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.


Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rob,
Yep, it’s a real sport and like any athletic endeavor, it needs to be taken seriously as far as stretching, conditioning and athletic ability/preparation to play well and injury free.  In principle it seems like a simple benign game - a paddle with a wiffle ball.  It is far from it. 

But look at golf, injuries there too and it is just a stick with a ball and the ball just sits there.  How hard can it be  ;) 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 02:30:17 PM by Mark_Fine »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
But look at golf, injuries there too and it is just a stick with a ball and the ball just sits there.  How hard can it be  ;)
How hard can it be? Well for starters the ball itself is bloody hard (!) and when hit especially off-line can do quite a bit of injury and damage. Another reason why it needs to be rolled-back.
Atb

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Be clear, I am not at all suggesting golf as we know it goes away.  This, like Pickleball is to Tennis, would be a variation of the game although this would be less radical.  Basically most everything about golf as we know it today would look the same and be played the same way.  The ball would just go half as far.   
« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 07:46:42 PM by Mark_Fine »

Stewart Abramson

  • Karma: +0/-0
For average golfers I don't see a need to change anything. A shorter flying ball will just make the game harder or possibly require totally redesigned  courses which is not really analogous to creating a cookie cutter pickleball court.  There are already alternatives available for "pickleball sized" versions of the game... Executive courses, par 3 courses, putting courses, Top Golf.


If long hitters and better golfers want a downsized pickleball version of the game they can move up to shorter tees and take driver and woods out of the bag.

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
This is pretty simple in my mind. Tennis courts were relatively empty except for the core players prior to pickleball. Golf courses don’t have that issue.


Does the golf ball go too far? Yeah. But the golf market isn’t hurting due to difficulty or the size/speed of the course/ball. Tennis had popularity issues long before Pickleball.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
We are still in the froth from Covid.  I see it in our projects.  Clubs and courses are still doing very well and course improvement jobs that had been on hold came to life in the last couple years with the uptick in rounds/golfers (biggest problem now is finding contractors/workers to get work done).  Labor is very short out there.  But the writing is on the wall.  Golf is getting more and more expensive and I don’t see this trend going down without some fundamental changes.  The tide will turn and golfers will switch to less costly and less time consuming activities. 


Stewart,
I am not proposing a shorter flying ball to be used on today’s courses (though it could be if one wanted).  You wouldn’t have to change/alter existing courses to use one but that defeats the benefits of having courses with less acreage and lower maintenance costs, etc.  Also probably doesn’t help speed of play.


Also, we all could just go play with the current balls with no more than a 5I but that wasn’t the point. 


Ben,
Maybe Pickleball wasn’t the best analogy but in some ways it is close. 


By the way, not that I was really asking but no one here has solved my driving range problem for these high school and college kids?  Do we just tell them to find a simulator to use for practice with drivers and woods?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 08:32:02 PM by Mark_Fine »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1

I could be dead wrong but if someone like Mike Keiser had Tom Doak or C&C build a world class “championship” half course designed for a short distance golf ball, the world would beat a path to it’s door and he/they might truly change the game of golf. 



Mark:


Have you ever heard of Bandon Preserve or the Sandbox?  Those par-3 courses have holes even an expert golfer will love, and they are much more efficient than your idea because you don’t really need fairways at all.


The fact that they aren’t 18 holes or par 72 seems not to matter to anyone who plays them.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0



People need to stop freaking out about the 25% and embrace what modern equipment has done for 75% of us.


I'm curious "what modern equipment has done for  75% of us"
What it's done is affect design, maintenance and setup, all in an effort to "protect par"
75% of us have to walk/ride/pay for the land/course that 25%(I'd argue it's more like 10%) are using.
I still don't buy that golf wouldn't be as fun if I hit it 40-50% shorter on a course scaled 40-50% smaller.
If nothing else I could play more holes in 4 hours.
It certainly was a blast when I started and I hit it 150 yards as a kid, and it remained fun when I matured into a professional hitting 250 yard drives and 155 yard 7 irons.
As my store bought driving distance expanded to 285 20 years later at age 42, the game didn't get "more fun" as the courses and setups were mostly scaled up to match. I just had to walk farther, and/or wait longer with groups needing to be spaced farther apart on the course.
It most certainly would've been more fun if I alone had magically increased my distance 15%, and no one else had, in part because I would've actually earned it, but mostly because I would've put distance between myself and my peers.
But when the entire competitive world got longer, the distance alone provided minimal satisfaction.
I just played in a competitive event where my two fellow competitors hit it 300plus yards-every single time. They weren't any better than I was at their age, they just played a different game, and it was frankly boring as they hit wedge to every par 4 and mid iron to every par 5  on the wonderful classic course we were playing, which hadn't been scaled to the modern game.
I would argue they would get far more joy playing different clubs to holes, enjoying curving the ball, and having to think about where their tee shots ended up for optimal angles, as opposed to simply blasting away and reacting to where their drives ended up by hitting high wedges  from various lies where angles mattered little.


I myself don't play the white tees for that exact same reason, though I probably will at some point when my lack of variety comes from hitting fairway wood into every hole.


Bowling got less fun when 300 games became commonplace.
Tennis slowed the ball down.
Baseball tweaks its ball, though they do play to average inane fan who likes the long ball at the expense of the finer strategies of the game.




Kalen, your idea about 6000 yard courses and different balls for different players is something I advocated years ago on this forum, and was brushed aside.
I love the idea.
Keeping everyone on the same course with different speed balls solves so many problems.
Shortening the course doesn't really level the playing field.
Having someone hit driver 300 and then SW 105 on a 405/321 par 4 , isn't the same as setting the course up for say a woman to hit it 240 and 81 yards, as getting it closer from 81 is always going to be easier than getting it closer from 105.(when both are making a full swing)


But giving different speed balls, where both levels playing the same tees, and therefore drive similar distances, leaving similar length shots in, provide a better test IMHO.
I.E. they both drive 270 and then the both approach from 130 using different speed balls.
Now their scale remains the same, and one is not given the advantage of being closer(to hit the same club) to a similar sized target

"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

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
I ask the question again, how have longer and longer golf courses benefited the game?  Do pros outweigh the cons?
Asking whether it's a "benefit" isn't really asking the right question. It's just the nature of things. Baseball pitchers throw faster than ever. Golfers hit it farther than ever. What would a U.S. Open be like at Myopia Hunt Club? Someone would still win, but would the USGA be content to have to crown a winner at -28 or trick up the course so much to get the winner closer to -10 "only"? The length of courses has been necessary, and it just "is" — there are pros and cons.

Besides, ask a housing developer, and they might tell you they prefer a 7600 yard course over a 5600 yard one — more housing fronting the golf course. So there are benefits to some, even if you think it is not needed.

And yes, some of the scale might need to change but is that a problem?
Yes, that's a problem. Maybe not one without a solution, but… it'd have to be solved, and expecting to nail it on the first few tries may prove foolish.

I don't think tennis has really downsized to pickleball. They're very different things -- most tennis players haven't switched to pickleball; pickleball is just something that's been picked up by a number of people (and generally older people).
I, too, reject the premise of the thread.

I don’t think modern equipment is making the game easier for a very large percent of people playing the game.
Of course it is.

The fact that they aren’t 18 holes or par 72 seems not to matter to anyone who plays them.
As an add-on to the "actual" golf courses, sure. I don't think Sand Valley is as popular as it is with four or five Sandbox-like courses.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 ;D 8) :P




Great idea Mark, but I would think if we could just bring it back to the Palmer ? Nicklaus era length that would be sufficient. Say 75%
of today's yardage .  It seems though they argue it that the new equipment and balls start to over-perform when swing speeds get over 110 MPH plus or minus.  It seems to me that the ball starts to fly three-5 yards further per 2mph increase in velocity.


Sure I'm gonna get reverb on that one !  LOL
 






Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
It seems though they argue it that the new equipment and balls start to over-perform when swing speeds get over 110 MPH plus or minus.  It seems to me that the ball starts to fly three-5 yards further per 2mph increase in velocity.
Golf balls do not break the laws of physics, no.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
10 years ago the industry leaders (Mark King, Ted Bishop, Joe Beditz) thought the game was in a ditch and drastic measures were called for...


Who remembers 15" holes?  Hack "golf"?  Foot "golf"?






https://youtu.be/Tmw6QTPAtQg



https://youtu.be/7t15lu7Jnfs
« Last Edit: June 02, 2024, 10:51:40 PM by Chris Hughes »
"Is it the Chicken Salad or the golf course that attracts and retains members ?"

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think big driving ranges will become e a thing of the past.  Value of land is rising quickly...cost of simulators is dropping as quickly because of technology, and you get much more info than you get watching your golf ball fly.


I'm with Paul.  It's crazy to think I was in Korea over 10 years ago and screen golf was huge there, with a televised league.  I'm not sure the commercial simulator experience will be like Korea but the number of people I know with simulators in their home is growing quickly (I have one).


It's a different game but still offers the occasional feel of a great shot and for those who want to continually improve it's really quantifiable.  Definitely miss the walk and exercise.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
I ask the question again, how have longer and longer golf courses benefited the game?  Do pros outweigh the cons?
Asking whether it's a "benefit" isn't really asking the right question. It's just the nature of things. Baseball pitchers throw faster than ever. Golfers hit it farther than ever. What would a U.S. Open be like at Myopia Hunt Club? Someone would still win, but would the USGA be content to have to crown a winner at -28 or trick up the course so much to get the winner closer to -10 "only"? The length of courses has been necessary, and it just "is" — there are pros and cons.

Besides, ask a housing developer, and they might tell you they prefer a 7600 yard course over a 5600 yard one — more housing fronting the golf course. So there are benefits to some, even if you think it is not needed.

And yes, some of the scale might need to change but is that a problem?
Yes, that's a problem. Maybe not one without a solution, but… it'd have to be solved, and expecting to nail it on the first few tries may prove foolish.

I don't think tennis has really downsized to pickleball. They're very different things -- most tennis players haven't switched to pickleball; pickleball is just something that's been picked up by a number of people (and generally older people).
I, too, reject the premise of the thread.

I don’t think modern equipment is making the game easier for a very large percent of people playing the game.
Of course it is.

The fact that they aren’t 18 holes or par 72 seems not to matter to anyone who plays them.
As an add-on to the "actual" golf courses, sure. I don't think Sand Valley is as popular as it is with four or five Sandbox-like courses.


Erik,


I can go to my local golf store and buy lots of modern, expensive putters, but out on a local muni golf course I don’t see people any better at putting than 50 years ago. The same is true for shots around the greens, whether from sand bunkers or just grass rough.


Do I see better iron play than decades ago? No. What about tee shots with $500 drivers? No, not really. Most tee shots are scattered left and right every bit as much as with persimmon and 43 inch steel shafts.


The truth is modern equipment helps elite golfers far more than the masses.


Tim
Tim Weiman

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
How about we hand out some Wilson Staff blades, or McGreger Tourney irons along with some Top Flight or Club Special balls to all  the members at your club and see how long before they go back to using today's equipment....The game is easier today, it's more fun today, at EVERY level.
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
People need to stop freaking out about the 25% and embrace what modern equipment has done for 75% of us.
I'm curious "what modern equipment has done for  75% of us"
What it's done is affect design, maintenance and setup, all in an effort to "protect par"
75% of us have to walk/ride/pay for the land/course that 25%(I'd argue it's more like 10%) are using.
I still don't buy that golf wouldn't be as fun if I hit it 40-50% shorter on a course scaled 40-50% smaller.
If nothing else I could play more holes in 4 hours.
It certainly was a blast when I started and I hit it 150 yards as a kid, and it remained fun when I matured into a professional hitting 250 yard drives and 155 yard 7 irons.
As my store bought driving distance expanded to 285 20 years later at age 42, the game didn't get "more fun" as the courses and setups were mostly scaled up to match. I just had to walk farther, and/or wait longer with groups needing to be spaced farther apart on the course.
It most certainly would've been more fun if I alone had magically increased my distance 15%, and no one else had, in part because I would've actually earned it, but mostly because I would've put distance between myself and my peers.
But when the entire competitive world got longer, the distance alone provided minimal satisfaction.
I just played in a competitive event where my two fellow competitors hit it 300plus yards-every single time. They weren't any better than I was at their age, they just played a different game, and it was frankly boring as they hit wedge to every par 4 and mid iron to every par 5  on the wonderful classic course we were playing, which hadn't been scaled to the modern game.
I would argue they would get far more joy playing different clubs to holes, enjoying curving the ball, and having to think about where their tee shots ended up for optimal angles, as opposed to simply blasting away and reacting to where their drives ended up by hitting high wedges  from various lies where angles mattered little.

I myself don't play the white tees for that exact same reason, though I probably will at some point when my lack of variety comes from hitting fairway wood into every hole.

Bowling got less fun when 300 games became commonplace.
Tennis slowed the ball down.
Baseball tweaks its ball, though they do play to average inane fan who likes the long ball at the expense of the finer strategies of the game.

Kalen, your idea about 6000 yard courses and different balls for different players is something I advocated years ago on this forum, and was brushed aside.
I love the idea.
Keeping everyone on the same course with different speed balls solves so many problems.
Shortening the course doesn't really level the playing field.
Having someone hit driver 300 and then SW 105 on a 405/321 par 4 , isn't the same as setting the course up for say a woman to hit it 240 and 81 yards, as getting it closer from 81 is always going to be easier than getting it closer from 105.(when both are making a full swing)

But giving different speed balls, where both levels playing the same tees, and therefore drive similar distances, leaving similar length shots in, provide a better test IMHO.
I.E. they both drive 270 and then the both approach from 130 using different speed balls.
Now their scale remains the same, and one is not given the advantage of being closer(to hit the same club) to a similar sized target
Excellent post Jeff. Well said.
Atb

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8)


Tim I've  already argued it helps the elites more. But in retrospect one of my arguments that Tiger was indeed better than Nicklaus lies in the fact that he beat guys despite clubs that narrowed the necessity for great skill to hit it really far.


So I'm in a quandary as to what to think?  8)

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
The idea that better equipment benefits better players more than lesser players not only makes zero sense to me, and I’ve never seen any statistical data that demonstrates it. 


Clubs and balls are far, far more forgiving than they used to be; I think we all agree on that. The largest benefits of forgiveness accrue to people who have trouble with center contact, not Tour pros.  We’ve all seen pictures of the irons of Tour pros with a worn spot the size of a dime exactly in the center of the face. 


The worse you are, the more help you need.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2024, 10:31:55 AM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8)


A.G.




Same initials as my dad , good karma indeed!


I think the irons are less impacted than the driver advantages technology has brought / wrought.


You can miss the sweet spot on the driver and still achieve great distance


Irons leaped forward when ping introduced perimeter weighting , especially for the long irons ( remember Beryllium anyone ?)


However I much preferred forgers for 7-wedges

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Regarding equipment, I am in the camp that modern equipment helps everyone to various extents (but not equally).  But regardless of who better equipment helps the most, one thing I am pretty sure of is that the cons of longer and longer golf courses far outweigh the pros.

Maybe a 75% roll back of the ball as Archie suggested is a better target than 50% but it needs to be substantial. 


I really believe a downsized version of “full scale” golf will be embraced in the future.  When, who knows, but someone with money and influence will eventually recognize the opportunity.  This is not chip and putt and not executive golf.  I am talking about courses where the best players in the world would/could compete hitting drivers and long irons,…,and all the types of shots they hit today but on a course that might only be 4000-5000 yards long.  It will happen and it will be very cool and revolutionary when it does.  I hope I get to see it  :)

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Acquire some of these and do a self-test from different starting points on a course.
https://almostgolf.com/
Inexpensive, 1/3 distance, don’t seem to cause injury or damage.
Give some a go. Be open minded not a closed book. Nothing to lose. Might not be perfect but should give a reference point for what could be possible (both pros and cons).
Atb

Charlie Ray

  • Karma: +0/-0
I left Bandon in 2019 with the 13 hole Preserve as my favorite experience at the resort.  This had to be the future of golf!  Short course, less time, less acreage, less $.  I was on the range at my club when I realized that I find little pleasure in hitting longer clubs.  Give me a bucket of balls and some targets <150 yards and I am happy.  However, I've noticed that a majority of players favor hitting the big clubs on the range.  I built an indoor simulator, used it for a week and dismantled it.  The sound was unbearable, and I like watching the ball fly through the air; not crashing into a screen. 


Aesthetics is golf's appeal.  As Tommy's Topic 'what's your passion/obsession' showcases, there are many attributes to the game that are appealing.  However, they are all required to make golf great. 


I am a competitive table tennis player; there has been 3 different balls in my lifetime.  (all with the intention to 'slow' the game down) The game is a bit slower with the new ball, but the aesthetics aren't the same.  Likewise, Pickleball has much different aesthetics than tennis.  If you love tennis, you can enjoy pickle ball, but it is not a going replicate the aspects that attract you to tennis.


Therefore, nothing can 'replace' the game that we all enjoy.  Modification/changes might be needed.  I think it is great to discuss them, but half-flight balls; 'short' courses, and 'alternative golf' will always subtract from the game, not add to its totality. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
I've said this before, but I think what will happen is that we will designate about 100-200 (out of 14K) courses as true championship courses that will be 7600 yards, etc. The others can remove their back tees and max out at 6750 yards that about 15% of players use, and the middle tees can be the 6350 or so that about 60% of golfers play.


Never has so much golf course length been built for so few.  (Winston Churchill, kind of)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Nice post Charlie.  Pickleball isn’t meant to replace golf.  It just offers an alternative with some similarities.  As I said earlier, as a former high level tennis player, I very much looked down on the game and swore I would never play it.  After a few times out burning 500+ calories in an hour and a half and working up a real sweat, I got hooked.  It takes every bit of skill to play at a high level as tennis, just ask some former professional tennis players (except John McEnroe) who have started to play (some full time). 

I also love playing Bandon Preserve.  It is awesome and really fun and challenging but that is a very different experience than what we are talking about here. Then again if you played it with a ball that went half as far,…??

Maybe an idea is to go play your home course “from shorter tees” with an old Balatta ball (or even an older lower compression one) and see if the game is any less fun.  What isn’t “real golf” about that?  And keep your same high tech clubs that make it easier to hit, just change the ball.  Just because you now hit your driver maybe 180 instead of 230, are you having less fun.  If you are playing from shorter tees you now might have to hit a 5I from 120 yards instead of your 7I.  I don’t think the game suffers one bit.

Jeff,
You might be right about the limited number of really long courses.   But tell me where do we send all these high school kids that are flying the ball over 300 yards and don’t have practice areas long enough to accommodate them.  These kids are now everywhere.  What is worse is you have 20 handicappers hitting it this far and have no idea where it is going.