[Mark_Fine]

Just an idea - Let the equipment makers do what they want, let the ball manufacturers do their thing as well, but just cap the maximum length of a "championship" course at some set yardage number.  

Before you diss this idea too quickly, think about many other sports venues.  Despite all the "technology/athlete" improvements, etc. in other sports, I don't see baseball fields being stretched to 500 feet (has the height of the green monster been raised, don't think so), bowling alleys are still the same length, basketball rims are still no higher than 10 feet, the length of the mile is still a mile, the Indianapolis 500 is still 500, volleyball nets are still a set height, football fields are still 100 yards, tennis courts are still the same size, downhill ski runs still about the same length,...on and on.  Maybe someday, golf will do the same there will be a "maximum" yardage for a golf course and the game evolve around that just as other sports have done.  

Just an idea.
Mark

[Brian_Gracely]

Other sports have made changes to adapt to both the physical advances in the athletes, but also to "improve" the viewability of the game for fans:

Baseball:  The pitcher's mound was lowered about 6" back in 1969, after Bob Feller completely dominated the game.  Baseball has also moved in alot of the fences because many fans like to see home-runs.  

Basketball:  The shot-clock (various lengths of time) has forced faster offensive exectution; the lane has been modified multiple times to encourage or discourage play in the paint; and the 3-point line has been added and changed distances over the years based on % of accuracy.

Golf is different because the "playing field" is not a fixed size, so opinion about a quality playing field various dramatically.  And what exactly is a "championship" course?  Does that mean it has 18 holes?  

[Mark_Fine]

Brian,
Unfortunately, it is the concept of a "championship" course - one that could hold a major/professional golf tournament, that sets the standard for how many golf courses are designed.  What if these tournaments were not to be played on courses longer than #### yards?  It might have an impact and then more creativity would have to be employed in the #### yardage.  
Mark

[Brian_Gracely]

Mark,

I understand your argument, but this keeps coming back to this circular line of reasoning.  

1) If we want to maintain scoring at about the same levels (ie. 265-280 for 72 holes), and not extend the length of courses, and not trick them up, then to need to scale back the equipment.  

2) If we don't care about maintaining the traditions around score, which most of the other sports don't worry about, then making 7000yds the standard and allowing technology to advance, then let 60 be the norm for a great round instead of 64-67.  

The real dilemna that golf purists face is that we hate to lose a Merion or Prestwick because they are too short.  Replacing them with newer versions doesn't work like replacing Memorial Stadium with Camden Yards, because the playing field is not the same.  But one of those variables (score or technology) has got to give if an idea like yours were to be accepted.

[Thomas_Brown]

8000
What's Kiawah from the tips?

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

8000
What's Kiawah from the tips?

From the middle of the back tees its 7,937.  From the back of the back tees, it's over 8,000...

[SPDB]

that's obscene.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

It's never meant to be played at that length.  It only gives teeing options depending on direction and strength of the wind...

[Ken_Cotner]

I think the best parallel is the javelin.  The governing body keeps tweaking the required parameters of the implement so the competitions can continue to be held inside football stadiums.

Think about it:  they could have just left the rules unchanged and moved the competitions outside the stadium.  They decided to preserve the playing field.

OK, maybe the playing field analogy is a little thin, but try this one:  they removed any ability to compare distances (i.e. scores) to prior records.  This is a MUCH bigger deal in track and field (or Athletics to the non-US contingent) than it is in golf, yet the governing body did not hesitate to make the change (again, multiple times).

So tell me again why the USGA and R&A can't just change the ball or club parameters for their competitions?

KC

[Mark_Fine]

Something will be done on this and it would not surprise me if is happens this coming year.  I heard a talk by a senior USGA member a week or so ago and he said plans are to lock a group of people in a room and not let them out till they have a solution.  

As crazy as this idea of a maximum length is, it could have some merit.  

[marker]

Golf's appeal is more than a little due to the tremendous variety of the playing ground.  I am assuming, Mark, that a ball change would accompany such a maximum length otherwise it is a thought without merit.

So many reasons for golf courses to be shorter

-keeps the need for contiguous Real Estate down (I believe this will become a huge factor)

-speeds the game due to less ground to cover

-only elite players use the very maximum length, a miniscule percentage to accommodate.

-Longer shots go further off line if crooked

etc.

I don't think any significant number of participants  here doesn't want to see restrictions, but one without the other makes no sense.

[Mark_Fine]

Marker,
I agree with most of what you are saying, but why would a ball change have to accompany a maximum length limit?
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()