[Sean_A]

There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players.  Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect.  Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment.  Course maintenance has an effect.  I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.

Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.  I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.  Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.  

I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.  It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.  However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.  Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.  Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.  

The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.

My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure.  While this doesn't solve the problem of distance, I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.  Elite golf is boring to watch because the variety of shots is being reduced.  People often cite distance as the reason for the reduction in variety and thus the reduction of challenge.  Maybe this is true, but the governing bodies are struggling to come to grips with this issue because the balance of power between manufacturing and golf's ruling bodies is no longer in harmony.  

This means, given the current state of affairs, the problem has gone more or less unchecked and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon to stop equipmanr advances.  Some say that the we have just about reached our limit of what can be achieved under the current guidelines.  I don't buy this for a minute.  I see no reason why we can't expect the distance problem to continue for perhaps another 10, 20 or 30 more yards.  This raises an interesting question for people such as myself.  WHAT IF MANUFACTURERS ANNOUNCED THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE A BALL COULD BE HIT BY 20, 40 OR 50 YARDS?  WHAT WOULD BE YOUR (MY) REACTION?  Of course, companies don't do this sort of thing because it would significantly increase the risk of reduced profits.

The quick reaction is to blame the ruling bodies for inaction/incompetence.  It may be that it is a combination of reasons which have halted any real movement toward reducing distance.  It may be more difficult than most of us can imagine to take on an industry which is far more powerful (in the cosumers' eyes) than any ruling body.  The easy way out is to create a tournament ball, but the powers that be have been reluctant to do so.  There is another possible solution which is often given little time.  

IMO, reducing the number of clubs resolves the problem of shot variety and still leaves the mega power game as an option.  More often than not, this argument of reducing clubs is countered with "scores will not be effected by an elite player carrying less clubs".  This may or may not be true, but it is my impression that the need to reduce length is to re-introduce some lost challenges, not reduce scores.  

It is often assumed that re-introducing some previous challenges will automatically increase scores and thus create a better balance with par being more meaningful to a winning score.  Perhaps this is a false assumption, but in any case, WHAT DOES THE WINNING SCORE AS IT RELATES TO PAR HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF OUTRAGEOUS LENGTH?  This is a fundamental question that has not been properly addressed.  

It is my contention that many people are more against the idea of par being broken with ease on many classic courses then they are concerned about how its done.  As has been pointed out by many on this site, par has a mental effect on people and their thought processes are (unduly imo) influenced by the concept of par.  Because par is completely artificial, it is as changeable as courses themselves.  Is it not conceivable that par for many courses could be dropped to 65-68?  One thing is clear to me, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "distance problem", people need to start thinking about ways in which the balance of challenge, entertainment (in the case of spectating) and fun can be achieved.  Stating that reducing the ball by X% will do the trick is the thinking of a simpleton.  The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell.  If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL?  Is there an answer to this question?  I don't know, but to solve the distance problem I think this question needs a concensus between manufacturers, consumers and golfing bodies.  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Well written, sir.

You are correct that the average golfer has not been overly affected by the "distance problem" and that many of the chnages to golf courses are an overreaction on the part of committees and architects.  I share your belief that the concern  lies in a fear of "par" being broken too easily.

You are also right that the effect on the pro game has been to reduce variety.  However, if that's the case, I could not understand why you would advocate reducing the number of clubs in the bag, as others have proposed -- this would seem to reward the long hitter who only needs his driver and a bunch of wedges.

Your one factual error is that the manufacturers might produce a ball capable of flying another 50 yards.  I don't believe there is any way to do that because of the Overall Distance Standard which caps the length of carry + roll.  The manufacturers have optimized this now so balls barely pass by carrying nearly to the limit of the ODS, so there isn't much farther to go under the present limit.  (Of course, that doesn't mean they won't find other parts of the equipment equation to tweak in order to increase distance.)

The ODS was a fine idea; all they would have to do is dial down the number on it a bit and everything would be okay.  You wouldn't find it any harder to score without your Pro V1x, than you've found it easier to score with one.  However, the better players would face tougher approach shots to greens, and that's really what this whole argument is about.  I don't care how far someone drives it, I just don't want the approach shots to be simple.

[JC Jones]

I think its an issue of architecture.  I played Crystal Downs this weekend with a healthy wind from the south and a Superquad driver and a ProV1.  Not ONCE did I feel like I dominated that course with my length.  In my opinion, that course isnt any easier for the long hitter than it is for the "average" golfer.  We played the whites because the member we played with (although a former club champion) was older and couldnt play the blues any more, typically I would have a field day on a course that was 6300 yards, lets just say that didnt happen yesterday...

Maybe this is a knee-jerk reaction to my experience this weekend (which I have not even come close to having digested yet) but the great courses seem to hold up well to the advances made in equipment.  At least for the "average" golfer.

[jeffwarne]

So as long as we confine our play to courses of the caliber of Crystal Downs, there is no ball/ driver problem.
That's a solution we all could live with!

Which assuming 25,000 courses worldwide) leaves approximately 24,990 courses that have a ball/club problem.

Of course this can be solved by playing the 100 or so 7700 yard charmers we all love to navigate.

Tom Doak just said it all that the ODS is great, it just needs to be lowered (which will have nil effect on the average golfer)

[Brent Hutto]

In my admittedly limited experience firm turf, highly contoured greens and a fair breeze over open ground will always provide a pleasurable and exciting day no matter the course. Under those ideal conditions I could have fun on a 5,000 yard course or an 8,000 yard one or anything in between using anything from hickory-and-guttie to Ely Callway's wildest dream.

To my view limiting the number of clubs to fewer than fourteen is a completely separate issue from "The Distance Problem", whatever other merits the idea may have. I can't see any room at all for tinkering with elements of the game other than the golf ball if a rollback in distance or ballflight is desired. It is certainly possible to nibble around the edges of the problem by forcing clubs to be shorter or heavier or reducing clubhead sizes or groove volumes but any change that could be produced by such club restrictions could be trivially exceeded by simply legislating a more squishy or more spinny golf ball. Even a simple reduction in the ODS as Tom suggests could have an immediate, clear and huge impact on the lengths achievable by the strongest players.

Not that I'm saying an ODS reduction (or higher spin requirement) is either politically practical or actually needed. But it drives me to distraction to see the USGA and others constantly casting about for indirect, marginal ways to trim the performance of those elite players when a straightforward and predictable method is so obvious.

[JC Jones]

I dont believe that the clubs or the number of them are the issue or the solution.  Outside of the driver, most of the "pros" are not using game improvement irons.  So as long as the "pros" are only using driver a MAX of 10 swings per round, I dont think that the driver is the problem.

I do, however, agree that the ball is the issue.  A reduction in ODS for just the tour pros would be the solution to the problem and I think we would hear a lot less about lengthening of courses.  For 99.999% of us who arent as good as tour pros, I dont really see an issue.

[John Kavanaugh]

All you had to do was watch Jesper play yesterday to realize that bifurcation is a bad thing.  Even at that I still remember seeing Justin Leonard hitting a persimon driver at the 97 Masters.  It just wasn't all that long ago.

note:  Sean is not a good spokesman for the average golfer.  He is a long as the sun on a cool Minnesota night.

[Sean_A]

Tom D

I realize there is ODS in place, but I bet you in that in the coming years guys get longer unless some other restrictions are instituted.  Why?  Because we hear the ruling bodies version of things and they don't run the show.  The manufacturers run the show.  

I am not convinced guys would continue to carry three and four wedges if they could only carry 9 clubs.  Hence, the resaon I believe we would see greater shotmaking with fewer clubs in the bag.  

Brent

I suggest fewer clubs for two reasons.  First, you say the answer is obvious to reducing distance.  However, for 100 years the solution has eluded the powers that be.  Perhaps things aren't as straight forward and obvious as some believe. Second, my concern is with shotmaking. I don't necessarily think distance in and of itself is problem for the elite.  The bottom line is that how far pro golfers hit the ball is none of our business unless you are in the business.  If you are a fan of the business, the problem is that watching these guys is boring.  Distance in and of itself is not the sole reason for this boredom.  Additionally, many people have fears for the concept of par which they see distance as threat to.  The concept of distance and how it relates to the ideas of par, challenge and shotmaking are all intertwined - though I don't know why par is so influential and I suspect I never will.  I don't think people give this sort of stuff enough thought.  The easy option is to blame distance and therefore the ruling bodies.

The one essential thing in all of this is that nothing should be written in stone.  Everything in golf has evolved over time and will continue to do so.  We all go on about the traditions, challenges and values of the game.  However, which TC&Vs are we speaking of and from which period in golf's evolution?    

John

My style of golf is oudated.  I depend on roll for distance.  Make me have to carry a ball 220ish and I will likely ask what is the other option?  As a rule, I count on drives going 225ish-240ish yards.  I did find, much to my surprise, that I can carry a ball about 250, but I rarely try this method of swing because it is less dependable for me.  

Ciao  

[JESII]

Golf as entertainment has very little to do with distance and is only indirectly related to shot-making creativity...it has to do with the ball running around on the ground.[/i]

Why else would anyone ever watch the BBC cameras try to televise links golf to American television sets?

What can be done to convince the powers that be to set up TV golf courses so that the ball runs around like a screaming banshee?

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

I guess my overly simplistic thinking comes down to this.

Distance Trumps Shotmaking

In fact, I'd almost be tempted to simplify it further and say that Distance Trumps Everything. Here's what I mean...

Let's say there's a green on some PGA Tour course. It's not as firm as you or I would like and it's somewhat flattish so that it's puttable whilst Stimping at 12.5 and the hole is cut four paces from the front-right bunker in the current Tour fashion. So you can fire at the flag as long as you are accurate, control your distance and hit a reasonably soft-landing shot.

Now let's say it's on an uphill 420 yard Par 4. The guy leading the tournament is going to drive the ball about 290 yards in the fairway and from there loft a gap wedge about a mile in the air and try to drop it just left of the hole where it will spin back a bit and leave an easy putt. Note that this isn't a perfect GCA world so we can't demand that he be faced with a rock-hard fescue green and a 20mph wind at his back. So we want to change something to make that more of a demanding shot.

Option 1:

We move the tee back 60 yards. How he's going to have to either hit that same shot with a 6-iron, which may not land so softly, or perhaps try cutting a 5-iron in from the middle of the green to work over by the hole (that would be a beautiful shot). But even a high 6-iron might still be able to stop near the hole since the green isn't all that firm.

Option 2:

We've forced him to play with nothing between a pitching wedge (his 150 yard club) and a sand wedge (his 125 yard club). So he can't necessarily reach the green with his sand wedge and if he hits the pitching wedge it will be a less than full shot that might not spin for him. So maybe he'll hit a cut with a 9-iron or pitching wedge or maybe he try to nuke the sand wedge but it's now a complicated shot.

Option 3:

We give him a ball that flies 15% shorter off the driver and 10% shorter off the irons. So that 290 yard drive is only 250 yards and the resulting 170-yard shot now takes a 6-iron that needs a little more care to a tucked pin than the wedge he could have otherwise used.

I'd argue that Option 1 and Option 3 create just as much shotmaking potential as Option 2. And like Option 2, the shorter ball means not having to add a few more acres of maintained golf course to accomodate the big hitting elite players. And finally, the shorter ball can be specified at whatever level of shortness is required (to a fair precision). And it can be altered again in a few decades if need be, what are you going to do when you give them ten clubs and they still figure out how to shoot in the 60's on 7,600 yard courses. Lower it to six?

[JSlonis]

The argument against the loss of "shotmaking" and "variety" with this modern equipment doesn't make much sense to me.  While I agree that the modern golf ball doesn't curve as much as its balata predessesor, I think that the "shotmaking" that everyone talks in reverence about from days gone by, is a bit overblown.  The ball still can curve quite a lot

The best players have never tried to curve the ball all that much unless they were forced to.  PGA Tour level players can all hit the ball high, low, with a hook, fade, you name the shot, and they could do it with the old balata and they can do it with the ProV1.  

It's difficult to see on TV the type of shots that these guys are hitting.  I'd argue that you need to watch a tournament in person to really get a good view of the "shotmaking" of the modern player.  What you'll see is a lot of different guys with different swings and games hitting all sorts of different shots to accomplish the same goal.  It really isn't all that different from the glory days.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?

Thanks
Peter

   

[JSlonis]

I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?

Thanks
Peter

   

Peter,

Good question...

For the better amateur player: NO, I don't think modern technology has ruined these Golden Age courses has much as many others believe.  I think the large majority of courses hold up just fine.  Obviously increased distance helps the better player, but not to the extent that these courses no longer provide an adequate challenge.

The one constant you seem to find in all these great classic courses around our area is...excellent greensites and green design.  If a course has that, it will always be a challenge no matter if the ball is traveling farther.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I guess my overly simplistic thinking comes down to this.

Distance Trumps Shotmaking

In fact, I'd almost be tempted to simplify it further and say that Distance Trumps Everything. Here's what I mean...

Let's say there's a green on some PGA Tour course. It's not as firm as you or I would like and it's somewhat flattish so that it's puttable whilst Stimping at 12.5 and the hole is cut four paces from the front-right bunker in the current Tour fashion. So you can fire at the flag as long as you are accurate, control your distance and hit a reasonably soft-landing shot.

Now let's say it's on an uphill 420 yard Par 4. The guy leading the tournament is going to drive the ball about 290 yards in the fairway and from there loft a gap wedge about a mile in the air and try to drop it just left of the hole where it will spin back a bit and leave an easy putt. Note that this isn't a perfect GCA world so we can't demand that he be faced with a rock-hard fescue green and a 20mph wind at his back. So we want to change something to make that more of a demanding shot.

Option 1:

We move the tee back 60 yards. How he's going to have to either hit that same shot with a 6-iron, which may not land so softly, or perhaps try cutting a 5-iron in from the middle of the green to work over by the hole (that would be a beautiful shot). But even a high 6-iron might still be able to stop near the hole since the green isn't all that firm.

Option 2:

We've forced him to play with nothing between a pitching wedge (his 150 yard club) and a sand wedge (his 125 yard club). So he can't necessarily reach the green with his sand wedge and if he hits the pitching wedge it will be a less than full shot that might not spin for him. So maybe he'll hit a cut with a 9-iron or pitching wedge or maybe he try to nuke the sand wedge but it's now a complicated shot.

Option 3:

We give him a ball that flies 15% shorter off the driver and 10% shorter off the irons. So that 290 yard drive is only 250 yards and the resulting 170-yard shot now takes a 6-iron that needs a little more care to a tucked pin than the wedge he could have otherwise used.

I'd argue that Option 1 and Option 3 create just as much shotmaking potential as Option 2. And like Option 2, the shorter ball means not having to add a few more acres of maintained golf course to accomodate the big hitting elite players. And finally, the shorter ball can be specified at whatever level of shortness is required (to a fair precision). And it can be altered again in a few decades if need be, what are you going to do when you give them ten clubs and they still figure out how to shoot in the 60's on 7,600 yard courses. Lower it to six?

Brent

You are right that firm courses would go a long way to solving some of the distance problem.  Still, I think the problem of distance is blown out of proportion and your statements are a prime example of this belief.  

I disagree completely concerning the importance of distance over shotmaking.  Shotmaking always trumps because distance is a factor of shotmaking - it is not unrelated as you seem to suggest.  Secondly, putting is more important than anything.  A good putter will make cash at the pro level.  It ain't necessarily so that a long hitter will make money.  

In any case, you are presenting an either/or argument.  Reducing clubs doesn't mean that technology can't be reigned in.  I suggest reducing clubs because all efforts of limiting distance (including architectural elements such as penal rough and water) over the past 100 years have failed to keep the equilibrium between challenge, fun and entertainment.  So I would question how easy it is to simply reduce distance by reigning in equipment and therefore recreate an equilibrium.  

What if I give you the another scenario?

Say all the conditions of example are the same as this example except for the guy only has 9 clubs.  A player comes to a 550 yard par 5.  He booms his 290 yard yard drive which lands softly.  Now what does he do?  He has 260 to go and he can reach, but if he misses the green, he doesn't have an arsenal of wedges to choose from in getting up and down.  

First, he has to think about which clubs he is going to carry that day.  Second, he has to set a game plan to accomodate the clubs he has and/or have a backup plan for his grey area holes that he may alter his game plan on.  We already have the guy thinking about his sticks before he even tees it up.  Why? Because he is limited in his options and therefore will most likely have to figure out how to get the most out of each club rather than having the luxury of carrying specialty clubs - which a driver may be one of.  Many players may choose to limit their distance voluntarily if they think they have the shotmaking skills to do so.  Tiger Woods last year at Hoylake is a perfect example.  He was sacrificing 2,3,4 clubs of length to most of the field and still kicked their ass.  Granted, the conditions partly helped because this sort of play (relative to the field) would be very difficult to pull off on a softer course.  

Sully

You don't think people loved seeing John Daly whack the crap out of the ball?  You don't think loads of every day golfers enjoy whacking the crap out of the ball?  As the Jam once penned - Thats Entertainment.

Ciao

   

[Bill Shamleffer]

Sean,

I agree with your idea of reducing the maximum number of allowed clubs to 9 or 10.  One benefit is that this limit would not hurt the average golfer and would make the game slightly cheaper.  It would also make the bag lighter, thus encouraging more walking.  I often play with only 7 to 10 clubs and the end result is minimal upon my score, but I do enjoy the different shots I must attempt.

To counteract the concerns of the pros just having a bag full of wedges, the answer would be to limit the loft to no more than 58 degrees.  Seve and others have mentioned that allowing wedges of 60+ degrees has eliminated some shot making skills among the pros.

The result for a possible pro set could be:
Driver; strong 4 wood; 3, 5, 7, 9 irons, PW & SW; and putter.

The typical amateur would likely replace the 3 iron with another fairway wood or possibly a hybrid.

It would be great to experiment with this concept at some of the off-season events, such as Norman's or Tiger's tournaments.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ruducing the number of clubs from 14 to any number lower would only lead to an increase in the number of cheaters.  

[Brent Hutto]

In any case, you are presenting an either/or argument.  Reducing clubs doesn't mean that technology can't be reigned in.  I suggest reducing clubs because all efforts of limiting distance (including architectural elements such as penal rough and water) over the past 100 years have failed to keep the equilibrium between challenge, fun and entertainment.  So I would question how easy it is to simply reduce distance by reigning in equipment and therefore recreate an equilibrium.

So we're in agreement that your suggestion to reduce the number of clubs is an entirely separate matter from "The Distance Problem" per se. You want to see them playing with a half-set because it would be more entertaining. And you'd find that extra entertainment value greater than any supposed benefit from a distance rollback. Fair enough, I suspect you are to a certain extent correct.

What if I give you the another scenario?

Say all the conditions of example are the same as this example except for the guy only has 9 clubs.  A player comes to a 550 yard par 5.  He booms his 290 yard yard drive which lands softly.  Now what does he do?  He has 260 to go and he can reach, but if he misses the green, he doesn't have an arsenal of wedges to choose from in getting up and down.

I think you oversell the benefit of his "arsenal of wedges" when it comes to greenside play. Anywhere within 40, 50, 60 yards of the green in the rough I'll bet the player would find a vanishingly small benefit from using anything other than his most lofted wedge (60 degree or whatever). I guess there are long bunker shots where alternative lofts might be valuable (I know I use my 52-degree wedge for sand shots outside of 15-20 yards) but if he has something in the "lob" range and something in the "pitching" or "gap" range he's pretty well set.

I would think the in-between ones are primarily letting him hit full swings a variety of distances. Or at least that's what reading Pelz et al lead me to believe.

...he is limited in his options and therefore will most likely have to figure out how to get the most out of each club rather than having the luxury of carrying specialty clubs - which a driver may be one of.  Many players may choose to limit their distance voluntarily if they think they have the shotmaking skills to do so.  Tiger Woods last year at Hoylake is a perfect example.  He was sacrificing 2,3,4 clubs of length to most of the field and still kicked their ass.  Granted, the conditions partly helped because this sort of play (relative to the field) would be very difficult to pull off on a softer course.

Now we've come full circle back to the difference between Hoylake (or TOC or most other links courses during a drought) and the venues of your typical weekly PGA Tour event. I absolutely guarantee you that Joe Tour Pro playing in the Greater Bumwad Classic at some rice paddy in the midwest isn't going to give up his driver in favor of one more wedge. The game is admittedly a lot more interesting when conditions give a meaningful option of playing super-long iron shots off firm, dry turf instead of airing it out with a driver. But that's shooting fish in a barrel, of course that's more fun. For my part I'm talking about the game you can see on television most weekends in the USA.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.

[JSlonis]

I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.

John,

My goodness...what a great concept.  I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.

I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.

My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away.  That is a lost cause.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.

John,

My goodness...what a great concept.  I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.

I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.

My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away.  That is a lost cause.

I think most of us choose to be as bad as we are.

[JESII]

Sully

You don't think people loved seeing John Daly whack the crap out of the ball?  You don't think loads of every day golfers enjoy whacking the crap out of the ball?  As the Jam once penned - Thats Entertainment.

Ciao

   

Sean,

I think it was John Daly more than how far he hit the ball...a different deal, but similar in his "everyman-ness" to Palmer...Palmer epitomized the saying..."men wanted to be like him and women wanted to be with him"...Daly was a circus act from day one...entertainng and awesome inside the tent, but nobody wanted to be, or be with, him...

[Craig Sweet]

I don't believe lowering the number of clubs is a good solution. The number of clubs is not a problem....

And as I have stated before, the ball is not a problem when we talk about the average golfer...in fact, just like moving up to a forward tee might help someone overcome lost distance (the age thing) and make the course a proper challenge, so might the increase in distance from a Pro V1...

[Ken Moum]

However, for 100 years the solution has eluded the powers that be.  Perhaps things aren't as straight forward and obvious as some believe.

That's not actually true. Only about 75 or 80 years ago, the USGA found and implemented a solution to golf balls that were too easy to hit long and straight.

In the 1920s golf balls were probably as hot as the current crop of ProV1s and their ilk. Ralph Livingston's feature interview here http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewlivingston.html covers it nicely.

The common ball then was 1.62" and 1.62 ounces. Apparently there were also heavier balls, and some with "tighter" windings.

What the USGA did in the 30s was mandate a bigger (1.68") and lighter (1.55 ounces) ball.

This was called the "balloon ball" and, given the nature of balata-covered balls, was very hard to control. So after only a year, the weight went back up to 1.62.

Regardless of the distaste for that ball, with today's straighter balls, going lighter seems like an obvious solution. The only criticism I have heard is that it would make the short game a little "easier" because it sits up better.

It would be easier to curve, and harder to hit straight, especially at the highest clubhead speeds. But it wouldn't affect average players, women and seniors very much.

If that brought back some shotmaking into the game, I for one would be delighted.

Ken

[Jason Topp]

I've always been interested in this topic.  A few thoughts none of which are completely original:

1.  I do not think increased distance has hurt the game one bit for anyone that hits it 270 or less off the tee (Probably 98% of golfers) other than to make newer courses longer walks because you have to walk up 50 yards from the back tee.

2.   I think the distance issue is important not due to lower scoring, but because it takes driver out of the hands of good players and/or can result in more repetitive golf because the good player hits wedges on every hole.

I think that the wedge issue is important even if the greens are terrific. At my course, a 290 yard driver can reach the par 5's in 2, 1-2 par 4's in 1 and have wedge into every par four if conditions are firm.  Because the greens are difficult and one needs to be really accurate if he plays that agressively, scoring is no better than at other longer courses.

  3.  I believe elite driving distance will increase 1-2 yards per year

-- PGA Tour driver distance has pretty steadily increased 1-2 years per year except for big bumps associated with equipment advances.  I assume that is due to increased atheleticism, improved technique and strength training.  It is hard to imagine that trend changing.

4.  The other problem with distance is the gap that results from a course trying to reach the ideal of a challenge for the best and playable for all.  

5.  If equipment is not bifurcated, I think course designers should just ignore elite players on all but a very few courses.   For top players, inland courses need to be 7500 yards unless one is willing to artificially constrain length off the tee or else allow wedges to be the approach club for nearly every par four.  For everyone else 6700 yards is more than enough length.  

[Sean_A]

I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.

John

You always have a way certain way (Indiana Way?) of putting things.  I don't believe for a minute that scores of the elite would go up if the ball were rolled back 15%.  Nor do I believe scores of the elite would go up if less than 10 clubs were the new limit.  The guys are good and will find find ways to go low.  The question is, can I be entertained along way?  I believe I currently have an excellent balance of challenge and fun when I play.  The only missing aspect is entertainment from a spectator's point of view, but fortunately this is easily the least important element for me because I have no financial stake in the game.  I couldn't be bothered to use a free ticket with club/player tent pass at this year's Belfry event held a few weeks back.  Why?  Because for the most part pro golf is a drag and it isn't worth the effort to watch.

Brent

I think you are catching on.  I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game.  Folks go on about distance like it is some sort  Holy Grail of answers.

I know Kmourn says that the USGA had a solution to the distance deal, but it must have been temporary and therefore inadequate or we wouldn't be where we are now.  As I said before, any deal has to include the consumer, ruling bodies and manufacturers.  

Sully

So folks didn't get a kick out of Daly's smashmouth golf style?

Ciao

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()