[Mike_Young]

The NCAA has changed the bats this year....  http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=6533.0;wap2   the Easton composite bat of the last few years has increased distance by almost 10%.  Many teams that were Nike teams had to use the Nike bat and knew they were at a disadvantage.....it was a 40 ft difference on a fly ball to centerfield....
it was also a safety factor for the pitcher and infielders.....the ball was so much faster off the bat

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
Actually I did and I stand by it.  Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it is wrong.

I just quickly scanned that article Mike posted and it seems baseball was falling into the same trap (hot bats means more sales/everybody wants to hit the ball farther,...).  Fortunately the safety issue might nix it.  In golf's case it should be the added cost to the game that nixed it.

Apparently you don't think the cost of golf is out of control and evidently you also don't think the equipment has had anything to do with it.  I feel otherwise.
Mark

[Michael Huber]

Tom,
There are always pros and cons and the same goes for the contributions of the USGA.  They have done a tremendous amount of good, however, where they have failed miserably is with the equipment and that has been hashed out here and everywhere else for years! 

I'm looking forward to watching the Phillies tonight and thank goodness baseball has not fallen into that same cost death spiral.  Baseball is a sport where it would be sooooo easy to introduce balls and bats that required all kinds of changes to the game.  In particular, the playing fields and stadiums (much like those in golf) would have to be dramatically expanded (500 - 600 foot fences).  Just think what it would do to the cost of the game. 

Pete Dye said it best when asked at one of his course openings why he keeps making his courses longer and longer.  His response was simple.  He said, "I have to because the USGA has the brainpower of a weed when it comes to reining in equipment."

You know Pete, ask him what he thinks and he'll give you an ear full.
Mark

Mark,

There are constantly sublte changes being made to baseball that have had changes to baseball.  Barry Bonds was one of the first guys to use a maple bat and now they are extremely commonplace.  Baseballs in colorado are stored in humidors, and as a result fewer home runs are being hit in the thin air.  Every few decades the MLB tinkers with the mound, making it higher or lower.  Even the NCAA has tinkered with bat length and weight ratios within the past decade. 

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Good points but what I am trying to say (maybe you are as well) is that with all these subtle changes that you talked about, baseball hasn't had to dramatically alter their playing fields to accomodate the new equipment technology like golf has.  The end result for golf being an explosion in the cost of game.
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

Golf hasn't "had to" alter its playing fields.  Mostly clubs have done it because of peer pressure and fear of falling behind somehow, and because of seeing the bad example that the USGA and R & A have been setting at championships.

We consult at several clubs that are pretty much the same length today as they were in 1925, and they are still just as relevant for 95% of the membership.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Why aren't you building 6000 yard golf courses on 125 acres?  The first time I played "nine holes" that was close to 4000 yards long (3975 yards I believe) was on one of your designs.  Why so long?

I don't argue with you about many older courses "as is" being relevant for 95% of the membership.  The problem is that trying to satisfy the other 5% costs "everyone" A LOT of money to do so. 

Maybe you don't get this request, but demands for new back tees are always part of every master plan that I am asked to do.  The reality is that less than 5% of the membership will ever use them (if we do consent to put them in) but 100% of the membership pays for them along with all the added up keep, etc. 

You know very well that CHCC wanted 8000+ yards if they could get it and it took four years plus all your help to convince them why that would not be a good idea. 
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
No one is being "dishonest".  If you don't like my baseball analogy, no problem.  Just tell us where you stand regarding equipment and if you feel or don't feel that the cost of golf is out of control so none of us (including me) have to speculate. 

Just to be clear, my positon is that the cost of golf "is out of control" and that includes courses and the amount of real estate required these days to build them (or expand them).
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

If Mike Young's premise is correct, the price of golf was out of control the minute it hit the shores of the USA, since it was never capable of making money!

It does seem to be accelerating, with material prices and gotta haves expanding, even in the worst recession most of us have known.  I know at Firekeeper I felt the pressure to NOT build the cousre as long as some would have wanted, just in the name of keeping the number of sprinklers down, cart path down, etc.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
We need more of that but will it happen and what role will the USGA play?  Generally most don't do something about a problem until they admit that they have a problem.  
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why am I reminded of the movie Airplane when the pilot spills on himself and admits "I have a drinking problem" (he can't hit his mouth with the beverage.....)

I still fee the problem is to ignore (on most courses) the needs of the 3% of players who like to play long courses.  Build a network of LPC (Long Player Courses) and let the rest be built at no more than 6900 yards, which is plenty for most of us.

[Mike_Young]

If Mike Young's premise is correct, the price of golf was out of control the minute it hit the shores of the USA, since it was never capable of making money!

It does seem to be accelerating, with material prices and gotta haves expanding, even in the worst recession most of us have known.  I know at Firekeeper I felt the pressure to NOT build the cousre as long as some would have wanted, just in the name of keeping the number of sprinklers down, cart path down, etc.

Jeff,
I don't know if it was out of control the minute it hit the shores......
But I do think the golf business is out of control......I don't know if it is the chicken or the egg but the golf business gives us the ablitiy for shorter grass, better, more expensive mowers, better irrigation, better rootzones, and on and on.....and the golf business gave us the ability to put golf where it never had been before....
Sort of like if we put an outdoor hockey rink down here in Athens.....it would cost much more to have that rink than in the northern states....

[archie_struthers]

 


Forty years from now....ninety something....probably a little tough to get too crazy  ....ok take out al the front tees , that ought to do it !  wITH GREEN SPEEDS AT 14 or 15 on the stimp it's going to be quite a test ...ok put the front tees back in !

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kellly,

Who is stigmatizing long hitters?  I don't blame them for anything.  Chicks dig the long ball.

If the economics of golf are suffering, and cuts have to be made at SOME courses, isn't it reasonable to take a look at the areas that are least utilized to make the cuts?  While back tees aren't the first thing to cut out of a budget, they certainly are used by about 3% of golfers - less if more than 7400 yards - and they just seem like a logical cut to me.

It seems to me that only 3-6% of courses need back tee length well over 7000 yards, and that most courses are just fine where they are.  Just as we have enough "tournament courses" I think we have enough courses designed around long hitters.  As I said here not too long ago, while the trend is to put LZ areas at 300 yards, not even all Tour Pros hit it that far.  Even the ones who do, only hit it that far when they are "on'.  I think keeping the back tee LZ around 285 is about right.

I do believe that courses with multiple tees built over the last 20 years at 70000-6800-6400-6000-5500 are both too short (for long hitters) and too long (for the more modest hitter)  I think its time for some careful readustment of course length to accomodate an aging golf population, but on a specific basis)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()