Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?

[Jim_Kennedy]

$1500 is cheap? That is a lot (of) money in my book.-T Mac

No kiddin' Tom but remember, it's the equvalent of $240 in 1965 dollars, about what you'd have paid back then for Wilson Staff irons with 3 woods, sand wedge, a putter and a bag (actually bags are even cheaper in the comparison with today because they aren't leather and humongous).  

I'm not sure a kid who is saving his money from delivering papers could afford it. -T Mac

I know that I couldn't afford $240.00 for clubs back then. A 35 customer morning paper route made me a little over 5 bucks a week, including the Sunday paper.

You're right obsolete equipment does usually drop in price.-T Mac

The examples I cited are not built with obsolete technology. Let's see, $300 clubs with Titanium, graphite, cavity backs, .830 COR's, 460cc heads, etc.. I could have afforded them in 1965, they would have only cost me a tad over 40 bucks (8 weeks of delivering papers).  

Of course the problem with the buying old technology, the fellow with the new technology will always have an advantage.-T Mac

Depends, (possibly) on whose wielding the sticks.  

That(advantage) is why many upgrade on a regular basis.-T Mac

The reason they upgrade is that they are sucked into it by wild claims made by advertisers who also tell you that if you drink XYZ beer your sex life will improve tenfold and your ____ will grow down to your knees,  then they sell you slacks.  

To remain competitive you must spend and spend a lot (the average guy can not afford that)...from the newest driver to the best golf balls. -T Mac

Did you Monday qualify and should I look for you on TV this weekend?  

It is a never ending cycle. -T Mac

Finally, we agree.



Tom, I wouldn't expect you to know the courses in my area (you've never golfed around here, have you?) and you named some pretty nice ones, but you only scratched the surface. You missed Stamford (Ny), Waubeeka, Pontoosuc, Evergreen, Sycamore, McCann, College Hill, Vassar, Thunderhart, Candlewood, yadda... yadda... yadda(gotta save my fingers so I'll stop now).
If I ever make it to the Columbus area I'd like to golf at the places you mention. If you, your wife, your son, your daughter evermove here you all can join Hotchkiss for $475.00 for the family. That's all the golf you can handle.

[Craig Sweet]

Jim Kennedy....perhaps calling Tom Mac a "Luddite" is a tad harsh...he is (apparently) using a computer after all...

It's fascinating where all this concern about distance, and this talk of a "rollback" is coming from....a handful of former professional golfers who had their day and who's achievments (records) are threatened, a handful of golf course architecture geeks, and a handful of classic course members/lovers...

Golf is no different than any other sport/game...the vast majority of participants embrace the new technology and a handful whine that their sport is being ruined....in any case, if people don't like the new equipment they don't have to buy it and use it...

[T_MacWood]

Jim
I paid $150 for a full set Maxfli in the 70's with my caddie proceeds. I still play with those clubs today.

The advertizers do make outrageous claims...however there is no doubt they have also made remarkable technological improvements in the last few years.

I'm sure we can go back and forth regarding our opposite positions. I believe technology is out of hand and the tragic result has been the affect its had on great old designs (direct and indirect). You appear to be in favor of that technology and obviously you don't agree regarding the affect on classic courses. We also disagree about the cost of todays game. I'll leave it at that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I paid $150 for a full set Maxfli in the 70's with my caddie proceeds - T Mac

$150.00 in 1975 dollars is ca. $555.00 today. A new set of Maxfli irons w/ Ti driver and two fairway woods cost $522.00 in 2005.   No Change

I believe technology is out of hand and the tragic result has been the affect its had on great old designs (direct and indirect). You appear to be in favor of that technology and obviously you don't agree regarding the affect on classic courses.- TMac

I agree that technology in the hands of the world's best players has affected older designs, never said I didn't anywhere in this or any other thread.
Technology in the hands of the 95+% of the rest of us has not.

We also disagree about the cost of todays game.-T Mac

That we do. I think the 8,500 courses that charge less than $26.00 to play, the quality equipment that's available for under $300.00, the number of off peak deals available, the marketing of 3, 6 or 9 hole pricing, golf leagues, etc., all make for a realistically priced product if one is serious enough to look for it.  

I'll leave it at that.- T Mac

So will I.

[George Pazin]

Jim is certainly right that there is a lot of great inexpensive equipment available these days. State of the art 6 months ago is available at discount prices now. I bought a really nice Ping driver the other day for $60, plus a 20% discount, so I got it for $48.

However, it is rather undeniable that if one wishes to play anything other than munis for the rest of his golfing days, golf is a rather expensive sport/pasttime. Add in the extra time due to playing increasingly longer courses and it's hard for me to imagine that we wouldn't be better off with a renewed focus on limiting technology's role. I simply can't imagine there wouldn't be a shift toward shorter, more walkable courses, if we didn't see Tiger and friends hitting 350 yard drives every weekend.

In many ways, it's a great time to be a lesser golfer. And in many ways, the problems that a lesser golfer faces have nothing to do with the long ball. But, similarly, the long ball isn't providing a great benefit to the lesser golfer, either.

We have an ODS. It was established literally a lifetime ago for some of us.

Why is it set is stone, with no possibility of re-examination?

Is the game better off with pros driving the ball 300, 320, 350 and average joes poking it 200-250?

Should we be married to a standard that results in the seemingly ever increasing rate of change of all golf courses, classic, not so classic, new, whatever?

MANY architects have had to revise courses built less than 10 years ago. Should we stick with the standard or adjust it?

MANY other sports confront technological advancements without resorting to destroying their playing fields. Is what golf is currently experiencing a good thing or a bad thing?

These are just some of the questions we should asking. Sticking your head in the ground and saying "That's life, things change" is a rather bizarre way of looking at the "problem", and if that is your attitude, I hope you don't ever end up on any of the USGA or R&A's ruling bodies/committees.

Yes, writers have been commenting on the distance "problem" for many years, decades even. The fact that they were ignored  and the sky didn't fall doesn't mean they were not correct in their vision of the problems created by the lust for length.

[T_MacWood]

No change? You consider the Maxfli of 2005 equivalent to the Maxfli of 1975? The company produces low end equipment today, that was not the case in the 1970's.

"Technology in the hands of the 95+% of the rest of us has not."

That is because the 95% can not afford it. Even more reason to be disgusted by the negative impact equipment has had upon classsic golf architecture and ultimately the cost of the game. New courses that are built today to cater to the 95% are regularly 7200 yards +. Acreage costs money to buy and maintain.

The reality is golf courses are not altered based on what the 95% do.

[A_Clay_Man]

George-How does you acknowledgement of "a problem", make it a problem for others?

And how does Dr Klein's talk, on how, "Golf is a Great Game, but a lousy business", with it's conclusion that golf needs to close a course a week, for five years,  just to get supply back inline with demand, corrollate?

[Craig Sweet]

Tom Mac...I see, even though you were ready to "leave it at that", that you have come full cycle and started this debate from scratch once again.

The first time around you failed to show that golf was more expensive today than it was 25 years ago.

The first time around you failed to make a legitimate argument that our classic courses have become obsolete for the 90% out their that are not on the pro tour or a very high ranked amateur.

The first time around you failed to mention that higher maintenance costs are mostly labor and mostly a response to the newer generation of golfers demanding better conditions...(by the way, you abhor those terrible conditions on muni's...so I assume you would be one of those demanding AGNC conditions at your course)...

[Craig Sweet]

George...you said

"I simply can't imagine there wouldn't be a shift toward shorter, more walkable courses, if we didn't see Tiger and friends hitting 350 yard drives every weekend."

Tiger and his friends are not who we are building courses for these days...

[Brent Hutto]

I'm with George, in the US at least. In my neck of the woods, there are two things supplying money for new golf courses. The bulk of investment comes from housing developers who want to provide green vistas for their home buyers. There is absolutely no incentive to make short or walkable courses, in fact quite the opposite. They want the golf course spread out through as much total acerage as possible. The other thing driving course is construction, much less frequently, is high end private or resort courses. Not universally but in many cases these are very much driven by the perception of how the guys on TV plays. Nobody seems to want their course to be perceived as wimpy, short and/or easy.

So where is there a driving force for shorter, more walkable courses in the USA? I just don't see it happening. The building of courses is driven by what people want to spend the money building. Playability or the concerns of the "core golfer" only come into play after the course is in operation and that's too late to build it short or walkable.

A final note. Around here 80-90% of rounds are played in golf carts so walkability is nearly moot anyway. Heck, spreading it out keeps people from cheaping out and avoiding paying for a cart, right?

[Craig Sweet]

Brent..where did that stat regarding cart use come form?

[George Pazin]

Adam, with all due respect (and you know I mean that), I say a much more relevant question is "Does a handful of people not acknowledging a problem not make it a problem for everyone else?"

And Craig, if you think Tiger isn't influencing the types of courses being built today, well, then I completely understand where the disconnect is.

I don't know about your experience, but in my limited experience, there are far more courses being built and billed as "championship courses" than there are Rustic Canyon-type ventures. It is virtually inconceivable that someone building a course is not taking cues from the PGA, the majors, the highly regarded classics, etc.

Does someone see a remarkable upsurge in new 6500 yard, highly walkable, highly affordable courses? I don't, but I don't have the overview that others might have. I do read all the national (and some of the international) magazines and see ad after ad for so and so's latest and greatest test.

Do you deny that courses everywhere are being altered to accomodate the newer technology, and that newer courses are being built with different specs to accomodate the newer technology? If not, do you think this is a good thing?

I am nowhere near retiring, and I don't anticipate need of dime of assistance from anyone else when I do, but that doesn't stop me from being damn concerned about the situation with Social Security.

In my view, there are several different scenarios we can end up with:

1) Do nothing, and continue to have 7500 yard new courses thrust upon us, and see classic courses stretched and altered to be able to host tournaments;

2) Do nothing, and hope that enough people out there come to their senses and start building more courses for the average joe,  and hope that tournament or green committees give up altering their courses or their desire to host tournaments;

3) Roll back technology just a little overall (I include a tournament ball in this category).

Feel free to bring up another scenario if you see one. I know for sure which option I'd choose.

[George Pazin]

The first time around you failed to make a legitimate argument that our classic courses have become obsolete for the 90% out their that are not on the pro tour or a very high ranked amateur.

This is your opinion.

It seems to me you fail to understand the issue, or at least fail to understand how the other side views the issue.

Classic courses are not being altered for the average joe. Most newer courses aren't being built for him, either.

The sky is not falling. We are not going to wake up tomorrow and see every classic course destroyed and every new course being built as an 8000 yard behemoth.

But that does not mean that there is not a problem.

Your opinion does not happened to be shared by a gigantic number of highly respected individuals, among them Jack, Arnie, Gary Player, several past USGA officials, Geoff Shackelford, Daniel Wexler, many many posters on here - I could go on.

BTW, you never addressed my simple question upon entering the other tech thread -

Why do we have an ODS?

and you never answered Rick's question either -

Do you think we should have an ODS?

(As an aside, I see all of these issues as interrelated, however, if you prefer, I will copy this post and question over to the other thread. I am in no way trying to belittle your position, I find this argument interesting and stimulating, but you are at least as far from convincing me of your side of the argument as I am in convincing you of mine. )

[Craig Sweet]

George...I do totally disagree with you. What I see being built are courses with a variety of tee options and strategic options...whenever I see "Championship" attached to a course I cringe...what championship?  Its ego..it's marketing...it isn't necessary....

You said classic courses are not being altered for the average joe. What percentage of golfers at these courses are "average joes"? I bet the 15+ handicapper is better than 50% of the clientel...and I certainly don't put 10 handicappers in the same league with "Tiger and his friends"....so just who are they altering these courses for?

[Brent Hutto]

Brent..where did that stat regarding cart use come form?

That's my observation at the courses where I play. However, I've seen a National Golf Foundation report from about ten years ago that quoted something on the order of 76-78% (IIRC) of rounds in this section of the country (Carolinas, Georgia, etc.) as using carts according to the courses responding to their survey.

[Craig Sweet]

Wow...I would guess at my course the weekday use is less than 50%...and maybe approaches 75% on a weekend...we see lots of speed carts...

[Brent Hutto]

At the courses around here that are completely walkable (and walking is allowed) the majority of people are in carts at least on the weekends when I mostly play. I can think of one course that's pretty close to 50/50. Then factor in the courses that are so spread out nobody, with the possible exception of me, would want to walk them. Then factor in the large proportion of courses that do not allow walking, either at all or during prime times. Having those 100% cart courses averaged in makes it easy to imagine seeing 80% or more cart usage.

I believe Florida was the most cart-heavy section of the country in that old NGF report with over 80% reported cart usage. In certain places, the social norm is to use carts.

[Joe Hancock]

Craig,

Where are all those stats coming from?

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

I wonder how much it's costing those 100% cart courses in increased maintenance?

Joe...my stats? I pull them out my butt...

[Doug Siebert]

However, it is my opinion that thru regulation of clubs and balls you run the risk of driving many club makers out of business...they will not pay the price to conform...when your options are either buy your clubs from manufacturer A or manufacturer B, you are at their mercy regarding costs...this is just my opinion, and that might not happen...

As you regulate what clubs and balls you can and can't use I would not be surprised if some golfers quit the game...many might respond to a rollback by saying why would I want to use clubs and balls like those I used 20 years ago...and walk away.

We already regulate clubs and balls in all sorts of ways, and there are plenty of manufacturers.  You think that if we changed the regulations we already have a bit so that balls didn't go quite as far, suddenly equipment makers will go out of business?  How exactly is that going to happen?  This doesn't add any costs to them, they already have to meet USGA standards and submit their equipment for approval.

Yes, there will be R&D costs to produce the best possible products they can to meet the new standards, but that's the same R&D costs they incur now to produce the best possible products they can to meet the current standards.  It just changes the numbers their engineers are working with, basically.

You keep putting up this strawman of "many" people potentially walking away from the game.  I keep wondering why, if everyone is affected (to whatever extent) equally in proportion to how much they gained over the past 20 years (using your 1985 date) then why will it cause them to quit?

Since people who defend the technology always claim there is no evidence that scores are lower despite all the technology, I think it'd be hard to claim that hitting the ball a little shorter is going to make people score higher, so other than ego what is the problem here?  Those who are really pissed will probably stockpile Pro V1s and use them for the next few years (they may lose them in the water or woods, but someone will find them and resell them)  I'm sure there were some who resisted the move to the larger ball in the UK in a similar matter, but I doubt there are many who are still using them today....though I'll bet you can probably still find them out there if you brought a machete and went to work on the nastier gorse bushes

[Brent Hutto]

And the related question is who on this site would quit if a USGA-conforming ball came out tomorrow that let Vijay Singh hit it 15 yards further than a ProV1x or whatever he plays now.

I think the answer is that neither outcome would result in any measurable decline in participation in the game. It's a matter of how fast do we want the game to change, not the life or death of golf.

[EDIT] So in case my answer is not clear, I would not quit the game if the ball suddenly went 20 yards shorter (I'm pretty sure a Vardon Flyer wouldn't be 20 yards shorter with my current puny golf swing). I very much doubt anyone reading this message would quit the game because of any imaginable change to the golf ball.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet, et. al.,

The critical question is:.

Whom, on this site, would quit the game if they lost 20-30 yards on their drives and 10 yards on their irons ?

[Craig Sweet]

Regarding cart use...I was talking with our Superintendent today and I asked him what percentage of our weekday crowd use carts...his estimate...less than 10%...on the weekend...maybe...maybe 50%...

I have no desire to give away 30 yards. However, I would love to see longer fairway grass and slower greens.

[Tags:]

Tags: