[MikeJones]

Pat, I took up golf age 10 in the late 70's so I've seen a lot of new technology come our way and the various impacts it has had on the game. Even in this age of a ball that goes well and spins well, the vast majority of players still use solid low spin balls which haven't had a big impact on their distance capabilities or their control. The more forgiving oversized clubs have had a bigger impact for most players.
I think the elite players are the ones who have have benefited most from the ball advances.

TEPaul, I think it's great that people in positions of influence are championing the cause of 'rolling back' the ball. I do hope it happens, meanwhile I'll continue to struggle with and enjoy this great game and the some of the superb courses it spawned....... even if they do have new back tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wow, I'm impressed. Even the tour didn't play many 7,200 yard courses 15 years ago.  You must be a long bomber.  Or you get lots of practice hitting fairway woods?  Or your course generally plays downhill, hard and fast?  If the ball was dialled back, would you move up a tee?

Probably[/color]

"The BALL and the club, including the shaft "

"You keep forgetting about the BALL.
It's a good 3-4 club difference. "

No doubt graphite shafts make a difference in drivers.  But, has there been any quantum leaps in steel iron shafts?

I don't know about quantum leaps, but, there have been substantial improvements.[/color]

Are you suggesting that the ball alone is worth 3 or 4 clubs?

No, but, the ball and equipment is.[/color]

Are you suggesting that I would need a 3 iron for 150 yards rather than a 7 iron if ball technology hadn't saved me from my aging?  

On a wet day, possibly.
But, it's not just the ball, it's the ball and the equipment, especially the driver and fairway woods.[/color]

Have you got any circa 1966 Wilson Staff irons and balata balls I could test out that theory.  I'd hate to think that at 60 I have one foot in the golf graveyard - time for the senior tees.

Let me try to be kind.[size=8x]

Your golfing future is behind you.[/size]

I do have irons and woods circa 1966, but, I doubt I can find any golf balls circa 1966.

"Two golfers.
160 yards
One hits six irons with a routine swing
The other hits wedges with a routine swing.
I"ll bet on the wedge guy every day of the week."

So would I (if betting was legal in my jurisdiction ).  Forty years ago long hitters enjoyed an advantage over short hitters on second shots. Today they still do. One of my points was that, if, you could move tees back so that the LZ was in play relatively the same as 40 years ago, then the integrity of the course was closer to being preserved.  

There were then, and are now, people who flogged the ball, who could get past the LZ and enjoyed shorter shots to the green.

That's not true.

Equipment alone has allowed golfers to swing harder and has made the ball fly straigher.

If you can swing as hard as you want, with little fear of consequence, because good and bad hits are going to go straight, then who wouldn't flog away.

But, let me give you one of my shallow faced Power-Bilt drivers and an old ball and you wouldn't dare swing hard because the consequence of a mishit was far, far, far greater.
[/color]

For my example, Scarboro, it is not possible to move the tees back - there is no room, so it is obsolete and the design integrity is compromised from a PGA Tour point of view.

As a small anecdote, one of the best am players of 40 years ago (he won two US Ams) was able to drive the green on the 17th at Scarboro.  It a slight dogleg of 379 yards now, but might have been 30 yards shorter then, a 30 foot drop from the tee, but the green is fronted by a 50 foot wide river.  I couldn't drive it then, and I can't do it now.  Could the young bombers hit it with 3 wood now?  Probably.  But the risk created by the design would probably keep most from trying.


The problem is, you provide one extreme example and attempt to globalize it, with dire consequences for a missed shot.

Does every hole have a 50 foot wide river fronting a green ?

NO, hence, there's no reason not to bomb away.

The ball goes farther, the ball goes straighter and L-Wedges make up for almost any off-line shots.

In the meantime, all of those great architectural features, the ones the architect intended you to interface with, are meaningless.[/color]

Mike Jones,

When I see amateurs, in their 50's, who are 7 handicaps, hitting the ball farther than the pros in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it tells me something.

Perhaps you and others haven't gotten the message yet.

And, I have some news for you and all of the others who want to hang on to your distance.

The game is fun whether you hit your driver 180 or 200.

[MikeJones]

Pat, I'm not pro distance at all especially at the top level and if you'd read the entirity of my posts rather than just cherry picking the bit's you dont agree with, you'd know that.

Distance in golf is only one factor. If you think the game is any less great for the majority of players than in the past that's your opinion, but one I don't share.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat,

There you go again with that statement

"When I see amateurs, in their 50's, who are 7 handicaps, hitting the ball farther than the pros in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it tells me something."


How many amateurs in their 50's (7 handicappers to be specific) do you see hitting it 300 yards? (That was the number you posted in a previous thread)

Do you see one or two? A dozen?  One hundred? How many?

I'm curious, because I'm a 10 handicapper in my 50's and I play with some very good golfers in their 50's (last years state senior am champ for one) and I do not see ANY hitting it 300 yards. Even in the rarified air of western Montana.

[Bryan Izatt]

"The BALL and the club, including the shaft "

"You keep forgetting about the BALL.
It's a good 3-4 club difference. "

No doubt graphite shafts make a difference in drivers.  But, has there been any quantum leaps in steel iron shafts?

I don't know about quantum leaps, but, there have been substantial improvements.[/color]

What are those substantial improvements?  I must have missed them

Are you suggesting that the ball alone is worth 3 or 4 clubs?

No, but, the ball and equipment is.[/color]

Are you suggesting that I would need a 3 iron for 150 yards rather than a 7 iron if ball technology hadn't saved me from my aging?  

On a wet day, possibly.
But, it's not just the ball, it's the ball and the equipment, especially the driver and fairway woods.[/color]

I'll concede that the combination has that effect with the driver.  Much less so with the irons.

Have you got any circa 1966 Wilson Staff irons and balata balls I could test out that theory.  I'd hate to think that at 60 I have one foot in the golf graveyard - time for the senior tees.

Let me try to be kind.[size=8x]

Your golfing future is behind you.[/size][/b]

Sad, but true, from an ability to compete against all ages.  But, you don't need to shout it to this world quite as loudly as you have.  Happily, I expect, hope, to play this great game until I die




There were then, and are now, people who flogged the ball, who could get past the LZ and enjoyed shorter shots to the green.

That's not true.

How so?  Was Nicklaus not the longest of his day?  Did he not have shorter second shots than almost any other player in his prime?  Did he not blow it over, past the LZ for the average touring pro?

Equipment alone has allowed golfers to swing harder and has made the ball fly straigher.

If you can swing as hard as you want, with little fear of consequence, because good and bad hits are going to go straight, then who wouldn't flog away.

No doubt the ball generally goes straighter than it used to. but it's a gross generalization to say all shots go straight when flogging.  That's not my experience when I flog the ball.  Is that why Tiger's only hitting 25% of the fairways with the new SQ?  Or Ernie hits it in the desert in Dubai?  Why is there little fear of the consequences - if the design of the course penalizes shots hit off-line (water hazards,OB, jungle) then there is fear, because even the best hit it off line sometimes - equipment notwithstanding

But, let me give you one of my shallow faced Power-Bilt drivers and an old ball and you wouldn't dare swing hard because the consequence of a mishit was far, far, far greater.
[/color]

I played persimmon and laminate drivers for 25 years.  I know how they play.  It's a gross exaggeration to say they were far, far, far worse on mishits.  Somewhat worse for sure.

The ball goes farther, the ball goes straighter and L-Wedges make up for almost any off-line shots.

In the meantime, all of those great architectural features, the ones the architect intended you to interface with, are meaningless.

Yes, yes, and no, at least not for me.

I still interface with the architectural features (more often than I would like), even on 90 year old classic 6500 yard courses.  The PGA tour doesn't, but why should I care?  If they put in new, way back tees on TOC for the Open, why does that impact me.  If greens committees at private (that I will never play) classic courses in the US choose to foolishly renovate their courses to challenge the Tour once every ten years, why should that matter to me?  

The world evolves, even classic courses have evolved, and will continue to evolve.  If the distances that the elite players hit the ball is a concern, then regulate the ball for them.  Or regulate it for all if you want.  The sad reality is that it's going to be way harder to regulate ball distance fairly and effectively than most here seem to understand.  Club/ball collisions and ball flight dynamics is complex physics.  Were it as simple as a dial that could be turned back.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know about quantum leaps, but, there have been substantial improvements.[/b][/color]

What are those substantial improvements?  I must have missed them

Perhaps you did.

Steel shafts now weigh under 100 grams, aren't stepped, and can produce either high or low ball flight.

When the weight of steel shafts was reduced by 20 % that equates to improved performance.

Remember too, that many feel that steel produces more consistent results.  I've always thought that Greg Norman's errant 8-iron that resulted in a lost ball on # 12 at ANGC was the product of the inconsistency of graphite shafts.

Frequency matching was unheard of 30 years ago, but employed today, as is centering.

Was Nicklaus not the longest of his day?  Did he not have shorter second shots than almost any other player in his prime?

Nicklaus was selectively long.
He was great at course management, one of the first to throttle down, especially with irons off the tee, rather than challenge features or hazards which could take their toll.  


Did he not blow it over, past the LZ for the average touring pro?

Only when he felt confident that he could carry the features and the reward for doing so was significant, and the penalty for failure wasn't dire.

Bunkers were repositioned to counter Nicklaus's length.

But, Nicklaus wasn't exactly playing with great equipment.
Do you remember the MacGregor ball ?

Did you know that Toney Penna was the chief club designer for MacGregor until Nicklaus basically replaced him ?

So, Nicklaus's distance wasn't techno driven.

Nicklaus was probably one of the father's of the modern day swing.  Most golfers kept their right elbow into their body, Nicklaus's elbow was categorized as "flying", yet this detachment, seen in almost every modern swing, produces greater arc, ergo greater distance.

No doubt the ball generally goes straighter than it used to. but it's a gross generalization to say all shots go straight when flogging.  

I never said that ALL shots go straight, but, they do go straighter then they used to, and that's a byproduct of high tech equipment, not skill.

That's not my experience when I flog the ball.  

That's because you've been spending too much time flogging yourself.   You have to learn how to get more of your LEFT hand into the shot.

Is that why Tiger's only hitting 25% of the fairways with the new SQ?

That's the purpose of flogging, hitting it in the rough doesn't produce negative results.

You'll notice that Tiger's winning tournaments, so it must be working.

Fairways are much narrower today.
And, at 340 yards off the tee I think the benefits are obvious if the object is to score lower than your fellow competitors.

Why is there little fear of the consequences - if the design of the course penalizes shots hit off-line (water hazards,OB, jungle) then there is fear, because even the best hit it off line sometimes - equipment notwithstanding

Because, not every hole is lined with water and out-of-bounds as you would have us believe.
Most holes don't offer overly penal consequences for balls hit off line, hence it pays to grip it and rip it.

I played persimmon and laminate drivers for 25 years.  I know how they play.  It's a gross exaggeration to say they were far, far, far worse on mishits.  Somewhat worse for sure.

Nonsense.

The golf world was and continues to hit their mishits farther and straighter than they did with their woods, that's why there are NO woods today.

I still interface with the architectural features (more often than I would like), even on 90 year old classic 6500 yard courses.  

The PGA tour doesn't, but why should I care?  If they put in new, way back tees on TOC for the Open, why does that impact me.  If greens committees at private (that I will never play) classic courses in the US choose to foolishly renovate their courses to challenge the Tour once every ten years, why should that matter to me?

Because all other courses tend to emulate them.

The world evolves, even classic courses have evolved, and will continue to evolve.  If the distances that the elite players hit the ball is a concern, then regulate the ball for them.  Or regulate it for all if you want.  The sad reality is that it's going to be way harder to regulate ball distance fairly and effectively than most here seem to understand.  Club/ball collisions and ball flight dynamics is complex physics.  Were it as simple as a dial that could be turned back.[/b]

It is as simple as that, and physics has nothing to do with it.

Politics and Money are the cuplrits, not the physical sciences.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

There you go again with that statement

"When I see amateurs, in their 50's, who are 7 handicaps, hitting the ball farther than the pros in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it tells me something."

How many amateurs in their 50's (7 handicappers to be specific) do you see hitting it 300 yards? (That was the number you posted in a previous thread)

Do you see one or two? A dozen?  One hundred? How many?


If you see only one, it's excessive.

I've played very little golf in the last three years, but, when I play with three different fellows, in their 50's and 60's and they bomb the ball, straight, and over 300 yards, something is wrong in Denmark.

These amateurs hit it where Nicklaus, the longest of his time, couldn't come close to hitting it.  And, they don't possess Nicklaus's talent.  In fact, Nicklaus in his prime was probably a
+ 7 Handicap and one of these fellows is a 7 handicap, that's 14 shots worse then Nicklaus, yet he hits it farther.  And, you don't see or won't accept the problem.

And, didn't Nicklaus himself mention something about being longer in his 50's then he was in his 20's, 30's and 40's ?

Didn't he also mention something about NEVER being able to get home in two on # 18 at Pebble until he was older with the aid of hi-tech equipment ?

And you want to sit there with your head in the snow (I assume there's snow, not sand, in Montana, and deny the quantum leap in distance over the last 40 years.[/color]

I'm curious, because I'm a 10 handicapper in my 50's and I play with some very good golfers in their 50's (last years state senior am champ for one) and I do not see ANY hitting it 300 yards. Even in the rarified air of western Montana.


No offense, but, I don't consider Montana to be the hotbed or spawning ground for great golfing talent in America.
I think the southern climates seem to have a lock on that.
[/color]

[David Kelly]

By the way, did anyone else think this was about Epiphany Jones? She is the New York high schooler that scored 113 points in a game a week or two back. Jordan is quoted as saying she is going to change the women's game.

Jordan also took Kwame Brown with the #1 pick in the NBA draft so he's not the most astute evaluator of high school talent.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat,

I need to be smoking what you're smoking.

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

You are right on that it is the equipment that is creating such change for all of us. I think to say that is the only factor when it comes to the tour players would be incorrect. There is a significant difference in lifestyle on the tour today than there was in the sixties. One indicator alone would be to look at how many greats smoke today vs. yesterday.

My point is that I don't care how far a pro can hit as long as the course is long enough and challenging enough. If he is hitting a wedge from 160 then force his approach to be from 220.

When I go out to play I am always going to look for a tee set that is around 6700 yards no matter where I play. so it just doesn't matter to me anymore.

The distance game is only out of control if you try to keep it within the constraints of the old courses we love to play.

Think of it this way, if the PGA had to keep building and maintaining ultra-long courses to host the tour effectively it could bring a little sanity back into the financial side of the game. you would have fewer venues with a more stable rotation. possibly a more rational schedule for players as well. In the end, who cares if we play on those courses or not? Would it keep you from getting out to play every week?

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Payne,

I too enjoy a variety of classic courses that provide an interesting test from around 6,700.

The problem occurs when the tees can't be moved back, and consequently the features that you and I might enjoy interfacting with are altered or moved such that they interface with the longer golfer.

Sometimes, this brings these features into contact with the weakest golfers, golfers with whom the architect never intended to be confronted by hazards or features that are beyond their ability to cope with.

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig Sweet,

I'm not sure how to tell you this, and I'm not sure how you should take it, but you look pretty damn hot!  

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

On that point I agree. If the alterations are being made down the fairway (ie bunkering etc) to protect against the longer player, and thereby take away the strategic effect for the rest of us, that is a SHAME.

At that point it is time for the PGA to find a new course. In fact I am probably more inclined to tell the pros to go play somewhere else anyway (even though I love to watch them). Anyone who has been or knows members at a course which hosts tour events knows the endless construction and re-tooling they have to put up with on a daily basis sometimes for years.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Payne,

It's not the PGA Tour you have to be afraid of, it's green committees run amuck.

Several courses I'm familiar with are under assault to make them more difficult.

They're nice, member friendly golf courses that provide more than sufficient challenge to their memberships.    
During a recent qualifier at one of their club championships, noone broke 76 and 82 played off for the last spot.

Yet, there's a perception on the part of some to toughen up the golf course and add length to the golf course, and where length can't be added, to alter features.

FOR WHOM ?

For some phantom golfer who may never play the golf course.

Everyone thinks that they have to beef up their golf course.
It's like an unwritten competition.

Now, I agree, some holes on some courses can benefit from employing elasticity through their tees, but, there seems to be a pervasive feeling that courses must be toughened up.

Time after time I hear golfers and committee members say that the golf course has to have the fairways narrowed and the height of the rough increased.

WHY ?

Because, every weekend they watch TV and LISTEN to the announcers and conclude that their course must be converted to a "championship" golf course.

Some members delight in making their course hard.

Others want to make it selectively harder, to benefit their games and harm others, in order to give them the edge.

The concept of widening fairways and returning them to their original widths borders on heresy at most green committee meetings.

[MikeJones]

I find it amazing that these committees are given such freedom to alter the courses as they see fit. Is there no accountability to the membership? I think if you asked most of the members if they wanted their course' toughening up' they wouldn't be in favour of it.

Does the problem then lie with the way these courses are run, the media, or the equipment? I feel my epiphany may have been a bit naive in that the assumption was that all that would be changed on most courses would be the adding of some extra back tees. If they start to alter the basic course charactersistics based on the inflated distance and accuracy of the tour pros, it surely is folly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Jones,

I can't speak for all clubs, but generally an idea gains traction and takes on a life of its own.  It's usually discussed and championed at the committee level.

Sometimes the green committee has the authority to make the changes without further approval.  Other times Board and/or membership approval is required.

If Board approval is necessary, the concept is elevated to the Board for approval.   However, before it goes to the board, some lobbying goes on to insure it will be approved or meet with little in the way of resistance.

If it's approved at the Board, depending upon its cost and/or the by-laws, it can be implemented.
If membership approval is required, a similar process takes place, lobbying occurs to try to assure that passage is a certainty.  

Presentations are made and the concept is promoted to the membership.

In many cases, that dastardly third party influence is brought into the fray and used to promote the cause.

Now, that's the general outline on how it can occur.
Many clubs have different procedures, but, in general, the membership doesn't have the keen interest, backround or knowledge to question or oppose a well prepared presentation.   In addition, if the green committee and board have done their homework, they'll know the outcome before the vote is taken.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()