[JMEvensky]

How bout we also talk about bringing back courses that require skill not muscle?

   
You're made Tsar of Golf tomorrow--do you rollback the equipment enough to make Cypress Point Club a viable PGAT venue or build new courses that require a fuller skill set based on current equipment?

[Garland Bayley]

... If people can make a million dollars for winning a golf tournament, and 50 million in endorsements for winning the Masters, they're going to figure out a way to hit the ball straight and far.

The problem with that argument is that they didn't figure out how to hit the ball straight and far. They already knew that. They were simply handed a ball that would go straight and far a much higher percentage of the time.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Garland. Yes, it’s funny that way...it’s generally preferred to not completely stifle innovation...

could you please stop with the rhetoric about innovation. Innovation can help or hurt depending on the circumstance. My position is that excessive engineering innovation applied to the ball has hurt the direction the game has taken. The primary motivation for the innovation was business competitiveness not improvement of the game. If they wanted to improve the game they would invent a ball that could always easily be found. But, that might not be good for business.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank you for the response, Tom.

To be clear, I don't particularly care about the games of a tiny fraction of golfers. I care about the game played by the other 99.9%+.

Im catching up on this thread, but I have to say this quote didn't age well 

Sure it does. Compare similar courses and the yardage gained was only 0.5 yards. And it still hasn't gone up a yard per year over the last 17 years.

I'm not changing opinions here, and nobody's yet to change mine, so… I've kept quiet for a few days. Nice to see that people still think the ball gets a "boost" at certain speeds, somehow…

[archie_struthers]

 


I previously opined that the distance one can hit it ratchets up somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 MPH swing speed .  Pretty sure that rings true. Most of my data is strictly from observation of my fellow players and less from detailed study of the math released by club and ball makers.  I notice it particularly with the driver, as they don't hit their irons much higher or further than mine.  However these same guys can drive it 30-40 yards further .


If you extrapolated the distance differential between the irons and the driver it's pretty radical. Perhaps it's my spin rate , perhaps poorly  fitted   , but my speed is 100-105 and theirs is 110 to 115. 

[JESII]

Not exactly the most scientific study there, Arch...


The math is pretty simple, and not subject to club makers whims...no conspiracy here. While many are not thrilled with the USGA, they're not going to manipulate data so easy to disprove.


As swing speed goes up, ProV1 speed goes up by a proportionate amount. At the higher speeds, that proportion decreases very slightly. If you didn't read the link in Bryan's post, it's concise and compelling.




But...




The argument about longer hitters gaining a disproportionate advantage has some truth. The reality is, the shorter hitters were using Surlyn balls before so the advent of the ProV1 didn't help them much in the distance category...certainly not as much as it helped the longer hitters that were using balata balls. The shorter hitters did presumably gain disproportionately around the greens...




As to your comparison to buddies...if you swing it 102 and they swing it 112...they should hit it 25 - 30 yards further than you with the driver. On the other hand, they have every right to wonder how you hit your irons so far...

[Garland Bayley]

...

I saw Alan Shipnuck a couple of weeks ago respond to a reader question about what % of distance gain he put down to various factors.  He said it was maybe 5% agronomy, 20% stronger golfers & faster club head speed, 20% being more aggressive, 25% the clubs, and 30% the ball.  I'd say that was reasonably close.  Even if you disagree with which factor has done how much, the bottom line is that it's made the pro game a lot different than it used to be, no matter how much you'd like to disagree.  All you've gotta do is go and watch them to see it.

30% ball! OK,
put the spin back in the ball and lose that, plus lose 80% of the aggressiveness allowed by the ball, plus lose 80% of the swing speed allowed by the ball, and you've made a big impact!


I am not as certain as others here that trying to reset it all via one factor (the golf ball) will be so easy to do.  I'm curious to hear Mike Clayton's view on that.  What I see as the biggest differences between Mike's day and today are a) the driver head is so much bigger than everyone just tries to crush it, which no one would even try 30-40 years ago, and b) through a combination of factors, everyone plays straight shots now, instead of curving the ball left or right.  The latter is the biggest loss to the game. 


The Tour players panned our restored Redan hole at Waialae.  It wasn't controversial 30 years ago; back then everyone would play against the slope of the green by hitting a fade.  Today, they don't even try to play a fade.  They just label it "unfair" when a green doesn't hold a straight shot.

Now that's funny.
The beloved proV has made golf holes unfair for the world's best golfers. The only people I hear calling unfair are golfers that think they are good. Kalen never calls a hole unfair. He just complains about not being able to perform, or about my luck. 

[Garland Bayley]

I admit I haven't kept up to date on driver COR, but when the limit was first set, the conclusion was that it disproportionately aided the highly talented as they were the ones that could repetitively find the sweet spot.

Clearly that's why Freddy can outdrive me. 

[JESII]

How bout we also talk about bringing back courses that require skill not muscle?

   
You're made Tsar of Golf tomorrow--do you rollback the equipment enough to make Cypress Point Club a viable PGAT venue or build new courses that require a fuller skill set based on current equipment?

Hmm


I would remind everyone that PGA Tour golf is entertainment first and foremost. If we're not watching...they're not playing. So, the suggestion that they want to do anything to make the game more difficult for their players is ludicrous.


Two prime examples, one observational and one direct experience; pay attention when the overhead shot shows someone on the tee. I feel like nearly half the time they're playing a tee shorter than the longest. Could be any reason, and I don't care, just don't tell me they're playing 7,450 yards and shooting 20 under when they're really playing 7,200. Sometimes it's just the mown path disappearing under an advertising billboard. Sometimes you see the whole pad back there. The direct experience was playing in the Tour event here in town after Monday qualifying. Friday morning we're getting our scorecards and hearing the local rules etc...the official tells us were playing ball in hand "because it's supposed to rain later". Seriously?


In that entertainment vein, I would dedicate 50 - 100 courses for Tour level use...make them stadiums that have all the benefits Beman and Dye were looking for with TPC. Make them great to watch golf in person and on TV and leave the guys to it. In my opinion, architectural excellence never comes across on TV. The Tour courses that I know seem wholly different. I like seeing where those guys hit it compared to me, which is still possible but I truly don't care if The best players play the most important events at the best courses...and I don't think they do either.




I would allocate as much money as possible into techniques that help courses maintain dry healthy turf and aggressively promote the benefits.




In truth Jeff, if the ball/equipment were rolled back, I wouldn't care one bit. I take the stance I have, in this thread and others, simply because I don't think rolling back the ball hits at the real problem or provides a real solution.

[JMEvensky]

In truth Jeff, if the ball/equipment were rolled back, I wouldn't care one bit. I take the stance I have, in this thread and others, simply because I don't think rolling back the ball hits at the real problem or provides a real solution.

I think I agree--just rolling back the ball wouldn't be the best option. I do think a combination of a slight ball roll back and reduction in the size of the driver might work--seems like the fear of a mis-hit might change things.




Check your e-mail for a good preferred lies story.

[George Pazin]

Thank you for the response, Tom.

To be clear, I don't particularly care about the games of a tiny fraction of golfers. I care about the game played by the other 99.9%+.

I don't think many of us care about the 0.1% of the golfers, either. What we DO care about, which you seem to dismiss, is that the people in charge of the best courses ARE altering their courses in a fruitless attempt to challenge those 0.1%.


You ask, why do we care what those freaks do? (paraphrasing, obviously)


I'd ask, why DON'T you care about what those in charge of the best courses are doing?


Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are in favor of these actions, but I just don't see it as feasible to ignore what they're doing. I wish it were, I wish Augusta wouldn't see fit to stretch and alter their course literally every single year, but I simply don't believe it's enough to say, who cares what the bombers do? People who matter do care.


If you could convince those people to ignore the bombers, I'd be right there with you and JK saying, who cares what DJ does, but until then, I do care.


-----


Has anyone produced a restricted ball (other than the Cayman ball) for testing by people other than Iron Byron? I'd like to try one out and see if there really is a significant difference. I'm guessing I couldn't tell the difference, not in any significant way.

[Pete Lavallee]

George,

Just visit a Driving Range that uses "reduced" or "limited" flight balls.

[John Kavanaugh]

Have you people no respect for property rights? Let people change the courses they own if that is what they choose and no harm is done to the general public.

[JMEvensky]

Has anyone produced a restricted ball (other than the Cayman ball) for testing by people other than Iron Byron? I'd like to try one out and see if there really is a significant difference. I'm guessing I couldn't tell the difference, not in any significant way.

A few years ago the Ohio(?) GA ran a tournament using a ball specially made for the event--maybe by Bridgestone. From memory, the players didn't think there was too much difference. I remember the USGA was none too pleased.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Jonathan,


How would those club head specifications benefit the faster swinger more?

Test 500 identical balls with a 460cc driver and a persimmon head and let me know what you observe.

[jeffwarne]

Jonathan,


How would those club head specifications benefit the faster swinger more?

Test 500 identical balls with a 460cc driver and a persimmon head and let me know what you observe.

I just listened to Hank Haney and Steve Johnson blather on about how Jack Nicklaus was only speaking up to protect his legacy and ensure his scoring records remain intact.
I don't care what side of the debate you are on, that's just an inaccurate assessment.
Jack may have alarmed a few people with his 20% statement (and frankly have hurt the rollback/bifurcation case with such a large number) but Jack (and most recently Tom Watson) are only commenting on what is happening right in front of all  of our eyes-and merely stating their opinions.
I truly believe they have the best interests of the game in their hearts.


Frankly, if Jack is trying to preserve his Majors won record, he would encourage MORE  equipment gains, as they only serve to level the playing field as a bomber like DJ can't really separate himself if everyone hits the par 5s in 2 with irons.


Hank and Steve and a caller then went on to talk about how tall and athletic today's players are.
Sure more athletes are selecting golf now, and there are a bunch of sculpted guys out there, and a few taller players, but there are plenty who are short that kill it (as there always have been) Justin Thomas and Rory come to mind and Rory was killing it years ago(Congressional etc.) when his tits weren't on display in every outfit.


Anyone who's ever actually played high level sports knows that body builders with cut bodies aren't always great athletes (and in fact usually aren't) and that there have been plenty of ordinary looking athletes who didn't have have cut physiques that were still athletic and great at what they did. Only in the last 20 years or so has "looking cut and defined" been a thing for athletes(and now golfers)-some of whom get lost in their vanity and lose the plot (but I digress...)
Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and Tom Weiskop were great athletes, and the most cut guy at your local gym could never hold a candle to their athleticism(in multiple sports) , despite what the naive observer might think-who is often fooled by pasty white legs and a slight middle aged beer gut..


If the gains in distance are merely athleticism and "height" why the outcry?
Just go tee it up with a persimmon and balata and carry on with the 360 yard drives.......

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I previously opined that the distance one can hit it ratchets up somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 MPH swing speed .  Pretty sure that rings true.

Completely bogus.

Those of you supporting a roll-back should really be after these types of guys. They undermine your whole point and make it easy to score cheap points against your arguments/positions. They hurt your position.

There's absolutely no "bonus" or "boost" or anything that occurs at 110 MPH, 113 MPH, etc.

I don't think many of us care about the 0.1% of the golfers, either. What we DO care about, which you seem to dismiss, is that the people in charge of the best courses ARE altering their courses in a fruitless attempt to challenge those 0.1%.

Like what? I keep asking for actual data, and nobody sees fit to provide it. I understand it's likely not readily available, but do you think the site of the Honda Classic is "one of the best courses"? I don't. Is Innisbrook? Bay Hill? Was Doral? Is the WGC Mexico course, that effectively plays at 6243 yards, a "great" course that deserves protection?

Is Pine Valley chasing yardage? Has Pinehurst #2 suffered by chasing more yardage? What about the rest of the top 20 in the U.S. or world? The top 50? Are the majority of them even chasing yardage? When I look at the list I see a lot of courses that haven't held PGA Tour event or major in quite some time, if ever. They're not chasing the 0.1%.

So where are all these great courses that are suffering by chasing yardages? And is it "fruitless" if their goal is to land a PGA Tour event or a major and then they succeed? Or is it "fruitless" if they screw up the design? Who judges that? And do we care if the design is only screwed up for the 0.1% and the other 99.9% can play it as the design was intended?

I don't think a great number of courses are doing what you just said: fruitlessly chasing the 0.1%. And those that do, well, JK often has an answer there: who cares what they do with their money? It's their money, and their golf course.

Roll back the ball 20% and guess what - now EVERY golf course will need to be retrofitted. Those 6400 yard tees a lot of guys enjoyed playing? They're now effectively 8000 yards, and those guys are gonna look to move to 5100 yard tees. Do those even exist? They don't? So you'd have to build new tees, plus more forward of those for women, children, and seniors?

As I see things, fans of a roll-back are of essentially two minds:

• Golf is less skilled now and/or less entertaining to watch. 3W/9I requires less skill and is less fun to watch on TV than Driver-4I.
• Old golf courses are becoming unsuitable for play or bastardized for play by the 0.1%.

Have I got that about right?

[George Pazin]

Nice post, jeffw.


The phrase you're looking for with today's cut athletes is, "Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane".


Whatever anyone wants to say about Tiger, he didn't get to the peak he reached in the gym.

Have you people no respect for property rights? Let people change the courses they own if that is what they choose and no harm is done to the general public.

  This makes me smile, and JK knows his target well. No bigger advocate for property rights than yours truly, so he knows how to hit where it hurts.


If they were making these changes for purely personal reasons, I wouldn't care at all. Actually, I don't really care at all, in the sense that I know they have the right to make changes to their property, and whatever they do won't really affect me at all. I just find it sad that these caretakers are entrusted with something special and find the need to alter it to chase a fool's errand. I'd say the same thing if someone entrusted to protect Michelangelo's David felt the need to add on some boxer briefs...


I don't know what the leadership of Victoria National is like, but I do hope they accept John's attitude and don't mess with a good thing.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


Victoria National is being made easier because they host professional tournaments.

[George Pazin]

I don't think many of us care about the 0.1% of the golfers, either. What we DO care about, which you seem to dismiss, is that the people in charge of the best courses ARE altering their courses in a fruitless attempt to challenge those 0.1%.

Like what? I keep asking for actual data, and nobody sees fit to provide it. I understand it's likely not readily available, but do you think the site of the Honda Classic is "one of the best courses"? I don't. Is Innisbrook? Bay Hill? Was Doral? Is the WGC Mexico course, that effectively plays at 6243 yards, a "great" course that deserves protection?

Is Pine Valley chasing yardage? Has Pinehurst #2 suffered by chasing more yardage? What about the rest of the top 20 in the U.S. or world? The top 50? Are the majority of them even chasing yardage? When I look at the list I see a lot of courses that haven't held PGA Tour event or major in quite some time, if ever. They're not chasing the 0.1%.

So where are all these great courses that are suffering by chasing yardages? And is it "fruitless" if their goal is to land a PGA Tour event or a major and then they succeed? Or is it "fruitless" if they screw up the design? Who judges that? And do we care if the design is only screwed up for the 0.1% and the other 99.9% can play it as the design was intended?

I don't think a great number of courses are doing what you just said: fruitlessly chasing the 0.1%. And those that do, well, JK often has an answer there: who cares what they do with their money? It's their money, and their golf course.

Roll back the ball 20% and guess what - now EVERY golf course will need to be retrofitted. Those 6400 yard tees a lot of guys enjoyed playing? They're now effectively 8000 yards, and those guys are gonna look to move to 5100 yard tees. Do those even exist? They don't? So you'd have to build new tees, plus more forward of those for women, children, and seniors?

As I see things, fans of a roll-back are of essentially two minds:

• Golf is less skilled now and/or less entertaining to watch. 3W/9I requires less skill and is less fun to watch on TV than Driver-4I.
• Old golf courses are becoming unsuitable for play or bastardized for play by the 0.1%.

Have I got that about right?

Did Pebble, Oakmont, Merion, Augusta, Winged Foot, etc, make changes to accommodate the bombers? Fishers Island may not have, kudos to them, they have a special guy working that hallowed ground, but far too many others have.


You know none of us care about the Honda Classic. We care about Riviera, Oakland Hills, etc. I have mixed feelings on tweaking TPC Sawgrass, as it's largely Pete that's tweaking it, but even so, I find it sad that these accommodations are made. They are made in too many other sporting venues, though admittedly each game is different.


You have repeatedly used the number 20%. I don't know who suggested that, it seems extreme; I personally suggested a 10% rollback as a starting place. Would it be catastrophic to golf if drives were rolled back 10%? I kinda doubt that, personally, but I could certainly be wrong. I'd be happy to give up 20 yards on my drives if next March I didn't open Golf or Golf Digest and see how Augusta had moved the highway to squeeze another 30 yards onto the 7th hole, or moved the 17th green, or whatever.

[George Pazin]

George,


Victoria National is being made easier because they host professional tournaments.

Very interesting, the exception that proves the rule. I'd be curious to learn more, but that's a story for another day. If it's been covered on here and I missed it, apologies, I haven't been as active of late. I'll do some searching.

[Eric LeFante]

I previously opined that the distance one can hit it ratchets up somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 MPH swing speed .  Pretty sure that rings true.

Completely bogus.

Those of you supporting a roll-back should really be after these types of guys. They undermine your whole point and make it easy to score cheap points against your arguments/positions. They hurt your position.

There's absolutely no "bonus" or "boost" or anything that occurs at 110 MPH, 113 MPH, etc.

I don't think many of us care about the 0.1% of the golfers, either. What we DO care about, which you seem to dismiss, is that the people in charge of the best courses ARE altering their courses in a fruitless attempt to challenge those 0.1%.

Like what? I keep asking for actual data, and nobody sees fit to provide it. I understand it's likely not readily available, but do you think the site of the Honda Classic is "one of the best courses"? I don't. Is Innisbrook? Bay Hill? Was Doral? Is the WGC Mexico course, that effectively plays at 6243 yards, a "great" course that deserves protection?

Is Pine Valley chasing yardage? Has Pinehurst #2 suffered by chasing more yardage? What about the rest of the top 20 in the U.S. or world? The top 50? Are the majority of them even chasing yardage? When I look at the list I see a lot of courses that haven't held PGA Tour event or major in quite some time, if ever. They're not chasing the 0.1%.

So where are all these great courses that are suffering by chasing yardages? And is it "fruitless" if their goal is to land a PGA Tour event or a major and then they succeed? Or is it "fruitless" if they screw up the design? Who judges that? And do we care if the design is only screwed up for the 0.1% and the other 99.9% can play it as the design was intended?

I don't think a great number of courses are doing what you just said: fruitlessly chasing the 0.1%. And those that do, well, JK often has an answer there: who cares what they do with their money? It's their money, and their golf course.

Roll back the ball 20% and guess what - now EVERY golf course will need to be retrofitted. Those 6400 yard tees a lot of guys enjoyed playing? They're now effectively 8000 yards, and those guys are gonna look to move to 5100 yard tees. Do those even exist? They don't? So you'd have to build new tees, plus more forward of those for women, children, and seniors?

As I see things, fans of a roll-back are of essentially two minds:

• Golf is less skilled now and/or less entertaining to watch. 3W/9I requires less skill and is less fun to watch on TV than Driver-4I.
• Old golf courses are becoming unsuitable for play or bastardized for play by the 0.1%.

Have I got that about right?

Erik,


Pine Valley has added about 400 yards over the past 20 years. Most in the Top 100 have added yardage over the past 20 years. And some of them have no intention of holding a professional event (NGLA, San Francisco, Winged Foot East, Baltusrol Upper, Somerset Hills, Hollywood). I'm sure people here can name other courses on the two lists that have lengthened over the last 20 years with no intention of a professional event.


I know you will say you don't care about the top courses because they represent less than 1% of the courses in the U.S., but this entire site is dedicated to the best of golf course architecture.




http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/photo/2017/08/16/top-100-golf-courses-united-states-2017#6

http://golfweek.com/2017/04/18/top-100-classic-golf-courses-you-can-play-in-usa/

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


Victoria National is being made easier because they host professional tournaments.

Very interesting, the exception that proves the rule. I'd be curious to learn more, but that's a story for another day. If it's been covered on here and I missed it, apologies, I haven't been as active of late. I'll do some searching.

I personally consider removing 4000 trees and adding width a move to make the course easier.  Most consider it an improvement.

[John Kavanaugh]

If not for the trend towards arbortage the current distance dilemma would not be so evident. A lack of trees firms up the fairways and lends itself to the bomb and gouge strategy prevalent in today's game. Tree removal in itself has unintended consequences as does all good deeds.

[Brad Payne]

If bifurcation allows the US Open, British Open or any other tournament to go to courses that are otherwise too short for today's players, then I'm all for it.  Would love to see a US Open at NGLA or Chicago GC, a British Open at Prestwick or a Ryder Cup at Cypress Point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()