[jeffwarne]

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.

Bingo.


How many elite courses fell out of tournament prominence in the last wave of equipment gains-Inwood, Merion (then reinvented as a "boutique Open")Myopia,etc.


Now we're not supposed to care about the 1% of great courses in the Top 100 that lengthen to stay relevant.


I also keep hearing this .01 % of players that we're not supposed to care about what they do.
I wonder about what the real number is of players who play in College,PGA and other major tours, scratch amateur events, mini tours, club pro level etc.
That group would certainly play a lot more than .01 % of the rounds played-to say nothing of how many would be spectating their golf.
That same group is very influential in golf, course rankings, TV press etc.


Seems like a strange group to "not care about" how and where they play.


I actually would be curious to hear what % of the .01% are in favor of a rollback or bifurcation.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Its less a case of not caring about the top 1% of courses as it a case of knowing that those courses can do as they damn well please.  In a very real sense...it ain't any of my business until I start paying the bills.  I may not like what is happening, but that is an entirely different thing to using rules as a tool to control memberships and owners...especially when the outcome of such a plan is very much in doubt as to acheiving the desired results.  I am on record as one who doesn't believe rules can control what memberships do to their courses.  I think to assume that if there is a rollback that memberships will no longer wish to alter their courses is just that...an assumption.  As I said earlier, Turnberry and Portrush were recently altered and yardage was not the primary reason for the work.  The folks in power thought better courses could be created...and a great many people think this was achieved.   

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

  As I said earlier, Turnberry and Portrush were recently altered and yardage was not the primary reason for the work.  The folks in power thought better courses could be created...and a great many people think this was achieved.   

Ciao

Sean,
courses will always be altered-for better or worse.


Unfortunately the new target is greens.
heard a former Tour player talking today on Siriusxm about how they "had to change the greens at Innsbruch because they would be unfair at 12 and they had to run them at 12 so they were tough enough"
huh?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Pine Valley has added about 400 yards over the past 20 years.

Has it been ruined or diminished because of it?

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.

And of those what percentage have to worry about hosting PGA Tour events and thus worrying about how far the 0.001% hit the ball? And of those who do host PGA Tour players for events (majors or a regular Tour stop), how many of them have ruined their architecture for the average player, or the folks on this board?

And George, the 20% number has been floated by many, and on this forum I've seen 30% floated by at least one or two people.

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
I can't say I've heard 20% by anyone but Nicklaus, but I sure am hearing it now by the rollback opposition.

[Garland Bayley]

... and on this forum I've seen 30% floated by at least one or two people.

I would be very surprised if you could prove this claim. As Jeff says, the only suggestion of 20% or more that I have heard is the one reported that Nicklaus suggested.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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...
...

Jim,

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Who are those shorter hitters? Pros, amatuers, hackers? How do you know who was using surlyn? Etc.

I guess primarily I am wondering why the shortest hitters are bothering with Surlyn. Ignorance? Frugality?

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

What is the real problem? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Garland Bayley]

George,

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

I own some Cayman balls, and I have visited a Driving Range that uses "reduced" or "limited" flight balls. I don't see much difference. The Cayman balls may be longer.

The members at the club with the reduced flight balls certainly weren't using them, as I was the only one on the range during the event I played there.

Sadly, I am told our club was going to test such balls for our range while I was out of town. Hope we don't spend money on such a non-solution.

And, by the way, I have as much fun playing our course with Cayman balls as I do with regular balls.

[Garland Bayley]

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 hope you are not suggesting a return to wooden heads. Change this to a metal driver with COR equal to the 460cc driver, but the size of the persimmon head, equivalent shafts, grips, weight, etc. and tested by tour pros. I believe you won't have much difference. Reduce the COR to persimmon COR and you will probably find it is the most significant variable in the mix, at least IMO.

[JESII]

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.

Ok, so I'm confused. In a conversation about rolling back the golf ball, a study by the USGA is referenced which refutes the assertion that the ProV1 style balls deliver a "turbo boost" to players that can swing the driver over 110 mph.


You suggest the study is insufficient because it doesn't discuss driver head technology, regardless of the fact that it was a study of the effect faster swings speeds have on the performance of the golf ball. OK!?!


I ask you what the driver heads would do to the study and you tell me to go pound sand...OK!?!


So, I can only surmise that you think "trampoline effect" is where the faster swingers get their "turbo boost"...


So...can you remind of the performance characteristics of the 460cc driver faces as swing speeds go up? Does COR increase as swing speed increases?

[JESII]

...
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.

What is the real problem? Inquiring minds want to know.

Golf course owners/operators/members making decisions based on a fraction of a percent of players.

[JESII]

How many elite courses fell out of tournament prominence in the last wave of equipment gains-Inwood, Merion (then reinvented as a "boutique Open")Myopia,etc.

Now we're not supposed to care about the 1% of great courses in the Top 100 that lengthen to stay relevant.

I also keep hearing this .01 % of players that we're not supposed to care about what they do.
I wonder about what the real number is of players who play in College,PGA and other major tours, scratch amateur events, mini tours, club pro level etc.
That group would certainly play a lot more than .01 % of the rounds played-to say nothing of how many would be spectating their golf.
That same group is very influential in golf, course rankings, TV press etc.


Seems like a strange group to "not care about" how and where they play.


I actually would be curious to hear what % of the .01% are in favor of a rollback or bifurcation.

This would be an interesting direction to go down Jeff...there are two topics in here I'm curious about.


Do you really think changes are being made to courses on the basis of mini-tour players and scratch amateurs? Certainly the number of players with the length to play a course well outside what the architects intent was is more than the 0.01% number I've thrown around a lot...but those players shoot par to a couple under par. Do we worry about them? The Tour players and maybe 1,000 trying to get there are who changes have been made for. if you take 1,500 out of all the golfers in the world, surely we're near 1% of 1%, no?




The other angle...a little more gruesome of a topic for this site...is, that last wave of equipment gains that you reference taking Inwood and Merion out of the rotations...also spurred the inception of the 1920's Golden Age of GCA...food for thought!?!

[jeffwarne]

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.

Not being snarky, but what are you referring to with
"real problem and real solution"


BTW, I'm currently experiencing a unintentianal rollback-we'll see how that turns out....

[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.

Ok, so I'm confused. In a conversation about rolling back the golf ball, a study by the USGA is referenced which refutes the assertion that the ProV1 style balls deliver a "turbo boost" to players that can swing the driver over 110 mph.


You suggest the study is insufficient because it doesn't discuss driver head technology, regardless of the fact that it was a study of the effect faster swings speeds have on the performance of the golf ball. OK!?!


I ask you what the driver heads would do to the study and you tell me to go pound sand...OK!?!


So, I can only surmise that you think "trampoline effect" is where the faster swingers get their "turbo boost"...


So...can you remind of the performance characteristics of the 460cc driver faces as swing speeds go up? Does COR increase as swing speed increases?

My original statement, and my response reflect the same concept: There are two very different components of the energy transfer at impact, and that the variables introduced by one component was not reflected in a conclusion published by the USGA that purported to comment on the changes in the distance of shots.

[JESII]

I think the USGA was commenting specifically on claims that the ball provided a turbo boost.


Does it matter to you that the USGA reigned back the initial driver COR limit in titanium driver faces from 0.86 to 0.83?

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

What is the real problem? Inquiring minds want to know.

Golf course owners/operators/members making decisions based on a fraction of a percent of players.

Is it really a fraction of a percent of the players? Can anyone really have an effect on that decision making given the current equipment status?

You have members of high school golf teams in every school in the country hitting it much farther than the pros did before the advent of ProV1 type balls. That includes relatively small communities like my club on the outer most fringes of metropolitan areas. I've played with some of them at my club. I've seen them hit driver, 9 iron, 1 putt on a par 5. Same kid made a hole in one on a 205 yard par 3 in the club championship. When I asked him if it was his first, he said no, sixth. He told me the pro paired him with me to pick up some putting pointers. His younger brother and teammates just as long, but with no holes-in-one, and disgusted by his brother. I must admit that it seems that marriage, and families put a damper on such players. From the stories I have heard, there used to be a group of them in the early Kings Putter events. Then they got married, Then we hear little to nothing of them.

Then there are kids that couldn't make the high school golf team that are hitting it farther that the pros did before the advent of the ProV1, but couldn't keep it in play. Therefore, they couldn't make the team, but they are endangering players on nearby holes. Probably didn't have a short game either. I think dismissing the issue by labeling it an issue only pertaining to tour pros and the ilk is wrong.

The previous state was a spinning ball that people didn't hit long, and a non spinning ball that the right people could hit long. The serious players that people payed attention to all played the spinning ball. There were long players that no one payed attention to using the non spinning ball. So, even though there have been players hitting it 300 plus ever since the advent of the TopFlite, no one is going to change golf courses because of them.

I put a lot of emphasis on the ball, because you can distinctively see it's effect in the tour driving stats. When the ProV1 and similar ball came out, there was a big jump in tour driving stats. Then when optimization on Trackman became de regueur there was another big jump in tour driving stats.

[JESII]

The previous state was a spinning ball that people didn't hit long, and a non spinning ball that the right people could hit long. The serious players that people payed attention to all played the spinning ball. There were long players that no one payed attention to using the non spinning ball. So, even though there have been players hitting it 300 plus ever since the advent of the TopFlite, no one is going to change golf courses because of them.

Garland,


I carved out this paragraph because it gets right to my point...and we agree. Courses are being changed for the guys that hit the ball a mile AND shoot really low scores. I suggest that's where it ends. The high school players may well hit it far, but very very few also shoot really low scores. If you're comfortable, please post the ghin score history of the kid with 6 hole-in-ones.


While I feel for anybody that's been hit by a golf ball, I personally don't see the safety angle getting a lot of traction.

[JESII]

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.

Not being snarky, but what are you referring to with
"real problem and real solution"


BTW, I'm currently experiencing a unintentianal rollback-we'll see how that turns out....

I doubt this unintentional roll back will make you relish hitting the ball shorter permanently...


The problem/solution is owners demanding architects make their course 7,200+ yards and memberships and owners altering their courses to the same goal because they don't want excessively low scores. Low scores are an objective assessment of a specific of the golf course experience...not the only assessment, but an easy one to target.

[Dave Doxey]

  I’m an old guy who works hard to keep a single-digit handicap.  I appreciate course architecture only as it applies to the game I play, from the tees that I play (now usually short “senior” tees).

 
I could care less about what the pros score or how they play a course.  I’ve watched pros play courses that I also played or belonged to and enjoyed watching how different their game is to mine.  That said, I could care less if they shoot 59 (or 49, for that matter).  I know that they play different from me.  I also know that the equipment and other factors have changed over time, so I don’t try to compare them to pros of the past.  Things change.

 
I cannot understand changing a course to try to “protect” it from pros.  Leave courses alone and let the pros shoot whatever that shoot.  Why destroy the great old courses for the rest of us?

 
If club members want to waste their money on lengthening or otherwise changing courses, let them waste it.  I’d never support it in a club to which I belonged.  If members destroy a great old treasure, shame on them.

 
I doubt that equipment rollback will happen, for two reasons. One is money. Manufacturers make too much money selling dreams to average golfers who think that they can buy a game. They won’t stand for rollbacks. How’d you like to be the marketing guy assigned to sell a ball that flies shorter?

 
The second reason is fear on the part of USGA/R&A about losing control.  Suppose manufacturers decided to simply ignore a rollback and continue to sell current equipment (or even start going beyond the current limits)?  Currently the governing bodies get compliance from manufacturers.  They won’t risk losing that.  Most average golfers don’t take the rules seriously.  If a big name equipment maker started pushing “hot” balls & clubs, a big market would buy in.

[Garland Bayley]

... If you're comfortable, please post the ghin score history of the kid with 6 hole-in-ones.
...

It's been 10 years. I don't even know if I can spell his last name. Fuzzy on his first name. Last I heard he was moving to Argentina with his dad. And, GHIN is down for maintenance.

[JESII]

Point really being...was he breaking the course record with regularity and has since gone on to become a household name?


How would he have done head to head against Kavanaugh if they played for a week?


Did you saddle him with any putting tips?

[John Kavanaugh]

I haven't been beaten by a high school kid since high school.


Truth of the matter is, I was a scratch player when the Top Flight was introduced. It was not any longer than a premium balata ball. It just didn't cut. I grew up playing a course where during the best conditions possible I could drive 4 of the par 4's with a balata ball. If I could have driven those greens more often with a Top Flight I would have been playing a Top Flight. Not a single decent player did which is the only evidence I got on that.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the  thing being lost in all this is, it doesn't really matter what specifically caused the distance gains.


Ball, equipment, fitness, training, teaching, etc.  None of that matters to the solution.


Change ball dimpling where the ball only flies X yards with X amount of force at impact.  Easy to do, its basic science...none of that other stuff matters one bit...

[JESII]

Ok, but Kalen, to what end?


Also...who is most likely to figure out how to overcome that roll back? The Tour player with tons of science at his disposal to sort out all launch conditions or you?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()