I won't miss it unless I forget which is getting a lot more likely than even yesterday!  

Maybe it would be really interesting if they had someone who actually knows something about GCA such as Tom Doak, Ben Crenshaw or Geoff Shackelford as Adam Clayman suggested.

I stopped watching after an hour. Too much emphasis on distance. As the Cleveland guy said," That only effects 500 players."
I don't know where they're coming from saying that the state of the game is good and more people are coming into the game. Rounds are down or stagnant even with the course construction boom of the 90s. People don't make the commitment to learn the game.If they do take lessons, many give up. The game takes a lot of time and effort to become reasonably proficient.If you visit public/resort golf courses and get paired, you will be amazed by the lack of basic skill of many. They buy clubs, go to a range and hit balls without taking lessons and then play on courses that they can't handle- it's the American way.
Nicklaus dominated the discussions. After all, one of his sponsors,RBS, sponsored the show.
Steve

Pat:

I only saw the last 45 minutes but it seemed to me Nicklaus was the only one who pushed hard to advocate a rolled back competition ball (something he's basically been doing for about 20 years). Nicklaus was also the only one who seemed to try to defend the architecture of the older course by saying that some of these old classic courses (ANGC, Olympia Fields) look nothing like (distance-wise) they did when he played them in his prime (he would probably be the only one on the panel who would really know about that). Nicklaus also talked about the increase in cost and land due to the increase in distance and the continued need to lengthen.

Some of the others (the tech people and Thomas) countered Jack by saying he's lost his memory and forgotten how far he used to hit the ball. At that point everyone started talking and laughing but Jack I think was trying to imply that so what how far he used to hit the ball--and that the point is half the tour is now hitting the ball farther than he used to and that's the point when it comes to what that's doing to the architecture of these courses that keep trying to stretch themselves to gear up for the tour.

The other interesting point of that discussion I believe came from the Taylor Made guy who explained in the last 2-3 years exactly what this "optimization" (finding the optimum combination of launch angle and ball spin rate for any particular player) had done to driving distance. I believe he said that finding the "optimum" combination now adds about 10-15 yards to tour pro driver length wth no additional increase in swing speed.

No one appeared to disagree with him including Thomas who should certainly know since he may have been the only one who ever tried to stop optimization with the creation of his "USGA indoor Optimization ODS test"! Actually Thomas appeared to say in his tenure distance increased about one foot per year until "optimization" was discovered and then distance really spiked.

It should also be mentioned that all the tech people including Thomas said that it appears distance increase has basically reached the outside edge of the envelop now (assuming the manufacturers stay within the ODS rules which actually have not changed in a couple of decades). It should also be pointed out that "optimization" has not technically broken those decades old USGA I&B ODS rules and regs only found a clever wrinkle within those rules and regs!)

As some of us know about three years ago the USGA both let Thomas go, dropped their proposed USGA Indoor "Optimization" Test and returned to ODS ball testing with the old "Iron Byron" test method. The USGA replaced Thomas as tech director with Dick Rugge who came to them from Taylor Made, I believe.

Let's just assume that what Frank Thomas said last night is correct. I know many of you think what he said is not correct but just let's assume he is correct and compute his statistics minus a couple of factors such as roll that can be factored in later.

Thomas, I believe, said that that distance increased approximately one foot per year during his tenure and then with optimization in the last few years distance really spiked.

On how much optimization caused distance to spike in the last 2-3 years let's assume the CEO of Taylor Made is correct when he said last night that optimization has caused pro tour players' driving distance to spike in the last 2-3 years by 10-15 yards with no increase in swing speed. No one on that panel seemed to disagree with him about that so let's assume that's true and see where that takes us in calculating where distance increase has gone in the last 27 years (from the beginning of Thomas's tenure as USGA tech director until today).

Thomas said distance increse was one foot per year until the distance spike from optimization in the last app. 3 years.

That's 24 years at one foot per year=24 divided by 3 (yard)=8 additional yards in 24 years.

Add that additional 8 yards over 24 years to the additional 15 yards caused by optimization in the last 3 years and you have 23 additional yards of the average tour player in 27 years.

I don't have any idea what the average distance was a tour pro hit the driver 27 years ago but lets assume it was 255 yards. Add 23 to 255 yards and you have the distance the average tour pro hits his driver today being 278 yards.

Does that square with what the drive of the average tour pro is today? I have no idea but let's assume that it's low. Maybe the drive of the average tour pro today is 288 yards--a ten yard discrepency.

Is there some factor that might explain that? There might be. It might be roll added to pure carry distance. Shouldn't roll be removed from this statistical comparison of distance increase today vs 27 years ago? It would certainly seem so.

If anyone wants to compare apples to apples in distance increase as it relates to the last 27 years and the USGA and the 27 year old ODS standard, carry distance is all that should be compared (from the tee shot until the ball first hits the ground only).

Does the USGA or anyone else have those carry distance statistics or comparisions over the last 27 years? Maybe not!

Logically what happens to the ball over the last 27 years once it hits the ground really doesn't have much of anything to do with the USGA ODS standard, it has to do with the standard of general maintenance of various golf courses and how roll compares over those 27 years. And I say that fully aware that the USGA distance tests and stats over the years has included an analysis of both carry and roll with the outdoor test of Iron Byron. The USGA appears to have tried to "standardize" roll into a static factor by assuming "normal" roll--whatever that is!? But whatever it is it probably can be used to create an apples to apples comparison for distance increase over 27 years.

But the variablenes of roll over the years is a separate subject to be discussed another time.

Shouldn't carry distance over these last 27 years be all that we should be concerned with regarding distance increase over those years to determine what's happened in that time span?

Here are two relatively recent examples of why only carry distance increase might be all to be concerned with.

It was pointed out that Mickelson actually drove a 403 yard par 4. How far did he carry that ball and how far did it roll?

On the other end of the spectrum on Riviera's #18 most tour players these days seem to hit 6-9 irons into that green but I recall just about 2 years ago Robert Allenby hit a fantastic 3 wood in there to win the LA Open. Why a 3 wood? Because apparently on that day no pro was getting any roll. The roll was probably zero--just carry distance.

In retrospect is Frank Thomas right afterall? And if he isn't how wrong can he be? It's no secret if you talk to him that he does say sometimes that not analyzing the roll factor correctly is skewing these distance increase comparisons. Is he right about that?

A Clayman,

Public Displays of Ass Kissing  

b_g
I agree with you that Fazio was among the more clear speaking, but what exactly was his message (that was on point)?

I didn't think Solheim, the 20/20 guy or the Nike guy said much relevent about what to do about distance. The Cleveland guy and Fazio both basically made the same point--but the Clevaland guy made it more bluntly--that basically being that golf architecture should not be considered static and standardized like a football field, basketball court or net etc. He said a golf course is and should be considered "dynamic"--that meaning you can always change it to accomodate things like technological advances, ball distance increases etc. Fazio essentially said the same thing except in a much less blunt way. Ty Votaw and SuzyW both talked about women's golf.

John Cook defended the concept that strategy and clear and clever competitive management in golf would probably always win out in the end--that no human was a robot--a score of 240 was a virtual impossiblity--but that if courses needed to defend themselves they just needed to be set up harder not necessarily longer. Harder to him meant tucked pins, firm and fast greens and narrower fairways.

Thomas gave us the basic stats of what has happened distance-wise in the last 27 years and that Jack has lost his memory which Frank has been saying for about 20 years ever since Jack has been saying the ball needs to be controlled distance-wise at the tour level or that we need a competition ball for those select golfers who are capable of utilizing this new optimization and such.

I thought the Taylor Made guy was very interesting in that he basically explained exactly what the new "optimization" is and how much distance increase it was responsible for with no increase in swing speed. And also, and really interesting and relevent that this new wrinkle of "optimization" and it's significant distance increase (10-15 yards) in the last 2-3 years has been able to do this while SITLL CONFORMING to the 27 year old USGA I&B ODS rules and regs.

And Jack Nicklaus--he was the best by far if one believes distance needs to be controlled or rolled back for only the tour pro and exceptional golfer. Nicklaus's recommendation is essentially a "competition ball" to accomplish that roll-back for only those select few and he's been saying that for years. Jack was the only real advocate on that panel for the preservation of golf course architecture, particularly what happens to these courses that hold tour events or think they should do something like those that do hold tour events. Nicklaus doesn't really need to come off like some rocket scientist. He simply says the ball is going way too far in the hands of a relatively small group of golfers and something should have been done about that long ago.

If anyone in the world should know that from an experienced viewpoint it would surely be Jack Nicklaus! So many of those on the panel challenge what Nicklaus says by countering that he forgets how far he used to hit it when he was in his prime. If anyone would bother to listen to how he counters that they might learn a valuable point. Nicklaus says how far he used to hit it isn't really the point. The point is yes he could hit it collosal distances in his prime if he felt like it but the point is today more than half the tours can hit it farther than he used to and something is wrong with that. The implied point by Jack is he probably was as strong or stronger than most anyone today and if he was as strong and long today as he was then he'd be hitting it about 50 yards farther than he could in his prime. That point really is the point of what technology has done recently and that something should be done about it.

And I only heard the last 45 minutes of a 90 minute show.

I'm always fascinated by the "just narrow fairways" approach to combating distance. At what point does that become silly? When there are no fairways left?

Acer, I'd like to believe the amateur golfer is not being helped or that the everyday game is changing, but there are a lot of courses across the country looking for ways to make their course tougher to deal with changes, real or perceived. And it's choking the life right out of the sport (at least, the rounds played numbers seem are dropping, and the reasons all go back to distance pursuit effects...takes too long, too hard, too expensive).

I didn't get to see the show last night but will catch the rplay on Monday or Tuesday.

But for Jack to say that average players aren't affected by the equipment is ludicrous. I can name a lot of guys from this board alone, including myself that have taken advantage of the equipment in both distance and accuracy. I consider myself a below average golfer to.

Tom MacWood,
Put blade irons in the hands of modern golfers and you'd see fewer modern golfers. If there are more 'worse swings' it's because there are more golfers.  

b_g
I agree with you that Fazio was among the more clear speaking, but what exactly was his message (that was on point)?

~~~~~~~~~~`

I was referring mainly to his point that the reduction in the rate of growth in golf courses from the booming nineties gives the false impression that the golf industry is growing too slowly. Fazio suggested that it was more a reversion to the mean which i think is correct. Other than that he was mostly just talking his book. To wit, the classics need renovations and we need new courses for championship level play. Er, gee who does that line of thinking benefit??  

He was the best spoken of the bunch tho.