Changes to Turnberry, and now Muirfield

[PThomas]

.
I went to a dinner last Friday night in Santa Barbara where the president of the USGA essentially said they give up, the ball will not be rolled back, prepare to add yardage to courses.  It's really pretty crazy.  The leading authorities in golf, the USGA and the R&A, have no control over the ball played in their competitions.

wow, that is depressing

[Jamie Barber]

What again?...seriously St G is quite hard to go back now... 2/3/4/5/8/12/13/17/18 are tough to extend..so i guess 7600 is the limit (par 70)

Well there's plenty of space but it would require some substantial re-design. However, 7600 for a par 70 is ridiculous IMHO. If we need this kind of length - then a lot of UK and Ireland courses simply don't have the room

[Adrian_Stiff]

It was tongue in cheek Jamie.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat. C

There are times I wonder if you know exactly what you are talking about. Your mouth or in this case your fingers are issuing cheques that your brain just cannot cash.

You seem to know next to nothing about The Morris Family yet you happily make statements that you cannot substantiate.

A few basic points perhaps you should know

A) Old Tom played in The Open for some 30 plus years
B) Every morning he swam in the Sea at St Andrews (the cold North Sea)
C) He played golf daily and travelled all over GB&I by public transport 
    (trains) and pony and trap - no door to door service. He continued to
     travel well into his eighties doing his last course design when he was
     84.

The point is that Old Tom was considerably fitter that you seem to think. As for hitting distances and ball travel, I believe that Young Tom’s achievements at Prestwick when he won The Open would come close if not beat Tigers Woods i.e. Ist Hole 578 yds (then Par 6) down in 3 using a Guttie and Hickory clubs. His round totalled 47, which in those days was 12 holes. The Prestwick Club will confirm that that score was never equalled or bettered on the old course.

As for me living in Never Neverland, I think that certainly applies to you. You have for some reason decided to make various comments about The Morris Family, yet you seem bereft of any historical information on them. If you need said information, just IM me and I will happily provide it for you.

Pat have you played golf outside your USA world, in other words have you been to Europe, Australia, Africa, Far East or GB&I. I wonder, as your comments at times seem rather insular. I have not had the pleasure of playing in the USA or Australia as yet.

Just in case you missed my connection to the history of our great game of golf, I quote a paragraph from my recent e-mail with Ran when I rejoined GCA.com this week:-

“Just to name drop but certainly for your information I have now fully traced my golfing heritage forward from Old Tom, Young Tom, James Hunter (my great grandfather married Old Tom’s daughter Elizabeth), through James, Charlie Hunter is also family, as is George and Jack Morris, plus the James Hunters and his brothers who developed golf in Mobile Georgia & Darien USA in the late1880’s – 1890’s.”

Yet for all the above I just submit on this site MY opinions, I do not use my connection for my own selfish ends. However, I do try to help others. Just recently I tried (but failed) to get a round of golf at Castle Stewart pre opening ceremony for a fellow countryman of yours. I have also been please where possible to arrange The Courtesy of the Course on nearly 100 courses for various individuals over the last year. Never Neverland indeed, Pat you need to open your eyes and take a real cold hard look at the world.

If I can help or assist with anything related to Golf, I will even try to arrange it for you, although as with all things no promises. Perhaps its time to move forward, it’s your call.

Melvyn   

[Niall C]

Interesting discussion on the changes to Turnberry and Muirfield. So far most of the chat has been on the lengthening of the courses although in my humble opinion the big changes at Turnberry are not so much to do with length but the new fairway to the 16th (which admittedly was done so the tee for 17 could go back the way) and the host of new bunkers which have been put in around the course. Basically two different ways to deal with toughening up these classic links.

I think Steve Salmen hit the nail on the head with his comment on the vagaries of distances in links golf. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this site who has gone driver, 9 iron to a par 5 on a links course, and I'm a moderate hitter.

For me the biggest threat to the nature of links golf, isn't so much the added distance that new technology offers but the added control. Ignoring the question of whether Old Tom could benchpress more than Tiger, it has to be said that the greater sweet spots on modern drivers/clubs allows the modern pro to hit harder and with more forgiveness for off-centre strikes. Even more alarming for me is the fact that not only are modern balls less effected by wind but that the top guys now routinely get spin with their approach shots thereby negating some of the natural links defences.

More hazards v greater length. Not sure either is going to adequately address the issue.

Niall

[Steve Salmen]

Just as technology can make a classic links course defenseless on a calm day, a strong wind can render any golfing technology useless.  New clubs hit the ball a lot higher than old ones, leaving the ball at the mercy of the golfing gods that much longer.

Tiger's worst round came on day 3 of the 02 Open when he got caught in a storm and shot 81.  That week the greens were 8.5-9, not particularly fast.  The winning score was -6.  The course was a little over 7000 yds.   It shows that some bad weather can send scores soaring in a hurry. 

Look at last year's Open.  I thought +8 was going to win until Padraig caught fire.  I understand the concern my British amigos have in wanting to defend the integrity of the classic links courses, but as long as you have wind, you don't have that much to worry about.  It and pot bunkers are the great equalizer.

[Niall C]

Steve,

Yes, the wind is a great defence for links but at the same time the nature of the game has been traditionally about playing the ball along the ground on fast firm conditions. My point was two fold, firstly the ball is less affected by the wind and secondly it allows players the opportunity to flyover the defences and getting check on landing rather than negotiating the hazards, be they bunkers or contours, with better positioning of the tee shot. Basically the game is becoming as much a game of aerial bombardment as it is elsewhere.

Niall

[Steve Salmen]

Niall,

My links golf experience comes only as a visitor, not a native to the game so there may be ignorance in some of my statements.  I strongly agree with your claim about being able to drive over hazards in all forms.  Length has increased a lot.  They alter the 6th at Carnoustie by adding another bunker in the middle of the fairway for the Open. 

Your statement about getting check on landing begs the question, do today's balls spin more than the balatas of 2 decades past?  Personally, I don't think so.  However, today's balls have a phenomenal combination of distance and spin control.

Finally,  as a medium length driver of the ball, I can usually find a set of tees that takes "aerial bombardment" out of the game, as is my preference.  I will be playing a lot of rounds at Dornoch this summer.  At 6300 yds, it's lacking length but I'm still not hitting wedge into every green, far from it.

For what it's worth, I'd personally love to see the pros use a uniform, scaled back ball for the sake of records past.

[Sean_A]

Just as technology can make a classic links course defenseless on a calm day, a strong wind can render any golfing technology useless.  New clubs hit the ball a lot higher than old ones, leaving the ball at the mercy of the golfing gods that much longer.

Tiger's worst round came on day 3 of the 02 Open when he got caught in a storm and shot 81.  That week the greens were 8.5-9, not particularly fast.  The winning score was -6.  The course was a little over 7000 yds.   It shows that some bad weather can send scores soaring in a hurry. 

Look at last year's Open.  I thought +8 was going to win until Padraig caught fire.  I understand the concern my British amigos have in wanting to defend the integrity of the classic links courses, but as long as you have wind, you don't have that much to worry about.  It and pot bunkers are the great equalizer.

I think another aspect we need to consider and one that is often only touched upon is the width of fairways.  I don't have evidence, but I believe that in general fairways have been narrowed both in terms of real distance in yards and in that rough is allowed to grow - and this is accounting for extra bunkering which usually acts to narrow courses even more.  True, some of this is down to recent wet summers which don't produce hot enough temps to burn back rough, but I believe that clubs could still cut the rough, yet choose not to.  In the real world its understandable if 2nd/3rd tier clubs don't believe they have the budget to cut back rough in high summer, but from my experience, its the big name clubs which have the worst rough and they can certainly afford to cut it back.  The argument seems to be that the big boys tear courses apart on calm days so its necessary to have penal rough combined with narrow fairways.  Of course problems occur when the big boys leave town and the courses aren't widened.  When the windy weather hits these courses become a nightmare for the members and visitors.  At least with length, the added bit is usually stuck somewhere in the back and can be ignored until the time comes for a big event - its not ideal, but its nowhere near as problematic as the narrowing of courses.

Ciao

[PCCraig]

...

I agree that the ball is probably the most signifcant factor in many distance issues and I would love to see a roll back in a ball, however I don't find it realistic. I am more than ok with the stale growth in technology in equipment the last 5 years or so. Drivers are as long as they are going to be, and so are balls. They even rolled back the grooves in wedges. So as long as they keep all things constant now (which "they" failed to do in the past) all should be good.

So much to agree with!!!
But consider this, Pat (with a deep bow and a tip of the cap to Geoff Shackelford):

Let's assume that we all agree that distance gains "must stop."  You say, there's been no significant distance gains for "the last 5 years or so."  We can agree on that as well.  The manufacturers haven't come up with any new big ideas in that time.  Let's presume (not a great stretch by any means) that somehow, some time in the near future, a clever golf ball engineer is going to come with the next leap in ball technology.  Is it your position that that development, that change, whaever it is, is the one that must be stopped?  Prevent that change, whatever it is...?

"Why that change?", is what Geoff Shackelford has recently been asking.  Why not the "last" change, the one that forced a bunch of undesirable changes on Winged Foot, Riviera, Oakland Hills, Turnberry, TOC, (plus far too many others to mention) and now Murifield?
When someone says, "Let's just cap things where they are now," I say why?  Why is this moment so magical?  Why not go back to a better level, more in line with more historic golf courses, so that tour players can visit and hold events at more classic courses?  Why not try to develop a ball that does nothing to hinder recreational players but significantly rolls back elite players?  I don't have any particular design in mind, but isn't that a laudable goal?  Why accept the status quo?  Why remain static?  The ball-design R&D people won't stand still....

The problem with the idea of some ball desginer out there coming up with the next leap in technology is that no matter how good the ball is, how long, how soft around the greens...the USGA and R&A could not allow its use. Honestly what they should of done is outlaw the ProV1 when they had the chance! Now that golfers have become used to the equipment you can't take it away from them.

However the wonderful thing about golf is that it changes, and tour pro's and 20 handicapers alike change together. Having a "Tour Only" ball just seems like too much work...and what happens when top Am's and low handicap players decide they want to play the "Tour Only" ball?

[PCCraig]

Pat. C

There are times I wonder if you know exactly what you are talking about. Your mouth or in this case your fingers are issuing cheques that your brain just cannot cash.

You seem to know next to nothing about The Morris Family yet you happily make statements that you cannot substantiate.

A few basic points perhaps you should know

A) Old Tom played in The Open for some 30 plus years
B) Every morning he swam in the Sea at St Andrews (the cold North Sea)
C) He played golf daily and travelled all over GB&I by public transport 
    (trains) and pony and trap - no door to door service. He continued to
     travel well into his eighties doing his last course design when he was
     84.

The point is that Old Tom was considerably fitter that you seem to think. As for hitting distances and ball travel, I believe that Young Tom’s achievements at Prestwick when he won The Open would come close if not beat Tigers Woods i.e. Ist Hole 578 yds (then Par 6) down in 3 using a Guttie and Hickory clubs. His round totalled 47, which in those days was 12 holes. The Prestwick Club will confirm that that score was never equalled or bettered on the old course.

As for me living in Never Neverland, I think that certainly applies to you. You have for some reason decided to make various comments about The Morris Family, yet you seem bereft of any historical information on them. If you need said information, just IM me and I will happily provide it for you.

Pat have you played golf outside your USA world, in other words have you been to Europe, Australia, Africa, Far East or GB&I. I wonder, as your comments at times seem rather insular. I have not had the pleasure of playing in the USA or Australia as yet.

Just in case you missed my connection to the history of our great game of golf, I quote a paragraph from my recent e-mail with Ran when I rejoined GCA.com this week:-

“Just to name drop but certainly for your information I have now fully traced my golfing heritage forward from Old Tom, Young Tom, James Hunter (my great grandfather married Old Tom’s daughter Elizabeth), through James, Charlie Hunter is also family, as is George and Jack Morris, plus the James Hunters and his brothers who developed golf in Mobile Georgia & Darien USA in the late1880’s – 1890’s.”

Yet for all the above I just submit on this site MY opinions, I do not use my connection for my own selfish ends. However, I do try to help others. Just recently I tried (but failed) to get a round of golf at Castle Stewart pre opening ceremony for a fellow countryman of yours. I have also been please where possible to arrange The Courtesy of the Course on nearly 100 courses for various individuals over the last year. Never Neverland indeed, Pat you need to open your eyes and take a real cold hard look at the world.

If I can help or assist with anything related to Golf, I will even try to arrange it for you, although as with all things no promises. Perhaps its time to move forward, it’s your call.

Melvyn   

   

Welcome back Melvyn!!! 

You are starting to sound like a "Superfan" of Old Tom....."Who would win in a fight...Old Tom Morris or God?? Trick question, Old Tom is God" and "Who would win, Old Tom or a Hurricane named Old Tom?"

Melvyn I have been to your "far away land" multiple times, and not once have I said anything remotely negative about Scotland or your beloved true game of golf, however I find your snobby dismissal of American golf boring.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Pat- Consider that perhaps all Professional golf uses a tournament ball, or even category 1 golfers (hcp 5 or less)...that might be 2% of all golfers.
Or, there are lots of courses where bigger hitters (and there are many now) hit well past the hazards that came into play 10 years ago. Now consider that it is expensive and sometimes imprasctical and sometimes aesctically unpleasing to move and replicate hazards 30 yards further on. Sometimes tees cant be extended, they may already be on the property boundary.
The course can be RESTORED to its INITIAL INTENT if the golfers use say a 80% or 90% ball. This could be for all competitions, a normal golfer going out for a few holes that is a short hitter can use his Titleist XP superplus zinger.
They make 90%/80% even back to 60% now, i dont think it would be a big deal.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat. C

Let’s get this settled once and for all

I am not against the way you play the game in North America, yes, I do not like carts, range finders and ways to make a great game easy, and for me that goes against the idea of playing golf in the first case.

IMHO if I had the power (which I do not), I would like to ban carts – unless for those who need them to play, I would also ban distance aids of all kinds. However, as I said I can’t.

As for real golf, Hell anyone sitting on a cart and not walking is NOT play real golf, anyone needing outside information to wonder which club to select or use is also NOT playing real golf  - on both accounts if you can’t see or understand that then You have the problem. However for all that, they are all legal and you can if you wish play with these toys.

Being snobby, well that is a first, perhaps you need to meet more members from our club scene before you call me snobby. In fact from what I have seen some of your own private clubs have even a bigger problem that we do. Well at least you can play at nearly all our courses.

Stop hiding behind your flag and just accept that some do not embrace ‘The lets make its easy attitude’. As I have said repeatedly, you can play the game the way you want as long as it is legal.

As for your comment ‘however I find your snobby dismissal of American golf boring’, well that’s your opinion. It may surprise you how many others on this site agree with me, but then that’s their opinion.

Golf is a Walking game, selecting clubs come from the golfer’s ability to observe the course and its surroundings including the weather conditions. Over here, the conditions can change quickly, so perhaps we may, just may be more aware of what is going on around us. Golf is a fun game, so I see no reason in riding or using distance aids, for me it take the fun out of the game. However, you do what you feel you must but stop trying to insult those who do not agree with you. 

My offer to assist (if I can) is still open

Melvyn 

PS  As for Old Tom - you are the one who keeps bring up his name. I don’t unless in context with design or a golf match. As for your little rant

You are starting to sound like a "Superfan" of Old Tom....."Who would win in a fight...Old Tom Morris or God?? Trick question, Old Tom is God" and "Who would win, Old Tom or a Hurricane named Old Tom?"   

I think it is in poor taste and actually shows how shallow you really are plus what you will do to try to win an argument that is not there.   As I said its your play - can we get back to GCA topics?

[Paul Jones]

I would leave the courses alone and let the pros shoot in the 60s every day.  Most people go to see birdies anyway and I think it would give everyone a better shot at winning.

[Chuck Brown]

I do hope that Steve Salmen will get back to all of us on my original, admittedly second-hand (with no 'second source'; I'll never make it as a reporter) story that in fact Muirfield is doing what my friend said at 9. 

I'm really curious about any statement made to the Hon. Co. that contradicts my report.  From what Tom Doak says, it sounds like indeed this is going on, and has been planned for some time...

[Niall C]

Your statement about getting check on landing begs the question, do today's balls spin more than the balatas of 2 decades past?  Personally, I don't think so.  However, today's balls have a phenomenal combination of distance and spin control.

Finally,  as a medium length driver of the ball, I can usually find a set of tees that takes "aerial bombardment" out of the game, as is my preference.  I will be playing a lot of rounds at Dornoch this summer.  At 6300 yds, it's lacking length but I'm still not hitting wedge into every green, far from it.

For what it's worth, I'd personally love to see the pros use a uniform, scaled back ball for the sake of records past.

Steve,

Good question about whether there is more spin on the ball compared to the old balata's of 20 years ago, my guess would be depends on who's playing the shot.

I remember when the Calloway Rule 35 Blue balls came in, still the only ball I could get real back spin with a 7 iron. However on the basis that I'm a pish player, I'm not really the one to judge. I suspect the top guys could get backspin with a rock.

My point about aerial bombardment was that in the days when the pros had to run the ball onto the green, positioning of the ball for the approach shot was vital as on the wrong approach line in a not very big slope could easily throw the shot 10 yards of line or more. With no need to run it on, is positioning that important ?

Maybe I'm kidding myself on about the way it used to be played but I don't think so.

Niall

[Chuck Brown]

I would leave the courses alone and let the pros shoot in the 60s every day.  Most people go to see birdies anyway and I think it would give everyone a better shot at winning.

Paul - then why have an Overall Distance Standard on balls at all?  Why not let the equipment manufacturers come up with anything that helps produce more birdies, spectacularly long drives, etc?  If people want to see birdies, wouldn't they be even happier seeing eagles?  Double Eagles?

People might pay a lot of money to see if Tiger Woods could hit the green with his drive on a Par 5.  Golf Channel might get some boffo ratings if a tour player could "break 50" for 18 holes...

Just asking.

[Steve Salmen]

Apparently there was a meeting of the HCEG in Edinburgh within the last few evenings.  Many things were discussed but it was a closed door affair and I don't really know any details.  My member friend seemed to think that #9 is going to remain a par 5 and did not believe any changes were going to be made to the wall.  I don't know what is ultimately going to happen with the hole but it seems like if it's going to remain a 5, then it has to go back or have a low stroke average.

[Steve Salmen]

Niall,

Here's where we may agree.  Old balls flew less far, therefore there was a higher premium on shot making.  Now there is a huge premium on wedge play, which is why players now carry 3, 4, or 5 wedges.  Someone earlier brought up that there is no more relationship between driving accuracy and money won, and I would argue that titanium and the Pro V1 are largely responsible for this.

[Mark Pearce]

As mentioned, I played there in March.  I was made aware of the proposed movement of the wall but I'm not certain now how that happened.  I suspect, but am not sure, that there was a notice of the proposed change on a notice board.  Perhaps that proposal has been voted against?  I'll see if any of the members I know can clear this up.

[Chuck Brown]

As mentioned, I played there in March.  I was made aware of the proposed movement of the wall but I'm not certain now how that happened.  I suspect, but am not sure, that there was a notice of the proposed change on a notice board.  Perhaps that proposal has been voted against?  I'll see if any of the members I know can clear this up.

Again, my source said he "witnessed" work on the wall "beginning," last weekend. 

Apparently, Tom Doak confirms that Muirfield dealt somehow for use of the land on the other side of the wall.  (Echoes of Augusta CC and the new Number 13 Championship tee on The National.)

And, the R&A seems to confirm that they want Muirfield #9 as a Par 5.

All's I know is what I read on my trusty internet.  Sounds to me like that wall is goin' down...  "Sacrilege" my E. Lothian friend called it.  (I had told him that one of my favorite holes in the world, for its gentle naturalness, is the little-discussed and oft-overlooked #6 at Muirfield, and so that wall (or its cousin) is quite dear to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Chuck:

Muirfield traded land with The Renaissance Club for protection, not to lengthen #9.  Our clients owned right up to the wall -- they could have torn out the trees and put up a grandstand to watch play on #8 green if they'd wanted to, but they were happy to make the trade and be good neighbors.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck:

Muirfield traded land with The Renaissance Club for protection, not to lengthen #9.  Our clients owned right up to the wall -- they could have torn out the trees and put up a grandstand to watch play on #8 green if they'd wanted to, but they were happy to make the trade and be good neighbors.

I'm picturing Wrigley Field...
But if not for extra teeing ground, couldn't the R&A have just as easily made their own requisite deal with The Renaissance Club, so that any grandstand there would be "with the expressed written consent" of the R&A (and Major League Baseball) for private use of the audience, without any re-broadcast or re-transmission...

[Tags:]

Tags: