[john_stiles]

I realize only a few have anti-technolgy leanings. However, since a new idea has been added to the list in last few days,  let's have an end of the year anti-technology roll-call !

Slower greens in another thread may affect scoring for a while, but the professionals would adjust.  But you would only have to raise the mowing height when any tournament came to town !     Raising the mower certainly makes more sense than raising money for course alterations.

Besides rolling back the ball in fighting technology, some suggestions have been :

> slower greens,
> narrower fairways,
> higher grass in fairways,
> deeper rough,
> more trees,
> smaller greens,
> placing holes 1 step from green's edge (ie bunkers, water, etc.), reducing from current 2 to 3
> deeper bunkers,
> do not rake the bunkers,
> lengthen the course, build new tees,
> move tees back and move bunkers further away,  
> have more difficult internal green contours,
> reduce the number of clubs allowed,
> decrease effect of grooves,
> decrease size of clubhead (less than current),
> set a maximum length of club (less than current),
> firmer greens,
> firmer fairways,
> set minimum loft (for driving clubs)
> set maximum loft ( for wedges )
> eliminate tees
> reduce the present maximum tee height
> fairways with more slope & contour

Must have surely left out about 10 other suggestions so my apologies to those who came up with a new idea.

So, hmmmm,  we have been a pretty inventive group trying to work around this issue.   Even if your course is not affected by the  .000001% of great golfers,  most every course is affected eventually.

So if your idea was not listed, please add to the above.

Seriously,  I must have left off a few.  Please add if you will.

[Peter Pallotta]

John,
This past summer I played a course in the Georgian Bay area called Monterra, designed (I think) by Tom McBroom.  At several points he made nice use of some narrow and shallow (but very penal) ravines/creeks that cut across the fairways at just the right spots, i.e. given the prevailing winds, your drive had to perfectly struck to get past these hazards, and any kind of doubt meant you'd be laying up short and having a long iron left into the green.  I think such hazards could be used effectively to take, under certain wind conditions, the driver out of long hitters' hands, and to have them have to play long irons into the greens - which is golf's real test.

Peter

[Ross Thomas]

Why not just enact a law that prevents any golf facility from using land for anything that is not an actual "golf course"?  This would essentially eliminate driving ranges, practice areas, putting greens, short-game areas, etc.  Players must go directly from the parking lot to the course.  

Eliminate practice......the original sheppards didn't need no practice fields.

[Alfie]

John,

Great post, and interesting when the madness is listed in such a way. All those possibilities as a solution to combat length ? Here's another for the list.

Perhaps the R&A / USGA could do some R&D into finding a...I don't want to hit the ball far (even if I could in the first place) PATCH which would adhere to the temple of aspiring golfers and release the required hormones, or whatever. Of course, the ruling bodies would have to test the patches first - wouldn't they ?

Then the rollback could be instigated for everyone, including the 0.0001% and we all live happily ever after and that list becomes the daft part of golfing history ?

BTW. Anyone wishing to conduct their own R&D into the rollback principle can simply buy a few rolled back balls on E-bay or any golf auction website ! Yes. Rollback balls are already in the market place. They're called Dunlop 65's, Slazengers, GBD's, Warwick's, Spitfires (crap),  Goblin's, and many other examples......of how to tame technology in golf !

Where there's a will - there's a way ?

Happy Xmas to all, including Titleist, Callaway, Nike etc....even though they don't appear to have any dialled back balls of their own  

Alfie

[Rick Shefchik]

See my new signature.

[john_stiles]

Alfie,

I snagged about a dozen old Titleist professionals a few months back and will use them in the spring.  Thanks for tip on eBay re: golf balls. I have not searched for those and will do so now.

Rick,

New signature is nice.  

Come around with some of the yound kids I see, who I have heard mutter about hitting only 9 iron to wedges all day, save reaching the par 5s.  And how about an old man like me, reaching a 545 yard par 5 (albeit firm fairways) in two.  Club members reaching a 600 yard par 5 in two (again albeit firm fairways).  Or how about a senior PGA tour rep coming to a 6943 yd course, and on his first visit, stating these five holes (wink, wink) need to be lengthened for senior event.  Everyone needs to go see the multitude of young golfers who will one day need a suitable course to play.  Also play in local tournaments and you will find some courses are doing the ' 2 step ' hole location routine at times.

Rolling the ball back, or other equipment changes would help.  And it is not about my game. I have got a few decent years left,  it is about the future of golf and our courses.

John Daly diet ?  He somehow keeps hitting it further and further.  Hickory shafts will work.

Maybe,  more centerline hazards and 'multiple' cross bunkers will help.

So, add to the list,

>  more, and multiple, cross hazards


All of the course setup and architectural efforts in negating technology remind me of the old  Spy vs Spy vs Spy cartoons.

One Spy keeps 'edging' the hole location closer to the 'edges.'  

Then another 'Spy' gets the laser range finders and can dial the distance down from any angle.

[Pete Lavallee]

John,

I think we could easily accomplish your goal with one new rule: Put a limit on spin rate. This would narrow the gap between the longest and shortest hitters, revive shotmaking by causing the ball to curve more and provide less reward for swinging from the heels with driver in hand. It would in effect take us back to the "Titleist Professional era" of the 90's where only a few elite golfers averaged over 300 yards. It would be a wonderful place to start.

[ChipRoyce]

I agree with Pete.... we're pretty far along and have done pretty much everything we can do for the clubs (although I think we could limit drivers to 420CC, instead of 460CC).

I loved the Titleist Pro back when it was out and agree that it could be the gold standard of performance. If folks complain that they're too short, we should just move the tees up.

BTW - Pete Lavallee, your name is familiar. Are you a Lawrenceville Grad?

Chip Royce L'87

[JohnV]

John,

I think we could easily accomplish your goal with one new rule: Put a limit on spin rate.

Pete, I assume you are advocating a minimum spin rate.  One of the interesting things is that if you look at the USGA Conforming Ball List, they state whether the spin rate for a ball is Low, Medium or High when the ball is hit by a driver and a short iron.  All Pro V1s are Medium off the driver and High off the irons.  All the rock like Titleists and Top Flights are Low/Medium.  They don't define what Low/Medium/High mean, but I'm sure they are the same for all balls they measure.

A minimum spin rate would have to be pretty high to cause much of a change on the Pro V1.  Nike and Calloway appear to have a number of their top-level balls that are Low/Medium, but not Titleist.

[john_stiles]

There have been several posts previously about minimum spin rate and that, a minumum spin rate, would help.

It seems whenever you go to one of those fittings, available to even non-pros, they always look at your spin rate. Usually it is too high, and they recommend less spin so you can hit it longer.

I looked through an old Golf World (September 1, 2000, page 4) and noticed an article about a 'Public Remedies, Inc.' that filed a lawsuit against Nike. Their claim was that the ball Tiger Woods was using, a  'Tour Accuracy', was actually different than the ball being sold as 'Tour Accuracy'.  Nike acknowledged that the ball Woods used was a different Tour Accuracy with a slightly harder inner core and cover.  

Nike advertised on its website that you too could play the 'Tour Accuracy', the same as the ball Tiger used to tame Pebble Beach.  Of course, the public could not buy the same ball Tiger was using.   Nike also acknowledged in Golf Digest September issue that there was a difference in the golf balls.

But it was  5% harder.    Which implies to me, that Nike probably made balls of varing hardness, just to see which one Tiger liked best.  Probably didn't take them long to run off balls of varying hardness just for Tiger.

What ?  In the year 2000, a maunfacturer was making a special ball for only a very limited number of players.  Say it ain't so.  

So, in 2000,  they were making essentially a 'tournament ball' or a ball for very limited distribution, not being sold to the public.  

This, a tournament ball, or a rollback, can be easily done.

In fact, they were doing that in 2000.  Manufacturers seem to change the ball at the drop of the hat upon discussion with .00001% of the golf population, and then do not sell that ball to 99.99999% of the golfers.

But,  I was really looking for other ideas that all courses could spend a couple hundred grand or more,  like new and deeper bunkers, moving greens, buying more land, rather than changing the cheapest commodity in golf other than the glove and tee.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()