Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Sean_A on October 08, 2007, 08:32:43 AM
-
There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players. Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect. Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment. Course maintenance has an effect. I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.
Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players. I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates. Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.
I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected. It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees. However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of. Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so. Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.
The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.
My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance, I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat. Elite golf is boring to watch because the variety of shots is being reduced. People often cite distance as the reason for the reduction in variety and thus the reduction of challenge. Maybe this is true, but the governing bodies are struggling to come to grips with this issue because the balance of power between manufacturing and golf's ruling bodies is no longer in harmony.
This means, given the current state of affairs, the problem has gone more or less unchecked and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon to stop equipmanr advances. Some say that the we have just about reached our limit of what can be achieved under the current guidelines. I don't buy this for a minute. I see no reason why we can't expect the distance problem to continue for perhaps another 10, 20 or 30 more yards. This raises an interesting question for people such as myself. WHAT IF MANUFACTURERS ANNOUNCED THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE A BALL COULD BE HIT BY 20, 40 OR 50 YARDS? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR (MY) REACTION? Of course, companies don't do this sort of thing because it would significantly increase the risk of reduced profits.
The quick reaction is to blame the ruling bodies for inaction/incompetence. It may be that it is a combination of reasons which have halted any real movement toward reducing distance. It may be more difficult than most of us can imagine to take on an industry which is far more powerful (in the cosumers' eyes) than any ruling body. The easy way out is to create a tournament ball, but the powers that be have been reluctant to do so. There is another possible solution which is often given little time.
IMO, reducing the number of clubs resolves the problem of shot variety and still leaves the mega power game as an option. More often than not, this argument of reducing clubs is countered with "scores will not be effected by an elite player carrying less clubs". This may or may not be true, but it is my impression that the need to reduce length is to re-introduce some lost challenges, not reduce scores.
It is often assumed that re-introducing some previous challenges will automatically increase scores and thus create a better balance with par being more meaningful to a winning score. Perhaps this is a false assumption, but in any case, WHAT DOES THE WINNING SCORE AS IT RELATES TO PAR HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF OUTRAGEOUS LENGTH? This is a fundamental question that has not been properly addressed.
It is my contention that many people are more against the idea of par being broken with ease on many classic courses then they are concerned about how its done. As has been pointed out by many on this site, par has a mental effect on people and their thought processes are (unduly imo) influenced by the concept of par. Because par is completely artificial, it is as changeable as courses themselves. Is it not conceivable that par for many courses could be dropped to 65-68? One thing is clear to me, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "distance problem", people need to start thinking about ways in which the balance of challenge, entertainment (in the case of spectating) and fun can be achieved. Stating that reducing the ball by X% will do the trick is the thinking of a simpleton. The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell. If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL? Is there an answer to this question? I don't know, but to solve the distance problem I think this question needs a concensus between manufacturers, consumers and golfing bodies.
Ciao
-
Sean:
Well written, sir.
You are correct that the average golfer has not been overly affected by the "distance problem" and that many of the chnages to golf courses are an overreaction on the part of committees and architects. I share your belief that the concern lies in a fear of "par" being broken too easily.
You are also right that the effect on the pro game has been to reduce variety. However, if that's the case, I could not understand why you would advocate reducing the number of clubs in the bag, as others have proposed -- this would seem to reward the long hitter who only needs his driver and a bunch of wedges.
Your one factual error is that the manufacturers might produce a ball capable of flying another 50 yards. I don't believe there is any way to do that because of the Overall Distance Standard which caps the length of carry + roll. The manufacturers have optimized this now so balls barely pass by carrying nearly to the limit of the ODS, so there isn't much farther to go under the present limit. (Of course, that doesn't mean they won't find other parts of the equipment equation to tweak in order to increase distance.)
The ODS was a fine idea; all they would have to do is dial down the number on it a bit and everything would be okay. You wouldn't find it any harder to score without your Pro V1x, than you've found it easier to score with one. However, the better players would face tougher approach shots to greens, and that's really what this whole argument is about. I don't care how far someone drives it, I just don't want the approach shots to be simple.
-
I think its an issue of architecture. I played Crystal Downs this weekend with a healthy wind from the south and a Superquad driver and a ProV1. Not ONCE did I feel like I dominated that course with my length. In my opinion, that course isnt any easier for the long hitter than it is for the "average" golfer. We played the whites because the member we played with (although a former club champion) was older and couldnt play the blues any more, typically I would have a field day on a course that was 6300 yards, lets just say that didnt happen yesterday...
Maybe this is a knee-jerk reaction to my experience this weekend (which I have not even come close to having digested yet) but the great courses seem to hold up well to the advances made in equipment. At least for the "average" golfer.
-
So as long as we confine our play to courses of the caliber of Crystal Downs, there is no ball/ driver problem. ;D
That's a solution we all could live with!
Which assuming 25,000 courses worldwide) leaves approximately 24,990 courses that have a ball/club problem.
Of course this can be solved by playing the 100 or so 7700 yard charmers we all love to navigate.
Tom Doak just said it all that the ODS is great, it just needs to be lowered (which will have nil effect on the average golfer)
-
In my admittedly limited experience firm turf, highly contoured greens and a fair breeze over open ground will always provide a pleasurable and exciting day no matter the course. Under those ideal conditions I could have fun on a 5,000 yard course or an 8,000 yard one or anything in between using anything from hickory-and-guttie to Ely Callway's wildest dream.
To my view limiting the number of clubs to fewer than fourteen is a completely separate issue from "The Distance Problem", whatever other merits the idea may have. I can't see any room at all for tinkering with elements of the game other than the golf ball if a rollback in distance or ballflight is desired. It is certainly possible to nibble around the edges of the problem by forcing clubs to be shorter or heavier or reducing clubhead sizes or groove volumes but any change that could be produced by such club restrictions could be trivially exceeded by simply legislating a more squishy or more spinny golf ball. Even a simple reduction in the ODS as Tom suggests could have an immediate, clear and huge impact on the lengths achievable by the strongest players.
Not that I'm saying an ODS reduction (or higher spin requirement) is either politically practical or actually needed. But it drives me to distraction to see the USGA and others constantly casting about for indirect, marginal ways to trim the performance of those elite players when a straightforward and predictable method is so obvious.
-
I dont believe that the clubs or the number of them are the issue or the solution. Outside of the driver, most of the "pros" are not using game improvement irons. So as long as the "pros" are only using driver a MAX of 10 swings per round, I dont think that the driver is the problem.
I do, however, agree that the ball is the issue. A reduction in ODS for just the tour pros would be the solution to the problem and I think we would hear a lot less about lengthening of courses. For 99.999% of us who arent as good as tour pros, I dont really see an issue.
-
All you had to do was watch Jesper play yesterday to realize that bifurcation is a bad thing. Even at that I still remember seeing Justin Leonard hitting a persimon driver at the 97 Masters. It just wasn't all that long ago.
note: Sean is not a good spokesman for the average golfer. He is a long as the sun on a cool Minnesota night.
-
Tom D
I realize there is ODS in place, but I bet you in that in the coming years guys get longer unless some other restrictions are instituted. Why? Because we hear the ruling bodies version of things and they don't run the show. The manufacturers run the show.
I am not convinced guys would continue to carry three and four wedges if they could only carry 9 clubs. Hence, the resaon I believe we would see greater shotmaking with fewer clubs in the bag.
Brent
I suggest fewer clubs for two reasons. First, you say the answer is obvious to reducing distance. However, for 100 years the solution has eluded the powers that be. Perhaps things aren't as straight forward and obvious as some believe. Second, my concern is with shotmaking. I don't necessarily think distance in and of itself is problem for the elite. The bottom line is that how far pro golfers hit the ball is none of our business unless you are in the business. If you are a fan of the business, the problem is that watching these guys is boring. Distance in and of itself is not the sole reason for this boredom. Additionally, many people have fears for the concept of par which they see distance as threat to. The concept of distance and how it relates to the ideas of par, challenge and shotmaking are all intertwined - though I don't know why par is so influential and I suspect I never will. I don't think people give this sort of stuff enough thought. The easy option is to blame distance and therefore the ruling bodies.
The one essential thing in all of this is that nothing should be written in stone. Everything in golf has evolved over time and will continue to do so. We all go on about the traditions, challenges and values of the game. However, which TC&Vs are we speaking of and from which period in golf's evolution?
John
My style of golf is oudated. I depend on roll for distance. Make me have to carry a ball 220ish and I will likely ask what is the other option? As a rule, I count on drives going 225ish-240ish yards. I did find, much to my surprise, that I can carry a ball about 250, but I rarely try this method of swing because it is less dependable for me.
Ciao
-
Golf as entertainment has very little to do with distance and is only indirectly related to shot-making creativity...it has to do with the ball running around on the ground.[/i]
Why else would anyone ever watch the BBC cameras try to televise links golf to American television sets?
What can be done to convince the powers that be to set up TV golf courses so that the ball runs around like a screaming banshee?
-
Sean,
I guess my overly simplistic thinking comes down to this.
Distance Trumps Shotmaking
In fact, I'd almost be tempted to simplify it further and say that Distance Trumps Everything. Here's what I mean...
Let's say there's a green on some PGA Tour course. It's not as firm as you or I would like and it's somewhat flattish so that it's puttable whilst Stimping at 12.5 and the hole is cut four paces from the front-right bunker in the current Tour fashion. So you can fire at the flag as long as you are accurate, control your distance and hit a reasonably soft-landing shot.
Now let's say it's on an uphill 420 yard Par 4. The guy leading the tournament is going to drive the ball about 290 yards in the fairway and from there loft a gap wedge about a mile in the air and try to drop it just left of the hole where it will spin back a bit and leave an easy putt. Note that this isn't a perfect GCA world so we can't demand that he be faced with a rock-hard fescue green and a 20mph wind at his back. So we want to change something to make that more of a demanding shot.
Option 1:
We move the tee back 60 yards. How he's going to have to either hit that same shot with a 6-iron, which may not land so softly, or perhaps try cutting a 5-iron in from the middle of the green to work over by the hole (that would be a beautiful shot). But even a high 6-iron might still be able to stop near the hole since the green isn't all that firm.
Option 2:
We've forced him to play with nothing between a pitching wedge (his 150 yard club) and a sand wedge (his 125 yard club). So he can't necessarily reach the green with his sand wedge and if he hits the pitching wedge it will be a less than full shot that might not spin for him. So maybe he'll hit a cut with a 9-iron or pitching wedge or maybe he try to nuke the sand wedge but it's now a complicated shot.
Option 3:
We give him a ball that flies 15% shorter off the driver and 10% shorter off the irons. So that 290 yard drive is only 250 yards and the resulting 170-yard shot now takes a 6-iron that needs a little more care to a tucked pin than the wedge he could have otherwise used.
I'd argue that Option 1 and Option 3 create just as much shotmaking potential as Option 2. And like Option 2, the shorter ball means not having to add a few more acres of maintained golf course to accomodate the big hitting elite players. And finally, the shorter ball can be specified at whatever level of shortness is required (to a fair precision). And it can be altered again in a few decades if need be, what are you going to do when you give them ten clubs and they still figure out how to shoot in the 60's on 7,600 yard courses. Lower it to six?
-
The argument against the loss of "shotmaking" and "variety" with this modern equipment doesn't make much sense to me. While I agree that the modern golf ball doesn't curve as much as its balata predessesor, I think that the "shotmaking" that everyone talks in reverence about from days gone by, is a bit overblown. The ball still can curve quite a lot
The best players have never tried to curve the ball all that much unless they were forced to. PGA Tour level players can all hit the ball high, low, with a hook, fade, you name the shot, and they could do it with the old balata and they can do it with the ProV1.
It's difficult to see on TV the type of shots that these guys are hitting. I'd argue that you need to watch a tournament in person to really get a good view of the "shotmaking" of the modern player. What you'll see is a lot of different guys with different swings and games hitting all sorts of different shots to accomplish the same goal. It really isn't all that different from the glory days.
-
I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?
Thanks
Peter
-
I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?
Thanks
Peter
Peter,
Good question...
For the better amateur player: NO, I don't think modern technology has ruined these Golden Age courses has much as many others believe. I think the large majority of courses hold up just fine. Obviously increased distance helps the better player, but not to the extent that these courses no longer provide an adequate challenge.
The one constant you seem to find in all these great classic courses around our area is...excellent greensites and green design. If a course has that, it will always be a challenge no matter if the ball is traveling farther.
-
Sean,
I guess my overly simplistic thinking comes down to this.
Distance Trumps Shotmaking
In fact, I'd almost be tempted to simplify it further and say that Distance Trumps Everything. Here's what I mean...
Let's say there's a green on some PGA Tour course. It's not as firm as you or I would like and it's somewhat flattish so that it's puttable whilst Stimping at 12.5 and the hole is cut four paces from the front-right bunker in the current Tour fashion. So you can fire at the flag as long as you are accurate, control your distance and hit a reasonably soft-landing shot.
Now let's say it's on an uphill 420 yard Par 4. The guy leading the tournament is going to drive the ball about 290 yards in the fairway and from there loft a gap wedge about a mile in the air and try to drop it just left of the hole where it will spin back a bit and leave an easy putt. Note that this isn't a perfect GCA world so we can't demand that he be faced with a rock-hard fescue green and a 20mph wind at his back. So we want to change something to make that more of a demanding shot.
Option 1:
We move the tee back 60 yards. How he's going to have to either hit that same shot with a 6-iron, which may not land so softly, or perhaps try cutting a 5-iron in from the middle of the green to work over by the hole (that would be a beautiful shot). But even a high 6-iron might still be able to stop near the hole since the green isn't all that firm.
Option 2:
We've forced him to play with nothing between a pitching wedge (his 150 yard club) and a sand wedge (his 125 yard club). So he can't necessarily reach the green with his sand wedge and if he hits the pitching wedge it will be a less than full shot that might not spin for him. So maybe he'll hit a cut with a 9-iron or pitching wedge or maybe he try to nuke the sand wedge but it's now a complicated shot.
Option 3:
We give him a ball that flies 15% shorter off the driver and 10% shorter off the irons. So that 290 yard drive is only 250 yards and the resulting 170-yard shot now takes a 6-iron that needs a little more care to a tucked pin than the wedge he could have otherwise used.
I'd argue that Option 1 and Option 3 create just as much shotmaking potential as Option 2. And like Option 2, the shorter ball means not having to add a few more acres of maintained golf course to accomodate the big hitting elite players. And finally, the shorter ball can be specified at whatever level of shortness is required (to a fair precision). And it can be altered again in a few decades if need be, what are you going to do when you give them ten clubs and they still figure out how to shoot in the 60's on 7,600 yard courses. Lower it to six?
Brent
You are right that firm courses would go a long way to solving some of the distance problem. Still, I think the problem of distance is blown out of proportion and your statements are a prime example of this belief.
I disagree completely concerning the importance of distance over shotmaking. Shotmaking always trumps because distance is a factor of shotmaking - it is not unrelated as you seem to suggest. Secondly, putting is more important than anything. A good putter will make cash at the pro level. It ain't necessarily so that a long hitter will make money.
In any case, you are presenting an either/or argument. Reducing clubs doesn't mean that technology can't be reigned in. I suggest reducing clubs because all efforts of limiting distance (including architectural elements such as penal rough and water) over the past 100 years have failed to keep the equilibrium between challenge, fun and entertainment. So I would question how easy it is to simply reduce distance by reigning in equipment and therefore recreate an equilibrium.
What if I give you the another scenario?
Say all the conditions of example are the same as this example except for the guy only has 9 clubs. A player comes to a 550 yard par 5. He booms his 290 yard yard drive which lands softly. Now what does he do? He has 260 to go and he can reach, but if he misses the green, he doesn't have an arsenal of wedges to choose from in getting up and down.
First, he has to think about which clubs he is going to carry that day. Second, he has to set a game plan to accomodate the clubs he has and/or have a backup plan for his grey area holes that he may alter his game plan on. We already have the guy thinking about his sticks before he even tees it up. Why? Because he is limited in his options and therefore will most likely have to figure out how to get the most out of each club rather than having the luxury of carrying specialty clubs - which a driver may be one of. Many players may choose to limit their distance voluntarily if they think they have the shotmaking skills to do so. Tiger Woods last year at Hoylake is a perfect example. He was sacrificing 2,3,4 clubs of length to most of the field and still kicked their ass. Granted, the conditions partly helped because this sort of play (relative to the field) would be very difficult to pull off on a softer course.
Sully
You don't think people loved seeing John Daly whack the crap out of the ball? You don't think loads of every day golfers enjoy whacking the crap out of the ball? As the Jam once penned - Thats Entertainment.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I agree with your idea of reducing the maximum number of allowed clubs to 9 or 10. One benefit is that this limit would not hurt the average golfer and would make the game slightly cheaper. It would also make the bag lighter, thus encouraging more walking. I often play with only 7 to 10 clubs and the end result is minimal upon my score, but I do enjoy the different shots I must attempt.
To counteract the concerns of the pros just having a bag full of wedges, the answer would be to limit the loft to no more than 58 degrees. Seve and others have mentioned that allowing wedges of 60+ degrees has eliminated some shot making skills among the pros.
The result for a possible pro set could be:
Driver; strong 4 wood; 3, 5, 7, 9 irons, PW & SW; and putter.
The typical amateur would likely replace the 3 iron with another fairway wood or possibly a hybrid.
It would be great to experiment with this concept at some of the off-season events, such as Norman's or Tiger's tournaments.
-
Ruducing the number of clubs from 14 to any number lower would only lead to an increase in the number of cheaters.
-
In any case, you are presenting an either/or argument. Reducing clubs doesn't mean that technology can't be reigned in. I suggest reducing clubs because all efforts of limiting distance (including architectural elements such as penal rough and water) over the past 100 years have failed to keep the equilibrium between challenge, fun and entertainment. So I would question how easy it is to simply reduce distance by reigning in equipment and therefore recreate an equilibrium.
So we're in agreement that your suggestion to reduce the number of clubs is an entirely separate matter from "The Distance Problem" per se. You want to see them playing with a half-set because it would be more entertaining. And you'd find that extra entertainment value greater than any supposed benefit from a distance rollback. Fair enough, I suspect you are to a certain extent correct.
What if I give you the another scenario?
Say all the conditions of example are the same as this example except for the guy only has 9 clubs. A player comes to a 550 yard par 5. He booms his 290 yard yard drive which lands softly. Now what does he do? He has 260 to go and he can reach, but if he misses the green, he doesn't have an arsenal of wedges to choose from in getting up and down.
I think you oversell the benefit of his "arsenal of wedges" when it comes to greenside play. Anywhere within 40, 50, 60 yards of the green in the rough I'll bet the player would find a vanishingly small benefit from using anything other than his most lofted wedge (60 degree or whatever). I guess there are long bunker shots where alternative lofts might be valuable (I know I use my 52-degree wedge for sand shots outside of 15-20 yards) but if he has something in the "lob" range and something in the "pitching" or "gap" range he's pretty well set.
I would think the in-between ones are primarily letting him hit full swings a variety of distances. Or at least that's what reading Pelz et al lead me to believe.
...he is limited in his options and therefore will most likely have to figure out how to get the most out of each club rather than having the luxury of carrying specialty clubs - which a driver may be one of. Many players may choose to limit their distance voluntarily if they think they have the shotmaking skills to do so. Tiger Woods last year at Hoylake is a perfect example. He was sacrificing 2,3,4 clubs of length to most of the field and still kicked their ass. Granted, the conditions partly helped because this sort of play (relative to the field) would be very difficult to pull off on a softer course.
Now we've come full circle back to the difference between Hoylake (or TOC or most other links courses during a drought) and the venues of your typical weekly PGA Tour event. I absolutely guarantee you that Joe Tour Pro playing in the Greater Bumwad Classic at some rice paddy in the midwest isn't going to give up his driver in favor of one more wedge. The game is admittedly a lot more interesting when conditions give a meaningful option of playing super-long iron shots off firm, dry turf instead of airing it out with a driver. But that's shooting fish in a barrel, of course that's more fun. For my part I'm talking about the game you can see on television most weekends in the USA.
-
I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.
-
I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.
John,
My goodness...what a great concept. ;D I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.
I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.
My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away. That is a lost cause. ;)
-
I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.
John,
My goodness...what a great concept. ;D I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.
I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.
My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away. That is a lost cause. ;)
I think most of us choose to be as bad as we are.
-
Sully
You don't think people loved seeing John Daly whack the crap out of the ball? You don't think loads of every day golfers enjoy whacking the crap out of the ball? As the Jam once penned - Thats Entertainment.
Ciao
Sean,
I think it was John Daly more than how far he hit the ball...a different deal, but similar in his "everyman-ness" to Palmer...Palmer epitomized the saying..."men wanted to be like him and women wanted to be with him"...Daly was a circus act from day one...entertainng and awesome inside the tent, but nobody wanted to be, or be with, him...
-
I don't believe lowering the number of clubs is a good solution. The number of clubs is not a problem....
And as I have stated before, the ball is not a problem when we talk about the average golfer...in fact, just like moving up to a forward tee might help someone overcome lost distance (the age thing) and make the course a proper challenge, so might the increase in distance from a Pro V1...
-
However, for 100 years the solution has eluded the powers that be. Perhaps things aren't as straight forward and obvious as some believe.
That's not actually true. Only about 75 or 80 years ago, the USGA found and implemented a solution to golf balls that were too easy to hit long and straight.
In the 1920s golf balls were probably as hot as the current crop of ProV1s and their ilk. Ralph Livingston's feature interview here http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewlivingston.html covers it nicely.
The common ball then was 1.62" and 1.62 ounces. Apparently there were also heavier balls, and some with "tighter" windings.
What the USGA did in the 30s was mandate a bigger (1.68") and lighter (1.55 ounces) ball.
This was called the "balloon ball" and, given the nature of balata-covered balls, was very hard to control. So after only a year, the weight went back up to 1.62.
Regardless of the distaste for that ball, with today's straighter balls, going lighter seems like an obvious solution. The only criticism I have heard is that it would make the short game a little "easier" because it sits up better.
It would be easier to curve, and harder to hit straight, especially at the highest clubhead speeds. But it wouldn't affect average players, women and seniors very much.
If that brought back some shotmaking into the game, I for one would be delighted.
Ken
-
I've always been interested in this topic. A few thoughts none of which are completely original:
1. I do not think increased distance has hurt the game one bit for anyone that hits it 270 or less off the tee (Probably 98% of golfers) other than to make newer courses longer walks because you have to walk up 50 yards from the back tee.
2. I think the distance issue is important not due to lower scoring, but because it takes driver out of the hands of good players and/or can result in more repetitive golf because the good player hits wedges on every hole.
I think that the wedge issue is important even if the greens are terrific. At my course, a 290 yard driver can reach the par 5's in 2, 1-2 par 4's in 1 and have wedge into every par four if conditions are firm. Because the greens are difficult and one needs to be really accurate if he plays that agressively, scoring is no better than at other longer courses.
3. I believe elite driving distance will increase 1-2 yards per year
-- PGA Tour driver distance has pretty steadily increased 1-2 years per year except for big bumps associated with equipment advances. I assume that is due to increased atheleticism, improved technique and strength training. It is hard to imagine that trend changing.
4. The other problem with distance is the gap that results from a course trying to reach the ideal of a challenge for the best and playable for all.
5. If equipment is not bifurcated, I think course designers should just ignore elite players on all but a very few courses. For top players, inland courses need to be 7500 yards unless one is willing to artificially constrain length off the tee or else allow wedges to be the approach club for nearly every par four. For everyone else 6700 yards is more than enough length.
-
I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.
John
You always have a way certain way (Indiana Way?) of putting things. I don't believe for a minute that scores of the elite would go up if the ball were rolled back 15%. Nor do I believe scores of the elite would go up if less than 10 clubs were the new limit. The guys are good and will find find ways to go low. The question is, can I be entertained along way? I believe I currently have an excellent balance of challenge and fun when I play. The only missing aspect is entertainment from a spectator's point of view, but fortunately this is easily the least important element for me because I have no financial stake in the game. I couldn't be bothered to use a free ticket with club/player tent pass at this year's Belfry event held a few weeks back. Why? Because for the most part pro golf is a drag and it isn't worth the effort to watch.
Brent
I think you are catching on. I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game. Folks go on about distance like it is some sort Holy Grail of answers.
I know Kmourn says that the USGA had a solution to the distance deal, but it must have been temporary and therefore inadequate or we wouldn't be where we are now. As I said before, any deal has to include the consumer, ruling bodies and manufacturers.
Sully
So folks didn't get a kick out of Daly's smashmouth golf style?
Ciao
-
I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?
Thanks
Peter
Peter,
Sorry for the delay...Pine Valley and Merion have both undergone lengthening programs in recent years. They both needed it to counter act the longer yardages top players hit the ball today and therefore maintain the approach shot integrity the architect intended...Interestingly, they each have a tremendous set of short par fours that were not, and are not, drivers off the tee. They have (wisely IMO) focused their lengthening on the driver holes that had become "too short" to mandate a driver for the 285 - 300 set.
One good example hole for this discussion is probably #5 at Merion. Most people know the hole as a very challenging 430 hole that moves slowly to the left with a creek on the inside edge of the fairway all the way to the green. The entire area of the hole slopes significantly from right to left...including the green, which is quite steep...creating a very natural challenge. Because the green is steeply tilted to the left you would like to hit a shot into it with left to right spin, but the fairway makes that very difficult.
In the old days, I would guess this hole was approached (by top players) from outside of 175, and upwards of 200 so the club was a long one. In this summers Philadelphia Open I hit a pair of good (although not maximum) drives that left me at 141 and 146 to the center of the green. If I possesed a hard running draw, I could have been 20 yards closer. Here's the rub...they have added a tee that was used during the 2005 Amateur that is a full 75 yards behind the one we played.
Drives from that tee would have been to a much narrower landing area and resulted in an approach from 200+ yards to one of the more severe greens you'll ever play. Seems to be in keeping with the architects intent, but I wonder if he intended stimpmeter readings above 10 feet. In the morning round from 146 to the pin with a very slight breeze in my face I hit a very nice 3/4 7 iron a bit to the right of the pin (albeit, not with left-to-right spin) that checked pretty quickly and then just trickled 30 feet down to the corner of the green.
Peter,
My answer to your direct question is that courses play much shorter than they used to...and shorter, I presume, than their architect would appreciate...but their character is not "ruined", merely changed a bit. Don't all things change with time?
p.s. I agree with the notion Jason Topp suggested in point #5 that elite players should be ignored as it pertains to length obsoleting golf courses...how often does length go hand in hand with scoring? I think there are a couple hindred guys in the world capable of both...
-
I think you are catching on. I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game. Folks go on about distance like it is some sort Holy Grail of answers.
Yep, we're on the same page after all. If "they" were to roll back the springiness of the golf ball 10%-15% or so for those 130mph hitters and if that were to save a few classic courses from being stretched beyond recognition then I'd be all for it. But if we're stuck with "The Distance Problem" and with the game as it exists right now it's not a problem that keeps me up nights. I have fun every Saturday and Sunday and when the pros play at Carnoustie or Hoylake or Shinnecock then Tiger or somebody usually puts on a good show.
-
Sean,
Re: Daly...Can you tell, when watching on TV with the sound off, how far Daly hits the ball? What percentage of the, lets just say, 100,000 people that pay to get into a Tour event actually have a clue how far het hits the ball compared to the other guys out there?
Seeing the ball land and splat is boring to all spectators while seeing the ball bounce and run is just as interesting while watching as it is while playing...
What is the most exciting (and impressive) shot the TV guys hit today? The wedge that lands 30 feet past the hole and spins back right next to the hole. What is the least impressive shot? The wedge that lands right next to the hole and spins 30 feet back off the front of the green.
Spectators want the TV guys to have total control of the ball, and nothing illustrates/tests ball control better than The Open venues because they are almost always so firm...it's just that the cameras suck...
-
I've thought about this a lot as well, and it is one of the motivations behind joining this discussion group. I wanted to add a few thoughts into the discussion without too much repetition.
The biggest distance increases with the new equipment are realized only by the very elite player. However, what troubles me is the difference that now exists between the elite player and just the "very good" player. Pre-pro v, the "very good player" could, on occasion, drive with the pros, or was perhaps 10-15 yards short. Now, the gap is more like 30-50 yards.
I think it is very difficult to develop a new course that is not championship length. Regardless of the fact the average consumer does not need the length; the lack of championship length would likely cause the course to be “ranked” lower in the eyes of the consumer.
The resources wasted in creating this seldom used length certainly translates into increased maintenance and real estate costs. Sean, perhaps this is where you and I disagree, as I do not think the increased cost is balanced out by the fun of hitting the ball further. IMO, the average golfer is not hitting the ball further. Straighter perhaps, with more forgiveness on misses, but not further.
As a result, the price of the game is higher than it should be because the cost of new course development is higher than it should be. And I do think the easy answer that directly addresses the problem is a competition ball. I believe there are three direct benefits to this solution.
1. Championship courses no longer need to be 7500 yards +. The can be 6500 – 6800 yards. A shorter course equals less real estate and less area to maintain.
2. Shotmaking must be part of the pro repertoire.
3. The average golfer using today’s equipment and balls can directly relate to the pros, hitting similar distances, making similar strategic choices, etc.
In essence, the argument could be made the rules are currently bifurcated already because the pros gain a disproportionate advantage through equipment modernization, and that a competition ball, while bifurcating the rules, actually increases the similarity of the game played by the pro and amateur.
-
I think you are catching on. I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game. Folks go on about distance like it is some sort Holy Grail of answers.
Yep, we're on the same page after all. If "they" were to roll back the springiness of the golf ball 10%-15% or so for those 130mph hitters and if that were to save a few classic courses from being stretched beyond recognition then I'd be all for it. But if we're stuck with "The Distance Problem" and with the game as it exists right now it's not a problem that keeps me up nights. I have fun every Saturday and Sunday and when the pros play at Carnoustie or Hoylake or Shinnecock then Tiger or somebody usually puts on a good show.
Brent
I believe there is a legitimate theoretical side to all of this which is based largely on what individuals think the important aspects of the game are. I was certainly uncomfortable when I tried to answer my own question of how I would feel if manufacturers announced a substantial increase in distance tomorrow.
I honestly don't care if some golden age clubs are supposedly saved from alterations because that is a decision the clubs make. Blaming distance is a copout excuse to go chasing top/prestigious pro and amateur events. So far as the memberships are concerned, added distance is largely a waste of time and money. IMO, clubs are going to want to change their courses regardless. Its human nature only at the moment we have a great scapegoat in distance.
Sully
I am not disagreeing with you and in fact I much prefer firmer courses because they imo are part of what is best about carrying on traditions of golf. I am only saying that there is more than one way to entertain a golf fan. Everything about how Daly attacks the ball suggest power and people enjoy watching this. Do you think the commentators fake their enthusiasm for watching power golf?
Ciao
-
3. The average golfer using today’s equipment and balls can directly relate to the pros, hitting similar distances, making similar strategic choices, etc.
I think you overestimate the golfing public's (admittedly considerable) powers of self-delusion. If the guys playing on TV are using a Cayman ball then my feeling is that I'd no longer have any way to relate my own game to theirs.
If it came down to a choice between every course in the USA becoming an 8,000 yards monster versus having the Tour players competing with a reduced-distance ball then maybe it would be worth it. But I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.
The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.
IMO, clubs are going to want to change their courses regardless. Its human nature only at the moment we have a great scapegoat in distance.
You've got that one right, mate. An important principle to remember in these discussions.
-
Did any of you guys who think shotmaking, both good and bad, are out of the game watch the finish of the Texas Open yesterday? These were not long holes by any stretch of the imagination that were being butchered and mastered down the stretch. They weren't even particularly interesting holes. Who are these pros you talk about who no longer make shots?
-
...I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.
The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.
I'll second that one...
-
Was slow pitch softball the answer for the hack baseball player who wanted to continue to play the game? Is that what you guys want to become?
-
...I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.
The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.
I'll second that one...
I like the idea of the same equipment for all who can afford it, but I don't think it is a sacred or untouchable principle.
John
Softball is a good game in its own right. If it keeps people active and happy whats there to bitch about?
Ciao
-
Sean,
I gave up paying any attention to what the guys on TV say distance wise when I played in the Kingsmill tour event in 2000. The two measured driving holes were slightly into the wind and it was cool October weather and my two drives were right next to the stripes that said 250 and 260...on the computer, my average measurement was something like 277...
But, your Daly statement..."Everything about how Daly attacks the ball suggest power and people enjoy watching this." is dead on accurate...people would love a kamikaze driver on the NASCAR circuit as well...even if his car didn't go any faster...
-
I agree, not an easy decision. My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.
-
JES
Thanks very much, that was a terrific post. The details on the 5th at Merion under tournament conditions I couldn’t get anywhere else.
I go back and forth on this question myself. To play the devil’s advocate (with myself), it seems to me that for all our talk about being disinterested in the professional game (in terms of architecture), never before have amateurs given so much thought to, and been so influenced by, the professional games’ standards, goals, and objectives.
When I read your description of playing the 5th at Merion, or of playing Pine Valley, or Jamie’s answer, or I read the scorecard (and various scorecards) for the Pennsylvania Mid-Am, it seems pretty clear that the challenge to scoring is still there (even if the challenges have changed over the years), and that PAR hasn’t been made meaningless because of technology…..and that’s for some of the very best amateurs around; so what are the rest of us even talking about?
Peter
-
I agree, not an easy decision. My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.
Powell,
You are simply wrong. There are more amateurs today that hit the ball as far as Tiger as there were that hit the ball as far as Nicklaus in the 70's. In the 70's I seriously doubt that you had thousands of double digit handicaps in the world that hit the ball as far as the greatest player in the game.
-
I know Kmoum says that the USGA had a solution to the distance deal, but it must have been temporary and therefore inadequate or we wouldn't be where we are now. As I said before, any deal has to include the consumer, ruling bodies and manufacturers.
The this about the solution was that they went too far for the balls of the 1930s. So they rolled part of it back.
In the intervening 50-some years, it was more than enough to keep the distance/finesse equation in a place most of us found entertaining.
Then the new balls came along and tilted the scale in favor of distance again.
My point was that re-implementing the weight limit that was rolled back might be all that's necessary to balance the equation again.
I have no beef with long hitters, despite my status as a short hitter. I do think the elite game has tilted so far in favor of power that it's not longer entertaining.
The beauty of a lighter ball is that it most likely wouldn't be at all shorter for the average player, and might actually be longer for juniors, women and seniors.
Ken
-
I agree, not an easy decision. My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.
Powell,
You are simply wrong. There are more amateurs today that hit the ball as far as Tiger as there were that hit the ball as far as Nicklaus in the 70's. In the 70's I seriously doubt that you had thousands of double digit handicaps in the world that hit the ball as far as the greatest player in the game.
I'll agree to disagree.
-
I never agree to disagree. You are wrong. Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand. If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground. It was much harder and took far more talent than today. The game is less bifurcated today than ever.
-
I never agree to disagree. You are wrong. Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand. If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground. It was much harder and took far more talent than today. The game is less bifurcated today than ever.
I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill. He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.
In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?
-
I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.
John,
My goodness...what a great concept. ;D I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.
I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.
My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away. That is a lost cause. ;)
I think most of us choose to be as bad as we are.
I agree entirely with this John and that is why the average handicap hasn't shifted in 50 years... but that's probably another thread on Joe Average.
-
When I read your description of playing the 5th at Merion, or of playing Pine Valley, or Jamie’s answer, or I read the scorecard (and various scorecards) for the Pennsylvania Mid-Am, it seems pretty clear that the challenge to scoring is still there (even if the challenges have changed over the years), and that PAR hasn’t been made meaningless because of technology…..and that’s for some of the very best amateurs around; so what are the rest of us even talking about?
Peter
Peter
I am not sold on the concept of par and think it is largely irrelevant. However, changes to many a great course have been made in the name of protecting the challenge (ie par imo) that is perceived to have been reduced by length and other improvements in equipment, conditions and players. This concept stretches back for 100 years - since the Haskell become the dominant ball in elite golf.
Strangely enough, TOC may have been the first course to actually be toughened up (as oppossed to a complete redesign) for championship play by adding several championship tees and considerable bunker work for the 1905 Open - ironic isn't it? This the trend has continued to this day with the final extreme of a few tees being created off the course for the 2005 Open. TOC is something like 1000 yards longer than 100 years ago, yet scores are far lower. It is clear that adding yardage to courses is no protection for par, yet the same thinking prevails. Perhaps it might be better if we alter our idea of par.
Ciao
-
I never agree to disagree. You are wrong. Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand. If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground. It was much harder and took far more talent than today. The game is less bifurcated today than ever.
I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill. He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.
In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?
Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment. As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round. On their worst day and my best of the year. I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.
-
...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.
BS
-
I never agree to disagree. You are wrong. Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand. If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground. It was much harder and took far more talent than today. The game is less bifurcated today than ever.
I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill. He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.
In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?
Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment. As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round. On their worst day and my best of the year. I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.
Sounds great, but I think it lacks substance in the end. Doesn't the new groove rule bifurcate the rules anyway by making the adoption as follows, "Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend that the Condition apply only to competitions involving expert players."?
-
...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.
BS
Because I pave airports I often have access to runways that are closed and freshly paved. One time I took a S500 out and took it to the limit and could not believe how scared I was...It is much tougher than I ever dreamed and this is with no traffic.
-
I never agree to disagree. You are wrong. Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand. If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground. It was much harder and took far more talent than today. The game is less bifurcated today than ever.
I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill. He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.
In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?
Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment. As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round. On their worst day and my best of the year. I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.
Sounds great, but I think it lacks substance in the end. Doesn't the new groove rule bifurcate the rules anyway by making the adoption as follows, "Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend that the Condition apply only to competitions involving expert players."?
Do not know the new groove rule or understand it. I thought my TP Y-Cutters had as good of grooves as could be purchased legally. On this I agree to be ignorant.
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
-
Do not know the new groove rule or understand it. I thought my TP Y-Cutters had as good of grooves as could be purchased legally. On this I agree to be ignorant.
I'll take that, albeit on this very limited topic. I, too, am ignorant, other than a literal reading of the language, which I copied from the USGA website. A literal reading sure seems like this is only intended to apply to elite golfers, which I read as a bifurcation.
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
Buildings did not continue to get taller just because people have.
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
Buildings did not continue to get taller just because people have.
Exactly...
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
I'm not saying bifuircation is the best option, just an option.
In answer top your quesiotns, maybe a lot of folks would want to use competition balls for their casual rounds. Myabe they wouldnt. In any event, they can price the balls at the ProV price point and revenues would be unchanged.
The correlation between green fees and distance is probably not 1:1, but I am certain that added length means more area to maintain, more land to acquire, and therefore means added cost. But I don't think cost is a primary motivator here. I think that is as stated above, it is one way to enahnce the excitement of the PGA tour events.
-
Powell,
With all due respect, please tell me this crusade is not an attempt to make television golf more exciting...
The guys on TV play the courses they want, or they demand the courses be changed. If a hole is too difficult to approach with a 4 iron they play it from 30 yards up and let them hit 6 and 7 irons...shortening the ball for them would simply cause damage to the members tees during the tournament week and the month following...
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
I've always thought a majority of frequent golfers would continue to buy and play what the pros use -- how else would we know how good we are? Then again, if club and amateur tournaments continued to allow non-restrictive equipment, you'd probably wouldn't be willing to give the rest of the field an edge.
By the way, Sean's comment about the irrelevance of par may have merit, but not when it comes to handicaps. Par is the only way golfers can measure themselves against each other numerically. I'm not a big fan of handicaps anyway, but without par, you can do away with handicaps, too.
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
Sully
I am not sure if bifurcation is the answer, but I would be willing to give a try. I honestly believe that pros play a different game with different equipment and on differently prepared courses than I do as it is. The question is, would the pros give it a go? Like most things dealing with the perceived reduction in challenges between generations, it is usually the retired generation that thinks there is a problem.
Ciao
-
Rick,
Handicaps are indirectly at best related to par. It's course rating and slope that determine handicapping.
As to club players buying the Tour stuff or not if they were allowed to play either...and they competed a bit...it wouldn't take long for them to realize there really was very little difference to their games between the good stuff and the discount rack stuff.
JMO
-
The biggest kudo's concerning architecture in relation to the PGA Tour came when Hanse shortened a hole. I thought it was bogus textbook pandering but the cognesenti loved it.
-
Is "pandering" a 'representation' or an 'interpretation'?
-
There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players. Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect. Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment. Course maintenance has an effect. I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.
Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.
I think the distance problem is more pronounced at that level, but, that doesn't exclude the distance problem from affecting other levels.[/color]
I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.
I don't think that's true.
There's been a good deal of discussion on the distance issue affecting golfers at other than the elite level[/color]
Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.
That's absolutely untrue.
The members of "golfden age" clubs had nothing to do with the quantum leap in distance over the last two decades.
It was the aggressive development on the part of the manufacturers and the silence of the USGA that created the problem, not the "golden age" clubs or their members.[/color]
I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.
Sean, I can't speak to your game, but, I can speak to mine and to the games of others I've watched over the last two or more decades, and, improved equipment has had a significant impact.
I know guys who are considerably longer at 65 than they were at 25, and, they're straighter too. And, they are NOWHERE near the shape they were in 40 years ago.
14 year old kids are hitting it far longer than Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime. That alone should register on your "something's changed scale"[/color]
It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.
However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.
Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.
It is, provided you can.
The "GAME" is inherently FUN and CHALLENGING irrespective of how far you hit it.
Handicap is a wonderful offset for lack of ability.
When I could only hit the ball 180 yards with my best drive, I enjoyed the game as much as I ever did.
That doesn't mean that I didn't want to hit the ball farther, only that "THE" INHERENT LURE isn't about distance.[/color]
Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.
But, aren't the ones that rip you off, the more desirable courses ?
If they weren't, they couldn't rip you off.[/color]
The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.
My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance,[/color] I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.
I agree with you, it DOESN'T solve the distance problem.
But, it DOESN'T get to the heart of the matter either.[/color]
-
Elite golf is boring to watch because the variety of shots is being reduced.
Anyone who's watched Tiger Woods would probably disagree with you.
But, that's not my point.
Who cares about watching ELITE golf, compared to PLAYING golf themselves ?
And, limiting the golfer to 10 clubs won't solve, much less address the distance issue.
The DRIVER is a main culprit as is the ball.
Taking out 4 clubs will have NO MATERIAL AFFECT on the distance issue.[/color]
People often cite distance as the reason for the reduction in variety and thus the reduction of challenge. Maybe this is true, but the governing bodies are struggling to come to grips with this issue because the balance of power between manufacturing and golf's ruling bodies is no longer in harmony.
That's because they waited too long before acting.
Had they acted earlier, much of the distance problem would have remained theoretical.[/color]
This means, given the current state of affairs, the problem has gone more or less unchecked and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon to stop equipmanr advances.
That's not true.
The solutions are there, it's the will and fortitude that's lacking.[/color]
Some say that the we have just about reached our limit of what can be achieved under the current guidelines. I don't buy this for a minute.
I agree[/color]
I see no reason why we can't expect the distance problem to continue for perhaps another 10, 20 or 30 more yards.
I don't think increases will come in those increments, but, I do believe increases will come.[/color]
This raises an interesting question for people such as myself. WHAT IF MANUFACTURERS ANNOUNCED THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE A BALL COULD BE HIT BY 20, 40 OR 50 YARDS? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR (MY) REACTION?
I'd be against it.[/color]
Of course, companies don't do this sort of thing because it would significantly increase the risk of reduced profits.
I would think it would be just the opposite.[/color]
The quick reaction is to blame the ruling bodies for inaction/incompetence. It may be that it is a combination of reasons which have halted any real movement toward reducing distance.
They're certainly culpable.[/color]
It may be more difficult than most of us can imagine to take on an industry which is far more powerful (in the cosumers' eyes) than any ruling body.
Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness and leadership.[/color]
The easy way out is to create a tournament ball, but the powers that be have been reluctant to do so.
That's not THE EASY WAY OUT, it's a prudent solution.
Once a tournament ball was adopted by the USGA and R&A, regional, state and local golf associations, all the way down to local clubs would follow suit. The transition would take a short while and eventually golfers would police themselves at the local level.
The USGA outlawed "HOT" golf balls for years.
Even the smaller R&A ball was banned from competition.
Would you play a match using the current golf ball against a golfer using the old R&A ball on a windy course ?
Did this happen when both balls were readily available ?
NO, it didn't, because golfers tend to be honorable competitors, it's a quality that's also inherent in the game.
The "de-evolutionary" process, combined with the fact that golf is a "gentleman's game would allow for a rather quick transition toward the play of THE Tournament Ball.[/color]
There is another possible solution which is often given little time.
IMO, reducing the number of clubs resolves the problem of shot variety and still leaves the mega power game as an option. More often than not, this argument of reducing clubs is countered with "scores will not be effected by an elite player carrying less clubs". This may or may not be true, but it is my impression that the need to reduce length is to re-introduce some lost challenges, not reduce scores.
-
This does NOTHING to address the distance issue.
You're misguided if you think so.
It only exaccerbates the distance issue.[/color]
It is often assumed that re-introducing some previous challenges will automatically increase scores and thus create a better balance with par being more meaningful to a winning score. Perhaps this is a false assumption, but in any case, WHAT DOES THE WINNING SCORE AS IT RELATES TO PAR HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF OUTRAGEOUS LENGTH?
That's not only a flawed assumption, it's misguided and misdirected.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
THE ISSUE is the return of the architectural features such that they again integrate themselves with the golfers game, as opposed to having become vestigal organs or features.[/color]
This is a fundamental question that has not been properly addressed.
That is NOT the FUNDAMENTAL question, and it has been properly addressed.[/color]
It is my contention that many people are more against the idea of par being broken with ease on many classic courses then they are concerned about how its done.
That's TOTALLY false.
You've got it backwards.
It's the distance problem in the context that it's contributed to the avoidance of having the architectural features integrate with the golfer's game. Scoring is merely a byproduct of that process.[/color]
As has been pointed out by many on this site, par has a mental effect on people and their thought processes are (unduly imo) influenced by the concept of par. Because par is completely artificial, it is as changeable as courses themselves. Is it not conceivable that par for many courses could be dropped to 65-68?
One thing is clear to me, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "distance problem", people need to start thinking about ways in which the balance of challenge, entertainment (in the case of spectating) and fun can be achieved.
They have, you just haven't been listening[/color]
Stating that reducing the ball by X% will do the trick is the thinking of a simpleton.
That's funny.
If INCREASED DISTANCE is THE problem, then you solve the problem by reducing distance, and not by limiting the number of clubs golfers can use.[/color]
The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell. If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL?
Some allege that it was around 1998-2000 when the biggest leaps took place with the advent of the solid ball.
Prior to the 70's, 80's or 90's increases had been di minimus[/color]
Is there an answer to this question?
YES, but, you've rejected it.[/color]
I don't know, but to solve the distance problem I think this question needs a concensus between manufacturers, consumers and golfing bodies.
What happens when 8 wolves and 4 lambs try to reach a consensus on what's for dinner ?
The ruling bodies lost their critical opportunities.
They need to revisit club size, shaft length and ball performance.[/color]
-
Powell,
With all due respect, please tell me this crusade is not an attempt to make television golf more exciting...
The guys on TV play the courses they want, or they demand the courses be changed. If a hole is too difficult to approach with a 4 iron they play it from 30 yards up and let them hit 6 and 7 irons...shortening the ball for them would simply cause damage to the members tees during the tournament week and the month following...
Jim,
It is not a crusade. Its just an idea offered in part to answer Sean's original question.
And my motivation is not, directly, the entertainment value of golf on TV.
Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, ir is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.
I believe maintaining a healthy level of particpation is improtant because that will ensure that the courses we love are preserved, hidden gems are restored, and wonderful new courses are built. No one likes seeing courses sold for housing development, and I fear we will see more of it under the present circumstances.
Powell
-
The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell. If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL?
Some allege that it was around 1998-2000 when the biggest leaps took place with the advent of the solid ball.
Prior to the 70's, 80's or 90's increases had been di minimus
Pat, are you saying that the increase in distance at the onset of the ProV1 era was greater than the increase wrought by the Haskell ball? I believe that would be a serious overstatement. I realize you were still a schoolboy when the Haskell arrived but try to think back...
The ruling bodies lost their critical opportunities.
They need to revisit club size, shaft length and ball performance.
Let's say the ball specification were rolled back to produce distances comparable to the pre-ProV1 era. Why would any downgrade of the clubheads and shaft as well be warranted? Or is it not all about the distance after all?
-
Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, ir is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.
Powell,
Would you agree that the game is now open to more individuals of limited means than at any time in its history?
Would you agree that the game is easier to learn with modern equipment and improved teaching technology? (Just last night I was able to investigate the different types of putting grips now popular for people with the yips by doing a simple Google search. This type of information was not available for free not that long ago.)
Would you also agree that length of a round is dictated by the crowds on the course which implies there is no problem at all?
Would you agree that Tiger is the most entertaining golfer who ever lived?
Would you agree that you are not having a good day?
-
John,
I don't think that individual instances is really the point here. I could manage to make contact with the ball if Clemens were pitching to me, and I could score at least one basket if Kobe were defending me, and I could kick a 45 yard field goal every now and then.
The point is when you take it in the context of the entire game, I'm nowhere even close to competing with a pro. And while there are some people who can hit the ball 300 yards on a semi-consitent and straight basis, they are the vast minority and they likely can't compete with the big boys either. Golf courses should be suited to the average guys not for less than 1% of the golfing population.
-
There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players. Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect. Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment. Course maintenance has an effect. I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.
Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.
I think the distance problem is more pronounced at that level, but, that doesn't exclude the distance problem from affecting other levels.[/color]
I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.
I don't think that's true.
There's been a good deal of discussion on the distance issue affecting golfers at other than the elite level[/color]
Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.
That's absolutely untrue.
The members of "golfden age" clubs had nothing to do with the quantum leap in distance over the last two decades.
It was the aggressive development on the part of the manufacturers and the silence of the USGA that created the problem, not the "golden age" clubs or their members.[/color]
I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.
Sean, I can't speak to your game, but, I can speak to mine and to the games of others I've watched over the last two or more decades, and, improved equipment has had a significant impact.
I know guys who are considerably longer at 65 than they were at 25, and, they're straighter too. And, they are NOWHERE near the shape they were in 40 years ago.
14 year old kids are hitting it far longer than Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime. That alone should register on your "something's changed scale"[/color]
It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.
However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.
Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.
It is, provided you can.
The "GAME" is inherently FUN and CHALLENGING irrespective of how far you hit it.
Handicap is a wonderful offset for lack of ability.
When I could only hit the ball 180 yards with my best drive, I enjoyed the game as much as I ever did.
That doesn't mean that I didn't want to hit the ball farther, only that "THE" INHERENT LURE isn't about distance.[/color]
Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.
But, aren't the ones that rip you off, the more desirable courses ?
If they weren't, they couldn't rip you off.[/color]
The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.
My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance,[/color] I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.
I agree with you, it DOESN'T solve the distance problem.
But, it DOESN'T get to the heart of the matter either.[/color]
Patrick
Club members change their courses. They may have reasons for doing so, but the responsibility of changing the course and how it is changed is down to the club members. Blaming someone or something else is neither constructive or accurate. Furthermore, as consumers, all golfers have something to do with all changes in equipment.
If you read my words and keep them in context, it would be very difficult to conclude that I believe the lure of the game is about distance. Surely, length is one aspect of the game which many people enjoy, but it isn't the only lure of the game.
In many cases, the courses which charge more are the more desirable ones to play and I still want to play some of them if given the opportunity. However, in the vast majority of instances, the courses I want to play that have high green fees are not expensive because the ball goes further. They are more expensive because people are willing to pay. Luckily, because I don't view golf as an attractive game purely for its challenge, I can enjoy many so called lesser courses with reasonable green fees.
Golf is a game that has changed dramatically over the years and it will continue to change. Hence, the challenges of the game will change. Some people like some changes and others don't. Once there is some sort of concensus on the part of the ruling bodies, manufacturers and consumers about what is good or bad, then we can get at whatever the heart of the problem is with golf - assuming there is a problem. Suggesting that one person's idea of a certain decrease in distance is the heart of the matter is simple minded.
Perhaps there are solutions staring us in the face these past 100 years or perhaps the heart of the matter is more complicated than you believe. I don't have any solutions to a distance problem, but then I don't have a problem with distance and I can't think of a single person I know that does - regardless of how far he hits the ball now compared to however many years ago. So far as I can tell, very few people do have a problem with distance and of those people who do, most are pros - in which case it doesn't really matter to me. I spose only each individual can answer if he has a distance problem for themselves. Perhaps a 12 step program can be invented.
While I don't personally care much if the ball is rolled back, I don't like the idea of folks making decisions for me. I don't need a granny state ruling to tell me I have been naughty and therefore should now use a ball which doesn't go as far. I can make my own decisions concerning length and believe me, if I thought I was taking the piss, I would not hit driver because I am not nearly as caught up in the "equal footing" mentality side of competition that some are. For instance, I don't take advantage of 14 clubs, I very rarely use a caddy, I don't use trolleys, I try not to consult yardage guides, I don't get fitted for clubs, I have never had a lesson, etc. These are all personal decisions which I understand most likely place me at a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint, but maximizing every possible advantage is not my goal. I play for enjoyment so I don't deem these advantages as terribly important.
If the goal of distance reduction is to bring back architectural integrity, which era of architecture would you like to be restored to? Somebody once said that to get the full measure of TOC today compared to 1850, the course would have to be 9000 yards long. Sounds like a slog to me. Perhaps many courses even as little as 50 years ago were too difficult for the average golfer.
Ciao
-
I think Pat has the right idea in this
thread.
In softball, limited flight softballs are used all the time so the games don't turn into homerun-fests, especially in light of all of the juiced bats that exist now.
In football, the size of the ball varies on the size of the player. High school footballs are smaller than the professional ball. In basketball, the court is longer for the pros and high schoolers and the 3 point line is further away.
The issue here is the PGAtour needs to put its foot down, grow a pair, and say a golf ball must fly no further than x amount when hit with Iron Bryon at X amount of speed. Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc, etc, can all make a tourney conforming ball for the big boys. I don't see why this is such a big deal
Weekend hacks can still play with their Pro Vs and the tour boys can use thier limited flight balls. And they can keep the big boys interfacing the architecture in the same way the weekend warrior does..
-
Here's my motivation, and I'd welcome a discussion on alternate ideas. My motivation is to make sure the game maintains a healthy level of participation. IMO, it is not doing that now there are certainly many causes for this, but certainly they include; cost, time to learn, length of a round and an entertaining pro tour.
Powell,
Would you agree that the game is now open to more individuals of limited means than at any time in its history?
Would you agree that the game is easier to learn with modern equipment and improved teaching technology? (Just last night I was able to investigate the different types of putting grips now popular for people with the yips by doing a simple Google search. This type of information was not available for free not that long ago.)
Would you also agree that length of a round is dictated by the crowds on the course which implies there is no problem at all?
Would you agree that Tiger is the most entertaining golfer who ever lived?
Would you agree that you are not having a good day?
I'm inclined to agree with all of the above, except as it relates to pace of play. (and I'm having a bad day becuase I spent most of it dealing with problems casued by a building contractor. Surprisingly, most are not cut from the same cloth as asphalt suppliers and paving contractors.)
Would you agree that in spite of all you state above, there has not been growth in the number of Avid Golfers since the dawn of the Tiger era? These circumstances should have had golf poised to reach out and capture new players, and it did not.
-
I agree that the game has not grown but I see it as a society problem and not a distance issue. The game needs more people like me who are heads of single income households who have been married to the same woman their entire life and take no qualms dictating where, how often and when they are going to play golf or any other sporting event that includes the company of their friends. We are a dying breed and the game is going with us.
-
I agree that the game has not grown but I see it as a society problem and not a distance issue. The game needs more people like me who are heads of single income households who have been married to the same woman their entire life and take no qualms dictating where, how often and when they are going to play golf or any other sporting event that includes the company of their friends. We are a dying breed and the game is going with us.
I love this post. Thank you for a good laugh at the end of a long day.
-
...
The issue here is the PGAtour needs to put its foot down, grow a pair, and say a golf ball must fly no further than x amount when hit with Iron Bryon at X amount of speed. Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc, etc, can all make a tourney conforming ball for the big boys. I don't see why this is such a big deal
...
Why does the PGA Tour have to do something that the USGA already has done, and the PGA Tour requires their players to abide by?
-
JakaB,
I'd agree that the distance issue and the popularity issue are NOT related, but rather, seperate issues, with the popularity issue being related to changes in our culture over the past 20+ years.
Dual wage earners and shared responsibilities along with the inordinate amount of time required to play 18 holes, play a significant role in the popularity/opportunity to play the game.
Young fathers tee off at 7:00 and are home by 11:00 or their play is curtailed.
Years ago, fathers teed off later, had lunch, played cards and went home or their wives joined them for dinner at the club.
Slow play or the time to play is a factor, distance is not.
-
Question for you all that think bifurcation is the best option...what percentage of golfers NOT SUBJECT[/i] to use the competition equipment would use the same stuff the Tour guys use? I'd bet it would acount for well more than half the annual revenus generated by the equipment companies.
Do we really have any idea how much, percentage wise, the ball going 20% further than it used to adds to the cost of building and maintaining golf courses? Somehow, I don't think it's 20%.
Buildings did not continue to get taller just because people have.
The ceiling heights on lower end houses seem to be higher today than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Try and find a new house built in the last 10 years that has ceilings under 8' (not counting finished basements) They are all over the place if you look at houses built before 1950.
As for the distance problem, I still think the problem is more due the massive increase in carry distance off the driver, rather than the smaller but still too large increase in total distance. Fix the changes to the ball that caused that carry distance increase and you'll make it harder to hit the ball straight, make hitting fairways more important because of the loss of roll when you land in the rough, make long irons fly less far, and the game will be in much better balance. Its all about the spin rates!
-
8)
Yipes.. if I hear another general simplistic solution to this psycological distance problem / irrelevent course architecture malaise I'm gonna be sick.. let go of these old courses! The world will not end! Perhaps if they'd stop trying to be immortal, their architecture could be preserved.
My first real exposure to the pros was 1979.. my most recent was this past spring.. pretty much an annual thing.. they have always amazed me with their shot making, good, bad, and rarely but sometimes ugly.. I have seen many jaws in the crowd drop at the sight of high, curving, and long flying balata and surlyn covered spheres.. what i have enjoyed the most is the pure tone of their ball striking.. flight & sound are two things that don't really translate well on tv.. let them be, they rarely care about you or the "average" golfer.. just where is the next tourney they're scheduled for..
it is merit which normally wins at any level, maybe with a little luck thrown in, but as the cliche goes.. winners never quit, quitters never win.. kinda wish jesper had won yesterday, he almost deserved it, but not quite..