone wish to restrict the ability of good folks to express themselves?  You want to shape with a small backhoe or with a pick and shovel, go for it.  You like short courses, there are many out there or move up to the set of tees you prefer.

Golf's biggest challenges have very little to do with the ball or the high performance clubs (the elephant in the room continues to be in the realm of economics and public policy).   If the long ball at the Tour level throws off a delicate balance with accuracy, shot-making, and finesse, BIFURCATE.  Tony Ristola and I have advocated this here for over a decade, but we keep running the same old movie time and again.  For the large majority of golfers at the club level, "average Joes" included, the long ball is not a problem.  Geoff is correct.

P.S.- I agree with Kyle.  For those of us who can't practice much, spend the time chipping and putting, and only enough on the long game to warm up.