[Doug Ralston]

A lot of discussion recently, because of new rules about club design permissable on the PGA, has centered around how to keep golf courses 'viable' with the persistant advance of technology into equipment. I wonder if this isn't misplaced concern?

It seems that only two options will serve, in the long run:

1. A 'special' set of standardized clubs for the Professional tours.

2. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now, #1 would certainly be feasible. All the PGA etc would have to do is agree on standards for the clubs/balls etc, find a company will to make those 'special' clubs [they ALL would, gladly, I assure you], then tell all the other makers to 'go take a hike [and THEY all would, I assure you]. This would insure fair play, equal competition, and smaller prizes [obviously]. But still, it WOULD make certain each competitor has equal play. If THAT is you goal, go for it!

And #2 is going to certainly make many courses eventually become mega-birdiefests! The tech shows absolutely no indication [beyond wishful thinking of a few GCAs] that it will stop getting better.

But for all that, I cannot see the problem for #2! Why does it matter if the winners average 65 and the losers 66 rather than the winners averaging 69 and the losers 70? Isn't that REALLY still about who plays better in whatever site? And as amatuers, you can still agree with your friendly competitor to your heart's content about how to handicap for tech differences of if you want to play identical clubs etc.

As for the courses, they may give up some records, but Pro or AM, it is still players on the same course.

What problem? I ask it in earnest.

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

I don't give a darn [self edited] about the winning score.

But, I think it takes much more golfing ability to hit a good 3-iron approach shot than a wedge.  And in the modern game there is nothing but wedge approach shots.  That's the problem.

An 8500 yard course would be one way to solve that, but there aren't very many of those, and they aren't very popular.  Changing the equipment would be another approach.

[Jud_T]

How about a course with no par 5's.  only risk/reward short 3's and 4's and very long 3's and 4's? Par 66 (par 70-72 for the rest of us..). Then they might actually get around in under 5 hours and have to pull something longer than an 8-iron....

[PCCraig]

I would say that the majority of GCA's should stop designing courses with the scratch and better golfer as the primary focus.

Leave the tournament courses to the folks that turn out the TPC junk quarterly.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I think the problem is with the Client Demands more than the GCA's....

[Mike Wagner]

Doug,

I don't understand the standardized club thing.....same lies/loft/length?  Or just material?  

[Sean Eidson]

I like playing the same clubs the pros do.

I like playing the same course the pros do.

I don't care that they're better at the game than I am and therefore are able to steer clear of the trouble more effectively.  

When TW won the first time at Augusta with 8 iron approaches to par 5's, I think he was taking advantage of the natural ability to hit it further than anyone else and putt better than anyone else.  He earned those abilities fair and square.

Roger Federer is way better at tennis than I am.  Would we have him play on a narrower court with a higher net?  With a heavier ball? With a wooden racquet?

Why must we compare this era to past era's in golf, vis.a.vis relative score?  It's a different game now than it was back then, but the best in the world are still incredible and they have to beat each other.  I like knowing that lighting can strike and I can hit shots once in a while that are better than theirs. It's what makes golf such a fascinating spectator sport for me.  We're playing the same game.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

It's boring to watch a putting contest every week on TV and it's no fun to be hitting rescue clubs or fairway woods into every hole for the rest of us....not to mention the additional expense of buying and maintaining all that extra real estate...

[Mike Wagner]

Just as a side note:

Did anyone watch Torrey Pines?  It was a brute at 7400 or so.  Location and conditions are a huge factor....sea level and soggy make 7600 play like 8500.

[Sean Eidson]

I can see that POV, but how is this different from Basketball?  Is it not fun to see Lebron dunk over Kobe?  Despite the fact that you can't dunk.  Should we make the basket 12 feet high so they have to shoot layups like the rest of us?

What sport has different rules and equipment for the highest levels (pro) that are designed to make the game harder?  That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if there are any.

You could argue that golf already does this as much or more than others by providing a shorter version of the course for the average player.

If 2009 represented the peak of the bomb&gouge era, then I'm okay with how that turned out.  Lots of exciting golf to watch, plenty of different winners and guys like Tim Clark found their way into the mix often enough without winning any long drive contests.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

That’s a fair comment to make but who is going to pay for the newer longer courses every few years, who is going to supply the extra land for the older course to compete?  Are you willing to put your hand deeper and deeper in your pocket each year because you believe its all about the past. It’s about stability, consistency of trying not to keep racking up high debts for the sake of a few people who believe that perhaps they should be subsidised by the vast majority.

Tell me where do we stop 10,000 yards 11, 000 yards, when will it become impossible to play a round in a day or be able to afford the Green Fees. Common sense needs to enter this debate sooner or later. Or do you advocate we keep making better clubs and keep building longer courses to accommodate this inability to resolve a problem that may bankrupt the whole game.

Melvyn

[PCCraig]

Pat,

I think the problem is with the Client Demands more than the GCA's....

My bad, I agree...touche 

[Sean Eidson]

I've only been playing golf at all for 10 years and avidly for about 5 years, so I've only known the era of titanium and U-grooves as a player.  This game is very, very challenging for me, even with this equipment that gets vilified.  I'm proud that I FINALLY sport a 15 handicap and find the time to walk 18 holes twice a week, but I'm not delusional about the fact that I won't ever be competitive with those guys, save for a miraculous shot each round or two.

I don't think we have to keep lengthening the courses, we should do what we can to prepare them to be as challenging for the pros as possible (think pre-2004 US Open), but they can stay in the 7000-7500 range.  Let's just salute the fact that the top players of today using the state of the art technology of today are better than the top players of yesterday using the state of the art technology of yesterday.  If they score 10 strokes better, why does it matter?  They had to play 100 other players and beat them.

I don't begrudge anyone the ability to play much, much better than me.  If the game evolves to the point where pros are driving all the greens, then they still have to putt and NOBODY will EVER hit every green.  Golf will be different at it's highest level, just like basketball is different and baseball is different and football is different...

Incidentally, it just occurred to me that baseball is a great example of having different equipment at the highest level.  Wooden clubs for the pros anyone?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

There is nothing wrong with technology, it’s a question of how we use it. Many including myself feel that technology should be used to maintain the status quo, to make the equipment consistent so we can play over the same course for years and see how we have either improved or not. Technology is not a dirty word but to keep using it to improve the equipment, then who is kidding who, it’s the equipment that is achieving the improvement not necessary the golfer, how do we judge.

Perhaps rather than looking at Tennis or other sports, may I make a suggestion and try a few game using the old Hickory clubs. There are a few on this site that will help you understand and take you around with them. Its worth the experience but via an experienced Hickory player. Then you will be able to look afresh at the current dilemma the game or golfers are facing.

Melvyn   

[Sean Eidson]

I've been looking forward to a chance to play hickories someday, it looks like fun in a sadistic sort of way.  I've seen this on TV and the guys playing said that it's something you do once or twice a year if you want to stay sane.

I guess I'm just struggling with the extremes of the debate, either it's hickory for everyone forever, or it's pros playing 8500+ yard courses.  I don't buy the argument that you can use technology to maintain the status quo.  Innovation will drive the game forward.

I like the feeling of hitting drive that's longer and straighter than I did 5 years ago.  I'm sure the fact that I'm playing with a 460cc driver (vs 350) and a high quality shaft (vs garbage) has something to do with it, but I've also invested alot of time, energy, and passion into getting better.  And in the grand scheme of things, I still stink.  I don't want to feel like I have to apologize to the me of 5 years ago for playing with a better driver.

I just feel like the argument for rolling back the technology to the extreme leads to a Pyrrich victory for the game if it means that players with my profile have to play with equipment that make the game very difficult. 

This debate seems about as old as the game, though, right.  Wasn't Old Tom banished from a course for using/making a different style of ball?  Should we have stopped there?

If it comes down to it, I favor two sets of equipment rules with small differences that work together, e.g. Elite players use V Grooves and Hackers play with U grooves.  Or Elite Players use steel shafted drivers and Hackers use graphite.  If it's that or bankrupt the game, I'd be willing to punt on the absolutist version "it's the same game" argument.  Close enough is fun too, like wooden baseball bats vs. aluminum baseball bats.

But I don't feel like me playing with a club that's approved according to the rules diminishes my enjoyment of the game because it's more advanced than one I played with 5 years ago.  I'm still never going to be as good as the guys who get paid to play.

[Richard Choi]

What sport has different rules and equipment for the highest levels (pro) that are designed to make the game harder?  That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if there are any.

There are plenty of sports where pros (or different levels) use different equipment.

Football - NCAA and NFL (and high school) balls are not identical. They are lighter and smaller in lower levels.
Basketball - Balls are of different size and weight for high school, NCAA, pro, men, and women.
Baseball - Only pros use wooden bats. And bats are of different sizes and shape between levels.

Need I go on? Because using different equipments for different levels of play is pretty common among all sports. I don't know why that has to be the holy grail in golf. Just make the tourney balls little lighter and you can easily manage distances.

[Jason Connor]

Would anyone remember Corey Pavin's shot if it were hit with a 9-iron?

[Alex Miller]

Would anyone remember Corey Pavin's shot if it were hit with a 9-iron?

Shaun Micheel's was a 7 I believe, but here's the point:

Has anyone shot a 62 in a major yet? NO, so until that happens I don't have a problem with any of this.

I think the reason scores are lower now is because golf has become so big as an industry. Back in Arnie and Jack's day tour pros were clawing for cash and very few could focus on golf with the time and effort every player on today's tour. So, with 100 guys who are playing with a shot to win compared to 10, the likelihood that 1 or 2 put four great rounds together increases and scores go down.

I also agree about if 2009 is as bad as it gets, considering driver technology has not been improving considerably for the last couple years and players had square grooves, then I am ok with where the game is at.

[john_stiles]

I am still for reeling back the ball.  Top Filtes are sold for basically $1 at many locations.  So a ball can be sold at retail for $1, for presumably a profit by the retailer.  That includes presumably some profit for the manufacturer as well after material, manufacturer, advertisements, R&D, etc.    

And the Top Flites are very similar, overall, to the top line balls.

In the end,  it will not just be about the winning score, or tournaments,    it will be about how short your course plays for high school kids.

Those new young members will tire of hitting driver, 8 or 9 iron, and move on to a tougher course.  Or they stay at your course and want to lengthen it, toughen the course as they age and come to head committees, Boards, and such.   Scores or course records might eventually be a tipping point, but only at a few courses.      All these future course changes (lengthening) will continue as guys that are only near scratch just get tired of hitting wedges.

The issue can be approached in several ways, or combination of ways, such as a lighter ball, or have minimum spin rates, etc.

Until the manufacturers have no money for R&D,  the ball will come to go further either ever so gradually, or in a few spurts, as learning about materials, compositions, shells, covers, etc. continues.   And realistically,  players will grow slightly taller, stronger, etc.

Everything really points to the ball, practically the lowest cost item of any golfing year except for maybe tees.

[Jud_T]

Might be a good time economically.  I'd bet Pro-V sales are down significantly...

[Sean Eidson]

Why do the top 0.X% of golfers have to influence how the rest of us enjoy the game.  If the high schoolers who are studs today continue to be studs and being a stud means you don't enjoy a 6800-7000 yard course, then go somewhere else.  I for one intend to be a productive, active, participating member of my club despite the fact that my potential ability probably peaks at something like an 8 handicap.

I'd ask the better, longer golfers here.  Would you ever quit playing because your course tipped out at 6200 yards and you had a +3 handicap?  Would you quit playing because you could only hit 3-4 drivers a round?

I think people who are demonstrably better enjoy being so and look to their peers as a measure of ability, not to their scores.  And when they do look at their scores, who in their right mind wouldn't be thrilled to shoot a 62? 

[Jud_T]

Sean,

It's a real issue.  A buddy of mine is a 1 HDCP, not hugely long off the tee (250-270?).  We were discussing Shoreacres, a 6500 yard Raynor classic from the tips, and he passed up the opportunity to join because he couldn't hit his driver often enough...Mind you, this is a course that most of us would find to be one off the most fun courses on the planet to play every day....

[Richard Hetzel]

Doug:

I don't give a darn [self edited] about the winning score.

But, I think it takes much more golfing ability to hit a good 3-iron approach shot than a wedge.  And in the modern game there is nothing but wedge approach shots.  That's the problem.

An 8500 yard course would be one way to solve that, but there aren't very many of those, and they aren't very popular.  Changing the equipment would be another approach.

Hey Tom, lets play a round this summmer when I am in Traverse City. I will show you my "modern game" and for the most part, I am only hitting wedge in to par 4's if it is my 3rd shot! HA!

I know, I know, this was directed at the tour pros who could play these courses now with 6 golf clubs and still score!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()