[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

"I dont have a clue where to put a fairway bunker anymore.
I hate the fact that we have to build courses longer everyday just to keep pace with equipment. I'm tired of fighting it"

And some people think there is not a problem..Hmmmmm

Golf World  Jan 28

[Brent Hutto]

One might suggest that an architect's strategy of attempting to put a fairway bunker right where a certain class of player's drive will land is a fool's errand in any era. I don't know much about golf-course architecture but surely there's an alternate school of thought that puts fairway bunkers at various angles and distances on different holes, no?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am just amazed that on a golf architecture web site, this has not attracted more attention.
I agree with you Brent, and I really thought this quote would be well and truly ripped apart by the powers on this site.

[THuckaby2]

Michael:

It may not have attacted much attention yet because:

a) there aren't that many people on the board right now; and

b) no offense, but it's old news.  Morrish's comment has been posted and discussed several times before.

Don't feel bad, there's damn near NOTHING that hasn't been discussed already here.

 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Thanks for the heads up Huck, I was begining to think I had switched sites to some right wing religious group.

I had not seen the quote before and just assumed that it was recent being as it was in Golf WOrld..silly me..assuming anything in the golf magazines is original.

One other comment that caught my attention, was Tiger saying his shot into 18 at Torrey Pines was not offline..just miss hit..interesting theory considering the clubhead aws coming from his behind.....but what do I know.

[Brent Hutto]

Thanks for the heads up Huck, I was begining to think I had switched sites to some right wing religious group.

What, did I miss something? I thought that's why we were here.

Now you're trying to tell me this site is supposed to be for a right-wing bunch of athiests? I do soooo miss the point sometimes.

[Brent Hutto]

One other comment that caught my attention, was Tiger saying his shot into 18 at Torrey Pines was not offline..just miss hit..interesting theory considering the clubhead aws coming from his behind.....but what do I know.

Well, nobody pulls amazing shots out of his ass like Tiger. Maybe this was supposed to be one of those.

OK, that's my quota for weak attempts at sarcastic humor for the week

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Brent
Sometimes I really do wonder why we are here.....but the good far outweighs the bad..and the trivial is sometimes so much fun!!

[PThomas]

didn't Morrish quit the business recently?!!??

[Sean_A]

Michael

I am not saying length is not a problem.  I merely ask for a reasoned argument with validity, ie proof.  So far as I can tell, only opinion and theory have been presented.

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Van Egmond]

Morrish recently said he was retiring.. that quote was mentioned in the same article as one of the reason.

[ian]

The quote is stripped out from an interview that explains his concerns well.

Jay designed using a lot of carry bunkers and carry angles.He perfered to bunker interiors rather than the outside of doglegs. Each time he sets a distance for a carry bunker to create a testing risk and reward scenario; technology allows players to blow it over the bunker two years later, removing the strategy of the hole. He was tired of the chase to keep up with technology. For architects it's bloody frustrating.

[Alfie]

"I am not saying length is not a problem.  I merely ask for a reasoned argument with validity, ie proof.  So far as I can tell, only opinion and theory have been presented."

Ciao

Sean
......

Sean,

Proof might be difficult, but I'll offer some reasoned argument.

When people regarded as having a considerable knowledge / experience base in regard to all things golf, are "continually" and "increasingly" speaking out publicly against the technological advances (aka ; the problem ?) - then surely they can't all be wrong, can they ?
Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Charles, Nick Price, Faldo, Els, Hootie Johnson, Sandy Tatum, Tom Watson, Woosnam, Hannigan, Huggan, Shackelford, Morrish, Cupp, Thomas, Steel, ................................etc ! Even some industry people and the TV company's are showing concerns !
Pretty good company for any golfer to be mixing with.
Add to that, the many on here whom I would reckon they should know something of what they talk about, who definitely "recognise" that there is a problem in golf contrary to the R & A line, that there is NOT ?

Shinnecock - Muirfield and Carnoustie raised some eyebrows of late, and if that wasn't directly related to tech advances, then I must be a left wing athiest ? (True)
2005 will, no doubt, throw up a few more negatives ?
 
It could also be argued that the game is becoming more dangerous - for player, spectator or passer by ? Then you have slow play & greater expense.

What I would ask of ANYONE is ; show me the evidence whereby the tech advances are ; making the game better all round ; more fun to play ; more relaxing ; more interesting ; creating greater participation levels ?

Golfers of ALL levels have to recognise and agree that there actually is a problem. If that happens, generally, then you have a concensus of opinion which would suggest change / action to TRY and remedy matters. All I ask, is that SOMETHING is done before the proof you desire turns the game upside down.

I advocate the "rollback" which would please the ruling bodies but not the industry. The competition ball is seen as a solution by the industry but opposed by the ruling bodies. Stalemate ! And so it will go on and golfers from all airts are going to suffer. Especially the left wing athiests of Bonnie Scotland ! But that's mere conjecture and not proof.

Finally, where is the "pro" techno lobby in golf who seek infinite distance, excluding the industry and Joe Crap golfer ?

However, I'll be rash and predict that something WILL be done this year.

Alfie.

[TEPaul]

Obviously this distance problem is a reality at the level of the young strong and top flight player. It doesn't seem like increased distance is going to be reigned in any time soon by the regulatory bodies, despite the pleading of many people, including golf architects.

Something has to give here some day. In the future architects should probably start designing or even redesigning holes that require;

1. Really long players to produce some real accuracy with their length.
2. Just start to force the driver out of their hands through architecture.

It just doesn't look like we can have everything forever the way distance is going!

What's worse---to continue to stretch golf courses (even old ones) in total length or to start adding danger in the LZs of some of these very long players on both old and new courses?

[Alfie]

In every sport there is a definite point beyond which man can only proceed at the peril of destroying his pastime altogether. He starts out to contest against an unknown quantity, and nature sets the task. For this he must have instruments which, skillfully used, create a fair contest. It is quite possible for him to devise, or use, instruments which would overwhelm nature – he can take a salmon rod to catch a minnow – but the all-absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest.

MAX BEHR
..........................

pinched from Geoff Shack's site tonight. Appropriately timed, I thought. Eternal wisdom, or what ?
I wonder if he had a Scottish granny so that we can claim a part of him.

Alfie

[Yancey_Beamer]

As the classic architects placed fairway bunkers at random distances to challenge all classes of players they would not face the problem of one distance for fairway bunkers.

[Sean_A]

Alfie

You have a good point in that extra distance doesn't neccassirly bring extra enjoyment to the game, for some anyway.  I think most people enjoy hitting the ball farther, if people are honest with themselves.  If not, why do they spend millions on the equipment even when they have no hope of being a decent player?  Additionally, burdon of proof (or at least changing popular opinion) rests with the person who wants to change the rules, not vice versa.  

New technology slowing the game down may be valid concern as well.  I suspect you are right, but I have yet to see proof supporting this theory.  

As for the list of advocates of rolling back technology.  The current players' opinions seem valid for pros.  However, I don't really care how far pros hit the ball.  It isn't my worry, just as it isn't my worry about hockey stick specifications.  It is how they make their living.  If they want to get together and make PGA rules for equipment, fair enough.  Maybe this it what it will take.  Different rules for different distinctions of players.

It would be great to see the USGA and R&A make some headway into the problem.  Unfortunately these may be organizations which have been compromised by manufacturing companies.  The USGA can't control a basic distinction between amateur and pro.  How are they going to resolve the length issue?  However, if the USGA gets the balls to do something, I will follow their rules.  It doesn't matter to me either way.  I play for enjoyment.  No equipment changes will alter that.

It seems to me that if we want to attack the problem of distance and accuracy, it would be easier to:

Limit the number of clubs to 7 or 8.

Reduce the loft range of clubs.  Make a range from between 15 and 52 degrees or whatever.  

Fiddling about using techno babble is not going to solve the problem.  Remember, manufacturers invented this language and they stand to lose much more than the USGA.  Asking companies to stop being competitive in research and development is a long,  hard fight that I don't think is winnable.  

Ciao

Sean

[Alfie]

Sean,

Highly interesting comments and I would reckon most of your points are just the way the vast majority of golfers assess the present situation. So I'll try to undermine these popular opinions with a few "let's change" opinions.

Firstly, I support the argument for change by restoring many of golf's value's and architecture via a rollback on the ball ONLY ! I would also go for your thoughts on restricting the number of clubs etc, but that really would create absolute havoc with the manufacturing industry (IMO) and almost certainly with the golfers themselves !
The rollback is the most feasible and practical solution to the distance problem, but probably the hardest to win over Joe Public because of the mentality factor. People just can't (won't) accept that it's conceivable to go a little back in time.

Most people learn - what they are taught ! Golfers have been learning for decades that equipment gives instant success, and they continue to believe it, at serious costs ? Sadly, people can be easy succours, and ANY manufacturing industry knows that full well ! For the good of golf / the good of the consumer / or for the good of what ?

you say ; "I will follow their rules.  It doesn't matter to me either way." and that's exactly what I've been saying for years when scaremongers try to destroy any hopes for change. Golfers will accept rule changes, especially if those changes are fully explained to the average golfer and why it just isn't going to affect them all that much.

The pro's and our best amateur's it WILL affect, because they have the game that will show the rest of us just how the game really should be played. And almost every single one of them will be happy to play a rolled back ball (especially at The Masters !) Give me a ping pong ball and I'll play if they want to invite me ?
Although I don't idolise any Pro - I do repect the important part they play in the whole structure of the game.

For all the wrong reasons, everybody wants to protect the ball (it's continued development) and that's mainly down to feeding those misguided ego's with calculating skill and deception. Hell, I'd have been playing tour golf if all the promises had worked for me - and you !

You and I will probably never know what's really going on in the murky side of golf politics. So we just have to guess. Tom Paul has stated several times about the situation where the Augusta Comp Ball was quashed - somehow ? Maybe the truth will out - some day ?

The rollback is more than winnable, there just has to be a will to see it happen ! The Comp Ball would be a great compromise and TEST for the good of golf - but who is really concerned about that ?

Alfie.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()