No Wind, Weather... No Test... Shooting Gallery...

[Mike Sweeney]

PS - as to 1-irons, anyone know the loft on Hogan's one from his Merion Open win? Exact loft please. No speculation.

The 1-iron, with its face as thin as pursed lips, intimidated many golfers. Hogan’s club had a 17-degree loft.
[/size][/color]
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/sports/golf/1-iron-made-famous-by-hogan-largely-absent-at-us-open.html

[Niall C]

The course was the undoubted star of the show. It was great seeing these guys work there way round a great links course and that looked like it was in fantastic condition. As to scoring, well that's always been largely down to the weather. Trying to set the course up in such a ways so as to manufacture a particular winning score is simply a fools errand. Whatever the conditions they still have to play great golf to come out on top.


As an aside, those that are advocating a roll-back, how far back do you want to go ? Maybe back to the days of when anything under 80 gave them a chance ?


Niall

[archie_struthers]

 




Thought it was a great event. Home court advantage paid off for Lowry and seemed like a great time was had by all.

[Jim Nugent]

As it relates to rolling back the technology,  I am a proponent. However... The gap between Pros and Amateurs would grow larger.

Ira

One word: bifurcation. 

[George Pazin]

What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong with what is essentially a really long par 3? Don’t all players have to play it and feel the pressure to make 3?
Why the focus on par/score? Why not focus on interesting shots, which always seem in abundance at most Open venues?

A litany of 85-55 yard chips, pitches on the penultimate hole is not interesting... and "the pressure to make 3"?! Who's focused on score or what the hole par is...you KNOW that until 15-20 yrs ago, a 415 hole did not regularly bear these outcomes... hence my comments on rollback.

I'd be happy with a rollback as well, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the chips versus how a 415 yard hole used to play. Even with a rollback, 415 is never gonna be more than driver wedge for pros, unless your idea of a rollback is to go back to small wooden woods, where there is a real penalty for mishits.


Nothing more boring to me than stock shots in golf. The Open doesn't seem to have many of those, under almost any circumstances, good weather or bad. In good weather, most of the courses have enough run in them to make things more entertaining and interesting, and in bad weather, they're infinitely preferable to the -25 birdiefests we see on the US tour.

[David Bowen]

On parkland courses, particularly in the US, you almost always get the same test, with some variables for how much a course has to be watered to keep the grass alive.  On links courses you can have everything from the relative softness of Portrush last week to a burned out hardpan.  Even without wind or rain, the latter conditions are a difficult test and far from a shooting gallery.  With balls running off fairways and greens difficult to hold, scores can elevate just as much if not more than a softer course as on a windy day.  Throw in the wind and it becomes unmanageable regardless of technology and player skill.


Links golf provides all sorts of possibilities, each weather dependent.  The architecture can create further difficulties.  Parkland courses tend to require architecture and distance to create difficulty, weather not so much at all.

[Kalen Braley]

I understand what VK is saying here with defenseless courses as they relate to equipment related distance gains, so perhaps I'll try to elaborate:

In a previous post he talked about a 15-25% distance rollback.  So all numbers I use assume an average of 20%.

For example on 17, a 415 yard par 4:
-  Instead of players bombing it 320 off the tee and catching the speed slot to get 25-30 more.  Now they hit it 256 (80% of 320) and are on top of the hill with 415-256 = 159 remaining.
- And now instead hitting that 160 yard PW, which is only 128, now its a 7 iron, (which used to be 200, but is now 160).

And then on say 18, a 460 yard par 4:
- Instead of playing it safe with a 260 yard 3 iron, which now only goes 208, they are forced to use a 3W or Driver to leave a reasonable approach of 200.
- And instead of hitting a 200 yard 7 iron, (which now only goes 160), they now must use the 4 iron which now only goes 195ish.

These are only two specific examples, but you can do this on every hole to get the gist of VKs message... which is you wouldn't need the weather to protect the course's shot values because these players would have to use longer less accurate clubs on shot after shot, hole after hole... ergo built in protection.  It restores the value of shot making as opposed to Bomb and chip on 400+ yard holes, and Bomb and mid iron on par 5s. And it also completely ends the course lengthening arms race....

MSGA! Make Shot-making Great Again!

[jeffwarne]

Interesting thread-good comments


I wonder how those opposed to a rollback would react if it indeed did happen?


Currently there are a lot of us who think the recent rules changes are absolutely silly and certainly not needed at all, but we soldier on-even putting the pin back in for the flawed stat believer who thinks it's going to help him on his 6 footer, and we accept the player's word because we have to when he explains his "intent" when he avoids a penalty for something that actually did happen.
It's sad that it took a gallery assisted  elite player's grumbling about the three minute search rule to draw attention to how thoughtless that rule change was-just so many changes without weighing the consequences.(for example officials routinly tell caddies not to join the search before the player arrives to delay the start of the three minutes-that's really speeding up play)


My point is, just like the RIDICULOUS local option that the USGA suggests for lost balls (that nobody uses-why would you add TWO when most simply throw down a ball and add ONE) The USGA should not be involved in LOCAL rules-that's why they call them local


It certainly can be said that the rollback/halt of technology hasn't been rushed through....(lots of studies though over the last 20 years)
though they sure did crack down on grooves and anchoring (while actually gaining exactly nothing except which part of the body you can use to anchor)


It amazes me how often I hear more and more mainstream players and analysts talk about how great elements of playing and spectating are LOST with the advent of bomb and gouge (the spectating part is new and I've always heard the tired argument that "chicks dig the long ball" )
chicks really don't dig anything about golf so stop kidding yourself

[Peter Pallotta]

Anyone remember, about 10 years ago, when they took then-red hot tour pro Steve Marino out to East Potomac municipal course to see what he'd shoot on a wide open, water hazard free 6500 yard golf course? Folks were thinking, 'oh, a 59, maybe a 54' with all the par 4s he'd drive and the par 5s he'd reach in two with mid irons etc. He shot 68 -- just about what he was shooting most rounds on tour -- and grappled all day with awkward distances and patchy lies and trees in inconvenient places and crappy & packed-down bunker sand and, most of all, barely making any putts at all on the grainy and 'very slow' greens.

[jeffwarne]

Anyone remember, about 10 years ago, when they took then-red hot tour pro Steve Marino out to East Potomac municipal course to see what he'd shoot on a wide open, water hazard free 6500 yard golf course? Folks were thinking, 'oh, a 59, maybe a 54' with all the par 4s he'd drive and the par 5s he'd reach in two with mid irons etc. He shot 68 -- just about what he was shooting most rounds on tour -- and grappled all day with awkward distances and patchy lies and trees in inconvenient places and crappy & packed-down bunker sand and, most of all, barely making any putts at all on the grainy and 'very slow' greens.

+1

[Bernie Bell]

East Potomac certainly does not rely on the capricious climate to present a challenge.

[Niall C]

A comment on what's the biggest influence of the improved ball or fitness/technique of the player debate. It was very noticeable in this Open how often the pro's were not only digging out balls from deep rough but keeping them under control, even for shots of c.200 yards. As someone who has been a hacker out of that sort of stuff all my golfing life, I find it amazing how they do it. Getting the ball 200 yards out of some of those lies never mind in the right line is amazing. That's not down to the ball or equipment, but to the strength/conditioning of the players and their superior technique.


If they are that good then let them play rather than manufacturing things to have them play to a notional number. As for bifurcation, one of the really great things about this sport is that we can, after a fashion compare ourselves to the best. You start to lose that when pro's and amateurs start playing with different equipment.


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting thread-good comments

I wonder how those opposed to a rollback would react if it indeed did happen?

As Mr. Dye used to say, every course has room for more forward tees if a rollback requires them.

[Tom_Doak]

As it relates to rolling back the technology,  I am a proponent. However... The gap between Pros and Amateurs would grow larger.

Ira

One word: bifurcation.

The USGA and R & A suggest that bifurcation is a dirty word, ignoring that from 1930 to 1979 they specified different standards for golf balls, and life went on just fine.  My solution would be to do exactly what the R & A did in '79:  make a new ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championship, and let the rest take care of itself eventually, or not.  But it will, because the good amateurs will insist their friends switch over, and changing to the "good player's ball" will over time require all competitive golfers to adapt.


But I do want to correct Ira, in that any change to take the air out of the ball will affect the better player more than the average guy, for the same reason that the gains of the last twenty years have given the better player more benefit.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sorry but is a simple fact that there are far more good to great 60 yr old golfers than there were 20 years ago. Yea and please don't bore me with the real reasons why.

[Ira Fishman]

As it relates to rolling back the technology,  I am a proponent. However... The gap between Pros and Amateurs would grow larger.

Ira

One word: bifurcation.

The USGA and R & A suggest that bifurcation is a dirty word, ignoring that from 1930 to 1979 they specified different standards for golf balls, and life went on just fine.  My solution would be to do exactly what the R & A did in '79:  make a new ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championship, and let the rest take care of itself eventually, or not.  But it will, because the good amateurs will insist their friends switch over, and changing to the "good player's ball" will over time require all competitive golfers to adapt.


But I do want to correct Ira, in that any change to take the air out of the ball will affect the better player more than the average guy, for the same reason that the gains of the last twenty years have given the better player more benefit.

Tom, my comment was not limited to the ball, but included rollbacks on driver technology as well which is what prompted the Hogan reference.  However, even as it relates to the ball only, it would affect pros more in terms of absolute distance lost, but they are far better equipped (no pun intended) to make up for that difference than amateurs are to make up for their loss of distance.  One other point:  I think that the modern ball flying straighter may have had a bigger impact than even distance.  It is one thing to bomb and gouge when you are 10 yards off line; it is another when you are putting OB and other factors into play.  Returning to the old ball in terms of curve might affect the Pros more than Amateurs.  It also would be cool to see old time shot making, but maybe that is just nostalgia.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

As it relates to the Original Post about Links versus Parkland, I am hard pressed to think of a Parkland course that consistently offers a truly tough challenge for the Pros absent a US Open or Bethpage PGA set up.  And such set ups would make a links course unplayable if the wind does blow, especially if the greens were at such speeds.  Oakmont is the exception that comes to mind that proves the rule.  Augusta resists low scores only when the weather is bad. 


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

A comment on what's the biggest influence of the improved ball or fitness/technique of the player debate. It was very noticeable in this Open how often the pro's were not only digging out balls from deep rough but keeping them under control, even for shots of c.200 yards. As someone who has been a hacker out of that sort of stuff all my golfing life, I find it amazing how they do it. Getting the ball 200 yards out of some of those lies never mind in the right line is amazing. That's not down to the ball or equipment, but to the strength/conditioning of the players and their superior technique.

Niall

Niall,

I'd like to think they can do those things mostly based on equipment gains with huge sweet spots on club faces and balls that fly super distances.

Instead of taking a mighty lash with a 7-8 iron and straight flying ball, let them try it with a 4 or 5 iron and flight limited ball.  It would be a completely different animal altogether...

P.S. et.al  Once again, every major sport has bifurcated equipment/balls, remind me again why it would be so awful for golf?

[JMEvensky]

The USGA and R & A suggest that bifurcation is a dirty word, ignoring that from 1930 to 1979 they specified different standards for golf balls, and life went on just fine.  My solution would be to do exactly what the R & A did in '79:  make a new ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championship, and let the rest take care of itself eventually, or not.  But it will, because the good amateurs will insist their friends switch over, and changing to the "good player's ball" will over time require all competitive golfers to adapt.

A sad reminder, this was always Rich Goodale's great idea--his Bifurcation Will Lead Back To Unification (which he wanted to trademark). Eventually, PGAT-mandated equipment would filter all the way down to club scrambles for the reasons you cite.

[Mike_Clayton]

"The USGA and R & A suggest that bifurcation is a dirty word, ignoring that from 1930 to 1979 they specified different standards for golf balls, and life went on just fine.  My solution would be to do exactly what the R & A did in '79:  make a new ball mandatory for The Open and The Amateur Championship'


Tom,


The R&A bought the 1.68' ball in for the 1974 Open - so almost a decade before they finally banned the 1.62" ball. I'm not sure when they bought it in for the amateur - I played it in 1980 and it was in then so '79 sounds about right.

[John Kavanaugh]

I first golfed in 68 and broke 70 before Nixon resigned so I know something about the small ball. Quite simply it wasn't as good as the Titleist 100 Pro Traj. Let's not pretend that anyone was forced to change.

[Mike_Clayton]

John,


They weren't forced to change? 
The small ball went 25 yards further - so clearly there was a reason they all (perhaps with the odd exception) used it in the 1973 Open before the big ball was mandated the following year.
And when he had the chance, Nicklaus chose to play the small ball (Australian- made Slazenger B51) in Florida in the 1971 World Cup.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,


I've heard that argument. I honestly could be wrong. btw. I respect the hell out of your opinion. I'm just following my gut here. It was a long long time ago.

[Mike_Clayton]

John,


Peter Thomson would have agreed with you - he thought the big ball easier to play with and argued long and hard against its introduction here.
In the wind though most would agree the Pro-Traj Titleist was more difficult to play with - even though it was a 'better ball'.
Of some relevance was the small balls we played with in Australia were almost always Surlyn - so less effective than balata on hard greens.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

The original acushnet ball was horrible. I can't quite put my finger on the year that Titleist started to dominate.