Tournament courses vs. ball rollback

[Jim Hoak]

This subject has been mentioned before, but I'd like to see a discussion focused on it exactly:
What if the PGA Tour would undertake to build a series of tournament courses designed specifically to hold its tournaments, that would be of sufficient length and playing conditions to challenge these top players even with the same ball and equipment as the rest of us play?  Why do the professional tournaments need to be played on existing courses?  Does that really add that much to these tournaments that it's worth upending the ball specs for everyone?
There would, of course, be many details that would have to be worked out.  But I think the current debate over "bi-furcation" glosses over the fundamental question that has been debated on here several times--Don't we spend too much energy debating issues focused on the .01% of the golfers playing the Pro Tour instead of the 99.99% that love the game as it is?
I'm trying to think of other sports.  Aren't there professional playing fields somewhat separated from amateur playing fields?  I'm sure something would be lost with the Tour playing their own courses, but would the simplicity of this solution outweigh the cost?

[jeffwarne]

Which "game as it is" are you referring to?
Amazed at the lack of outcry when the equipment gains are forward, and the massive outcry when a fraction is clawed back.


No doubt whatever is gained between now and next "line of death" deadline, will be less than the "rollback"

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff, the "game as it is" that I refer to is the one that most all of us play every Saturday morning--or whatever.  I just believe that as general rule, too much of the debate on here on many subjects focuses on the Pro Tour, as opposed to the traditional game of golf as most of us know--and love--it.
Also, Jeff, if I truly believed that this current proposed ball rollback were the end of equipment changes, I would be fine with it.  I just assume that there will be a series of changes over the next several years focused almost entirely on the elite players.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This subject has been mentioned before, but I'd like to see a discussion focused on it exactly:
What if the PGA Tour would undertake to build a series of tournament courses designed specifically to hold its tournaments, that would be of sufficient length and playing conditions to challenge these top players even with the same ball and equipment as the rest of us play?  Why do the professional tournaments need to be played on existing courses?  Does that really add that much to these tournaments that it's worth upending the ball specs for everyone?
There would, of course, be many details that would have to be worked out.  But I think the current debate over "bi-furcation" glosses over the fundamental question that has been debated on here several times--Don't we spend too much energy debating issues focused on the .01% of the golfers playing the Pro Tour instead of the 99.99% that love the game as it is?
I'm trying to think of other sports.  Aren't there professional playing fields somewhat separated from amateur playing fields?  I'm sure something would be lost with the Tour playing their own courses, but would the simplicity of this solution outweigh the cost?

I'll be interested to follow this discussion, but if I may, Jim, a brief counter-point:

It's not just the PGA Tour (or even the PGA Tour + DPW + KF + other pro tours) who are finding their ballparks to be too small for whatever their sensibilities are*. This includes AGAs hosting state opens, higher level amateur events even at the state and sometimes local levels, etc. It's not just a PGA Tour issue.

* I don't care if someone shoots 62 or the winning score over four rounds is -32; the lowest score will still win the event, whatever that score is. I also don't care if we can host our national championships and bigger events on courses that are over 100 years old. I know that puts me in a small minority here, but my interest in GCA is how it applies to me, not how a PGA Tour player looks to do on TV, partly due to how lousy a job TV does of covering GCA in general.

[Richard Hetzel]

I was a nationally competitive BMX racer for a long time (1983-2005). As the newer professionals' skills outpaced the amateurs in both speed and bike skills (jumping) there was a need for them to have a "more difficult track". They were simply going too fast for the jumps and the track that the amateurs also raced on. They could not build a new track for the pros, but they did bifurcate things by making two or three "pro sections" that were extremely more difficult. Only the pros used these sections of the track, the amateurs continued to race on their track set up.


Not sure why they just can't go to a "tournament ball or balls"? No one forced anyone to make the courses longer. I would trick up the greens before I rolled the ball back, they can get those strokes back around the greens easily. ALso, why not shrink the fairways, grow the rough and penalize the longer hitters that way?


I guess there is no easy answer here.

[Ben Hollerbach]

This subject has been mentioned before, but I'd like to see a discussion focused on it exactly:
What if the PGA Tour would undertake to build a series of tournament courses designed specifically to hold its tournaments, that would be of sufficient length and playing conditions to challenge these top players even with the same ball and equipment as the rest of us play?  Why do the professional tournaments need to be played on existing courses?  Does that really add that much to these tournaments that it's worth upending the ball specs for everyone?
There would, of course, be many details that would have to be worked out.  But I think the current debate over "bi-furcation" glosses over the fundamental question that has been debated on here several times--Don't we spend too much energy debating issues focused on the .01% of the golfers playing the Pro Tour instead of the 99.99% that love the game as it is?
I'm trying to think of other sports.  Aren't there professional playing fields somewhat separated from amateur playing fields?  I'm sure something would be lost with the Tour playing their own courses, but would the simplicity of this solution outweigh the cost?

Isn't that what the TPC network was suppose to be? Why has it failed to achieve that goal?

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,


I doubt that the R&A or the USGA care very much about the routine tour course one way or the other. They do care about where they host their tournaments, particularly the Open and US Open. The USGA has announced venues out until 2051, and the R&A has its rota. And to both of their credit, they have worked over the past several years to bring other events (Walker, Ams, other Opens, etc.) to classic, outstanding courses.


Ira

[Dan_Callahan]

Everyone has an opinion on this, but for me, part of the allure of golf tournaments is the courses they are played on. I'm not interested in "Tour-only" courses. In addition, I think the game would be far more interesting if professionals used a balata ball. Watching them work their shots is endlessly fascinating, as is watching the seve-esque recoveries when they hit their drives way offline with a spinny ball.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In addition, I think the game would be far more interesting if professionals used a balata ball. Watching them work their shots is endlessly fascinating, as is watching the seve-esque recoveries when they hit their drives way offline with a spinny ball.

They wouldn't work the ball; they know better now. They know they're more consistent trying to master one shot than to become a jack of all (shots). And AFAIK, the PGA Tour has never really cared about playing the most GCA-approved courses, and many of the GCA-aproved courses don't have the infrastructure or room to support a modern PGA Tour event, even if they did once host them in the 70s or something.

[Dan_Callahan]

And AFAIK, the PGA Tour has never really cared about playing the most GCA-approved courses, and many of the GCA-aproved courses don't have the infrastructure or room to support a modern PGA Tour event, even if they did once host them in the 70s or something.

They've played Merion, the Country Club, Shinnecock, Oakmont, etc. That's what I'm referring to. I don't expect them to try to go back to Myopia or Newport. If they were to abandon those great courses in favor of TPC-type designs, I would absolutely lose interest.

[Tim Martin]

And AFAIK, the PGA Tour has never really cared about playing the most GCA-approved courses, and many of the GCA-aproved courses don't have the infrastructure or room to support a modern PGA Tour event, even if they did once host them in the 70s or something.

They've played Merion, the Country Club, Shinnecock, Oakmont, etc. That's what I'm referring to. I don't expect them to try to go back to Myopia or Newport. If they were to abandon those great courses in favor of TPC-type designs, I would absolutely lose interest.

Dan-I’m with you as I attend a tournament to see the golf course and setup. I guess that those with architecture as the primary interest are dwarfed by the majority of fans who are there to see the players and watch them in action.

[Charlie Goerges]

They've played Merion, the Country Club, Shinnecock, Oakmont, etc. That's what I'm referring to.

(This will sound pedantic, but I don't mean it to be, because I think the distinction will end up mattering). But I don't believe the PGA Tour has ever gone to those sites. It's the USGA/R&A (and to a lesser extent the PGA of America) who try to go to the classic old courses. And it's those two who are implementing the roll-back. So given who's doing the roll back and where they like to play, it makes some sense.

[Edward Glidewell]

It's definitely not limited to tour players, or even high level amateurs.


I know a couple of mid-single digit handicappers who can drive the ball over 300 yards and carry their 7 irons 180+. Of course that's not every player at that level, or even the majority of them, but it seems like that's increasing rather than decreasing for younger players.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

(This will sound pedantic, but I don't mean it to be, because I think the distinction will end up mattering). But I don't believe the PGA Tour has ever gone to those sites. It's the USGA/R&A (and to a lesser extent the PGA of America) who try to go to the classic old courses. And it's those two who are implementing the roll-back. So given who's doing the roll back and where they like to play, it makes some sense.

It's not pedantic - the OP talked about the PGA Tour, and you're right, the PGA Tour isn't the one holding events on those courses. And yes, there's a minority of us who care about GCA, but it's a small minority.

[Sean_A]

I wouldn’t even attempt to watch the LA Open if it’s not held at Riviera. But I don’t care about most of the events s and that is partly because of the stale venues.

Ciao

[Pat Burke]

If architecture really mattered to professional golf,
The PGA Tour Australia would be the biggest tour in the world.
So many events played on consequential golf courses, and forever.


Most fans, and sadly a lot of pros don’t think this way.
Many pros think a good course is one they play well

[Tim_Weiman]

This subject has been mentioned before, but I'd like to see a discussion focused on it exactly:
What if the PGA Tour would undertake to build a series of tournament courses designed specifically to hold its tournaments, that would be of sufficient length and playing conditions to challenge these top players even with the same ball and equipment as the rest of us play?  Why do the professional tournaments need to be played on existing courses?  Does that really add that much to these tournaments that it's worth upending the ball specs for everyone?
There would, of course, be many details that would have to be worked out.  But I think the current debate over "bi-furcation" glosses over the fundamental question that has been debated on here several times--Don't we spend too much energy debating issues focused on the .01% of the golfers playing the Pro Tour instead of the 99.99% that love the game as it is?
I'm trying to think of other sports.  Aren't there professional playing fields somewhat separated from amateur playing fields?  I'm sure something would be lost with the Tour playing their own courses, but would the simplicity of this solution outweigh the cost?

Isn’t it more economic to just roll back the ball?


As for playing fields, high school, college and professional football are all played on the same size field.

[Mark Pearce]

I know a couple of mid-single digit handicappers who can drive the ball over 300 yards and carry their 7 irons 180+. Of course that's not every player at that level, or even the majority of them, but it seems like that's increasing rather than decreasing for younger players.

Not just single figure golfers.  Each of my sons play.  All are reasonably competent athletes in other sports but play golf purely for fun and occasionally.  One, off a genuine 21 index, eagled a 520 yard par 5 in an invitation day last year hitting driver 8 iron into a slight breeze.  My regular playing partner has a brother in law who was a good rugby player, has a 27 index (he really has no short game at all) and hits the ball similar distances. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I know a couple of mid-single digit handicappers who can drive the ball over 300 yards and carry their 7 irons 180+. Of course that's not every player at that level, or even the majority of them, but it seems like that's increasing rather than decreasing for younger players.

Not just single figure golfers.  Each of my sons play.  All are reasonably competent athletes in other sports but play golf purely for fun and occasionally.  One, off a genuine 21 index, eagled a 520 yard par 5 in an invitation day last year hitting driver 8 iron into a slight breeze.  My regular playing partner has a brother in law who was a good rugby player, has a 27 index (he really has no short game at all) and hits the ball similar distances.

If only we had statistics on these kinds of things… 

[Dan_Callahan]

It's not pedantic - the OP talked about the PGA Tour, and you're right, the PGA Tour isn't the one holding events on those courses. And yes, there's a minority of us who care about GCA, but it's a small minority.

Good grief. Then replace those with Riviera, Harbour Town, East Lake, Pebble, Quail Hollow, Colonial, Sedgefield. Back in the day Westchester. The point is I'm not interested in watching Tour events on a bunch of TPC designs. That's all. And I realize that is an outlier position in the context of total viewership.

[Craig Sweet]

Far easier, and more likely, to have a tour only ball than a tour only set of golf courses.

[Jim Hoak]

I'm persuaded that this is probably a bad idea.
Wasteful and impractical.
I was not supporting the concept, but I still think that in the case of the golf ball rollback--as in many things discussed on here--we give too much emphasis to the effect on touring pros and other elite players, rather than considering the effect on the vast number of recreational golfers with varying abilities and dedication to the game, who are the backbone of golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Good grief. Then replace those with Riviera, Harbour Town, East Lake, Pebble, Quail Hollow, Colonial, Sedgefield. Back in the day Westchester. The point is I'm not interested in watching Tour events on a bunch of TPC designs. That's all. And I realize that is an outlier position in the context of total viewership.

Right, so… as you know, they still play at those courses.    Most people really don't care though. You're amongst the minority here, and the TV product rarely shows off good GCA.

[Rob Marshall]

I tune in to tournaments more so if they are playing a great course. I still remember watching the Crosby just because it was at Pebble Beach when I was 12. I didn't know what GCA was when I was 12.

[Pat Burke]

I tune in to tournaments more so if they are playing a great course. I still remember watching the Crosby just because it was at Pebble Beach when I was 12. I didn't know what GCA was when I was 12.

Absolutely makes sense that participants in this site would want to see a compelling course.  Other than 10 at Riviera, the architecture sadly does not get any significant coverage in most cases, just cursory oversight