Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?

« **Reply #25 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:58:30 AM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on October 12, 2005, 08:43:34 AM

Patrick, YOU seem to be the one hung up on "class warefare", not me....

I am saying, if you make the game more exclusive...in any fashion...limiting technology...making the course more difficult...you automatically limit the participants...thus you make the game more elite...

How does making the course more difficult make the game more exclusive, increasing difficulty affects everyone, not just a "class" of golfers, and, in case you hadn't noticed, most golf courses are beefing up their defenses for the LONG ball hitter, the lower handicap, not the higher handicaps, so I guess they're discriminating against low handicap golfers.[/color]

The question asked in the title of this thread is "would losing players to increaded difficulty be so bad"....you seems to be saying.. NO

That's correct, because, I played the game when it was far more difficult, and I loved it. It's the challenge that's the lure.

If, magically, the game returned to the game in 1975, and people left because it was too difficult, let them go.
The game was never meant to be easy.

Yet, in 1975, men and women, young and old enjoyed the challenge. So much so that the game became more popular in the intervening years, not less popular.

Stop whining about the difficulty of the inherent challenge and the fact that you'll be liimited in your ability to buy balls and equipment that make the ball go straighter and farther.
Be a man, suck it up, hit the practice range and learn how to hit it left to right, right to left, low, high, long and short.
Learn how to hit all the shots that the architect intended as you go about the examination of your game that he has provided through the architecture he created.[/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** October 12, 2005, 09:00:25 AM »

Tom...I play with Mizuno MP30 irons...Ping G2 driver...Cleveland fairway wood...I like the Nike One platinum....I got the irons from one of our pro's for $250...the Ping cost $299....the golf balls cost me $35 for a dozen...good deal...

A round of golf on the weekend is $24 and the cart if you want one is $20....a pass for the season is something like $700...a punch card for 6 rounds is something like $120

« **Reply #27 on:** October 12, 2005, 09:36:30 AM »

Pat, Citing my contention that benign commercial designs have contributed to the downturn in numbers of new participants, and, the number of rounds played. How is this statement of yours contrary to that contention?

Quote

That's correct, because, I played the game when it was far more difficult, and I loved it. It's the challenge that's the lure.

If more of these benign modern designs (1955- 1995 ) had held to the advice of George Thomas to respect the craddle, rather than just penal designs, I contend the numbers would not be down and participation would be healthy?

One way to attempt to quantify this, would be to list the clubs that are seeking members so desperately, versus, those that continue to have full memberships complete with waiting lists. Maybe then we corrolate the design attributes to participation, or a desire thereof?

Golf does not exist in a vaccum. The concept of sport ,has not stayed static. In the 50, 60's 70's and 80's, there were few if any who participated in Extreme sports. Now, the X-Box generation, has more choices for their time, and money, than just Tennis and Golf.

It seems logical that with an increase in the supply of the number of sports, available to individuals, is an important factor in why numbers are down ihn golf. If I were the USGA, I wouldn't want my head to be buried in the sand, when determining future policy, not realizing, or understanding, this reality.

I don't believe this competition factor, has been mentioned thus far on any of the multitude of the recent usga rollback threads.

« **Reply #28 on:** October 12, 2005, 10:41:26 AM »

It all goes to expectations. People today expect results quickly and give up on something easier than in days gone by. There are also many more activities that attract people than before so you're going to lose a certain number of people regardless.

Why would the game of golf (and its caretakers, whomever they may be) not want to sell itself as what we have all grown to love about it?

« **Reply #29 on:** October 12, 2005, 10:55:41 AM »

Just out of curiosity, what type of equipment did most of you start out playing?

It might surprise people, given my often acknowledged low level of play, but I don't think it would hurt things at all if the game were just a little more difficult. I started out with a mish mash bag of leftover clubs from a couple friends - wooden woods, blades, and a bullseye-type putter. I can honestly say I enjoyed the game just as much learning with those as I do with my newer clubs.

Re: pace of play, a couple things:

- If you aim for a 4 hour round, you have no prayer of it being quicker - or even four hours, for that matter.

- If courses were not so long and lush, a 3 hour walk would be much more realistic. They do it in Scotland routinely, is there any physical reason we shouldn't be able to do it over here? Most 7300 yard courses from the tips are still 7300 yard walks, even if you're playing the 6500 tee markers.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I am white, priviledged in a fortunate sense, in not fortune-sense, and play primarily public golf.

« **Reply #30 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:35:05 AM »

I don't know one golfer who has quit the game because it is too difficult. Perhaps a couple who played a round or two and decided that it wasn't for them, with the difficulty of the game being a factor, but not one who has actually embraced the game for a time and then left it behind because they couldn't stand the difficulty. In my experience I have to agree with Mr. Mucci who said that the difficulty of the game is the lure, the reason to stay WITH the game, and not to leave it. That magical moment when you start hitting some good shots, and then expect to be able to repeat it, and the struggle to do that, and then when you get proficient enough to actually appreciate the challenges that the golf course is giving you, instead of just being concerned with getting it up in the air or hitting it something like straight........that's a big part of the magic of golf. It appeals to the perfectionist that exists to some degree inside all of us.

I also am primarily a public-course player, and in my "class" the people I see leaving the game do it because it is too expensive and too time-consuming. Both are issues that have more to do with golf course construction costs and priorities and with golfer behaviour than anything having to do with equipment.

I don't believe that rolling back equipment to an earlier technological standard would drive away very many golfers, although it might make some people hold on to their current equipment a lot longer. But then again, I still have my Billy Casper signature laminated 4-wood in my bag (purchased for my by my parents when I was in 5th grade). I've just always been able to hit that thing.................

« **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:55:11 PM »

I see many intertsecting issues discussed above, and no one seems entirely correct or completely wrong.

I like Adam's suggestion that there are simply too many choices for anyone seeking entertainment, recreation, or sportsmanship. Could it be that when golf was growing, and growing faster than just keeping up with the rise in population, folks didn't have so much to do, and golf was available?

We seem to have reached a sort of equalibrium of non growth where in there are the core golfers that will be there no matter what degree of difficulty and expense is placed before them. Then there are those trying the game and liking it and becoming regulars or core which is the only gorwth factor. Then there are those that try it, don't like it for the many valid reasons cited above, from too costly, too long to play, too hard, to perceived elitist, and too many choices. It doesn't make any difference what the reason is, if they try it and leave, they are gone, and golf will suffer a shrinking market.

Then golf begins to get marginalized further, less popular, and dies some where in the future. Which brings up dying in general.

Everytime you see a hearst go by with an aging senior white man on board, you are probably loosing market share. Thus, you either have to settle for a model of a shrinking market of the dying core golfers and discouraged entry level players with yet more expensive new venues, new expensive entry level equipment costs and the struggle to keep new players interested, or learn to love the outdated and elitist sport it will further become.

For those left, maybe it won't be so bad if design made it more difficult. Just harder to find similarly enthusiatic golf partners to enjoy a common love of the game with. then the only thing that might drive you out, is that you reach the threshold of expense you can afford. ON that score, even core golfers must have their threshold breaking point.

« **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:39:37 PM »

Quote

How much would the average guy have to pay for the top of the line equipment and a dozen pro-V1's (I have no idea, I bought my current clubs with the money I earned caddying)? Can the average guy afford top of the line equipment? - Tom MacWood

On another thread I posted these costs, they have not escalated outside the normal range of inflation. The wider ranges of technological improvements and materials used in todays equipment may make them an even better buy.
As to whether or not the "average' guy can afford top of the line equipment, well, the "average" guy probably can't afford a Mercedes but can most likely afford a Chevy. If a guy wants to move up to a Mercedes he could probably find one used that's affordable, not unlike the resale market for golf equipment. Used equipment is what many folks start with, I did (and it wasn't that easy for me to find lefty stuff).
The "average" guy can probably afford to play a round, seeing as there are about 8,500 courses in the US that have green fees less than $26.00 and 2,400 less than $16.00.

Jim Thompson,
You said: "Is the good of the game the same as the growth or profitability of the game?"

If there wasn't any profit in the game we would lose the daily-fee facilities. The privates would survive, the munis would survive, the game itself would survive but access would be stifled to the point where player participation would fall off the charts. Bringing more players to the game ensures the survival of the DFs and the diversity of playing fields that they bring to the equation.

« **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2005, 04:45:47 PM »

Craig
I believe you said you worked at golf course, I'm not interested in what you paid, but what the average Joe would pay for the same equipment right off the shelf.

« **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2005, 07:40:47 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on October 12, 2005, 09:36:30 AM

Citing my contention that benign commercial designs have contributed to the downturn in numbers of new participants, and, the number of rounds played. How is this statement of yours contrary to that contention?

Because I'm referencing the issue from the perspective of equipment, not the field of play.[/color]

Quote
That's correct, because, I played the game when it was far more difficult, and I loved it. It's the challenge that's the lure.

The above quote, was framed in the context of the equipment, not golf courses.

The difficulty was that the clubs and ball weren't very forgiving and thus, the game was harder, but, challenging and fun. I learned that in order to improve I would have to work hard at practicing and not seek improvement by "purchasing" a game. I recently had to do the same thing all over again, and loved every minute of the effort I had to put into practicing and playing until I reached the goals I set for myself. And, while it was harder this time around, 50 years later, I didn't quit, and the satisfaction was even greater.
And, I did it with irons I bought in 1985 and a putter from the 60's.

If golfers are going to abandon the game because it becomes a little harder because of ball and equipment rollbacks, what are they going to do as they age and become infirmed, quit at their first disappointment. If so, good riddance, they were probably converted tennis players to begin with. [/color]

If more of these benign modern designs (1955- 1995 ) had held to the advice of George Thomas to respect the craddle, rather than just penal designs, I contend the numbers would not be down and participation would be healthy?
That's absurd, if anything golf courses have been softened over the years. Bunkers filled in, greens flattened, Junior, Woman's and Senior tees added. The whole thrust over the last 50 years has been inclusonary and softening in the name of "fairness".

Have you ever played TOC ?

How can you not categorize it as penal ?[/color]

One way to attempt to quantify this, would be to list the clubs that are seeking members so desperately, versus, those that continue to have full memberships complete with waiting lists. Maybe then we corrolate the design attributes to participation, or a desire thereof?

It's not as simple as that.
Location, cost and other factors determine vacancies, not architecture.

Trump is getting around 250,000 to 500,000 to join his course, what is Seminole getting. Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Los Angeles CC ?

I belong to a wonderful golf course circa 1927 and we've had a difficult time getting members over the last 30 years, and it has nothing to do with the architecture, which is wonderful.[/color]

Golf does not exist in a vaccum. The concept of sport ,has not stayed static. In the 50, 60's 70's and 80's, there were few if any who participated in Extreme sports. Now, the X-Box generation, has more choices for their time, and money, than just Tennis and Golf.

Are you kidding me ?
What rocket scientist, with a young or older family, a man in his 40's 50's, 60's or 70's plays X-treme sports ?

I was one of the lunatic fringe who played hockey at 3:00-5:00 am, football and full court basketball into his 50's.
I broke ankles, legs, fingers and my wrist, not to mention a zillion other injuries over the years. Trust me, I was one of the few old guys playing any of these sports. Sane people in their 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's play non-violent, non-contact sports, and golf remains highly attractive to that age group.[/color]

It seems logical that with an increase in the supply of the number of sports, available to individuals, is an important factor in why numbers are down ihn golf. If I were the USGA, I wouldn't want my head to be buried in the sand, when determining future policy, not realizing, or understanding, this reality.

From a practical or realistic point of view, there is no increase in the supply of sports to individuals. Who will risk breaking an arm or a leg which results in being out of work for a week or more ?

You're living in a dream world if you think that the older population, 40-70 has a variety of sports available to them and as such, golf is far less attractive.[/color]

I don't believe this competition factor, has been mentioned thus far on any of the multitude of the recent usga rollback threads.

That's because it's non-existant and thus irrelevant.[/color]

« **Reply #35 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:00:51 PM »

Quote

That's absurd, if anything golf courses have been softened over the years. Bunkers filled in, greens flattened, Junior, Woman's and Senior tees added. The whole thrust over the last 50 years has been inclusonary and softening in the name of "fairness".

It's that sofenting that I'M talking about when I contend mundain designs didn't firmly place the hook, in the would be golfers mouth..

Patrick, I don't know about you, but I was introduced to the sport in my earlier years. Not in my forties. My point in using the extreme sports, was that young people, who would later hopefully become the new influx of retail golfers, later in life, are not being given the introduction. Maybe the first tee program will help that? Which I doubt.

and,

Just one minor point that you raised. If your club has been seeking new members for thirty years. How can you argue now, that numbers are down and the distance lure isn't hooking them? It implies that old game didn't hook them either.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:27:58 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on October 12, 2005, 08:00:51 PM

Quote
That's absurd, if anything golf courses have been softened over the years. Bunkers filled in, greens flattened, Junior, Woman's and Senior tees added. The whole thrust over the last 50 years has been inclusonary and softening in the name of "fairness".

It's that sofenting that I'M talking about when I contend mundain designs didn't firmly place the hook, in the would be golfers mouth..

But, it wasn't a mundane design, it was a great design. Whimps, or golfers new to the game wanted to make the courses easier in the name of fairness and to appeal to a greater variety of golfers.

Clubs were seeking to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That's why they were softened, because they were perceived as being unfair to golfers with lesser skill sets, instead of retaining their higher standards and requiring golfers to aspire to meet the challenge they presented.[/color]

Patrick, I don't know about you, but I was introduced to the sport in my earlier years. Not in my forties. My point in using the extreme sports, was that young people, who would later hopefully become the new influx of retail golfers, later in life, are not being given the introduction. Maybe the first tee program will help that? Which I doubt.

I think the first tee program is a waste of money that could be better used to initiate and sustain good caddy programs which would accomplish far more.[/color]

Just one minor point that you raised. If your club has been seeking new members for thirty years. How can you argue now, that numbers are down and the distance lure isn't hooking them? It implies that old game didn't hook them either.

It implies neither, that's what you choose to infer.

My point was that loosing distance isn't going to create an exodus from the game.

The club I reference has a poor location. Being on the board and involved with admissions for over 20 years I can assure you that NOONE ever joined because distance lured them to our front gates.

Our culture has changed.
Golf/country clubs used to be the focal point of the community, a dawn to dusk refuge for golfers, card players, diners, socializers and dancers.

Today, men and women are more family oriented.

In the old days, the division of labor was simple.
Men WORKED, Women were housewives and mothers.
Today, both work and both have shared responsibilities at home and elsewhere, hence time away from home is more limited, and with 5-6 hour rounds, playing golf is less attractive.

IF a round of golf were played in 3 hours, routinely, it would be far more attractive to those people.

Losing distance and more diverse ball flight won't cause anyone to stop playing golf. 5-6 hour rounds and prohibitive costs will.[/color]

« **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:52:10 PM »

Patrick, You make excellent points. I'd add that houses were much different then. Now, new homes have all the amenities that the club atmosphere used to provide. Which has led to the recent increase in a total lack of social skills and inter-personal skills that too many dysfunctional families never taught.

However, reading between the lines, on the subject of the disfugurment of courses issue, it apparently ocurred long before there was a ProV1. So was there a precident set? Ironic, one seemed to come as a result of the depression, in the interest of lowering costs. Now, in the era of excess capital, they disfigure again, on the wrong side of prudent.

« **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:54:22 PM »

Tom...my Mizuno irons I bought used from the assistant pro...the Ping G2 full price...$299 at the time...the golf balls...I get $5 off every dozen at a local golf shop...like I said a good deal, but a deal available to everyone....

« **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on October 12, 2005, 08:43:34 AM

Patrick, YOU seem to be the one hung up on "class warefare", not me....

I am saying, if you make the game more exclusive...in any fashion...limiting technology...making the course more difficult...you automatically limit the participants...thus you make the game more elite...

The question asked in the title of this thread is "would losing players to increaded difficulty be so bad"....you seems to be saying.. NO

I'll grant you that if you rolled back the CLUBS, by taking away the big headed drivers in favor of small headed or especially if we went back to wooden woods, it might limit the participants somewhat. Mainly because of a lot of people who never had to play them before and would be really frustrated seeing how much harder it was -- guys who started before 1980 just dealt with it as it was and didn't think "damn, this game would be easy if I had a hollow titanium head twice the size of this driver's head".

However, I don't think anything as simple as merely rolling back the ball, by either making it behave more like it did in the 80s or 90s or by simply cutting back its liveliness so it acted like it does today and just went shorter would limit participation at all. Why should anyone care if in their mind a "big drive" used to be 300 yards but now was 270 yards or whatever, or that Tiger's bombs of 340 would now be 305? Some people would need to move up to the next set of tees (and some courses would probably do it for them by undoing their lengthening and tee building of the past 10 or 20 years) Their egos might be bruised by not playing the tips anymore, but you'd probably have to look pretty far and wide to find anyone who quits the game because of it.

« **Reply #40 on:** October 13, 2005, 06:07:58 AM »

Craig
Is there reason why you do not want to give the retail off-the-shelf prices of these items?

Mizuno MP30 irons:
Ping G2 driver: $299
Cleveland fairway wood:
Dozen-ProV1:

My impression is you are a little low on the cost of the G2 today.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 13, 2005, 07:53:12 AM »

Tom...Mizuno irons probably run somewhere in the $700 range if new...the G2 driver can be had for around $200 new...it has been replaced by the G5...ProV's and Nike Platinums can ussually be purchased for $40-$45...

However, it is all relative...gas was .45 cents a gallon 20 years ago...a home could be purchased for $40,000 20 years ago...a car for $10,000....

« **Reply #42 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:08:23 AM »

Doug...here's my take on it...

Joe Sixpack has enough problems playing the game....he complains that the rough is too deep...he can't hit out of it when he's lucky enough to find his ball....the greens are very fast...3 putts are common for him...fairways have been narrowed so he's in that deep rough all too often...he's purchased a new driver with a 460cc head and now he's a little straighter....he still hits a good one about 220 yards, but its a little straighter thanks to this club and a high spin ball...he's happy about that...in fact...his equipment makes the game tolerable....and then he hears that a bunch from the exclusive private club down the road wants a "rollback" iin equipment...they say bombastic drives and over active golf balls are making their 125 year old course obsolete....if something isn't done they'll be forced to ruin this classic course to maintain what the original designer intended....

What do you suppose Joe Sixpack's response is gonna be??

Oh, I'm sure he's going to love hearing someone tell him its for the "good of the game" and once the "rollback" occurs the fairways will be magically widened and the rough cut down....the greens....well, they are fast and that's how its going to be...live with it...

The big whine about equipment is not coming from Joe Sixpack...but he will be the one feeling it when the rollback happens....

This whole argument reminds me of what happened here in Montana 20 years ago when Fish,Wildlife and Parks got serious about managing our trout rivers...they instituted regulations that cut the number of fish you could keep from 10 fish to, in some cases, zero fish...they made sections of some rivers fly fishing only...lots of locals STOPPED fishing...they said screw it...it wasn't worth it if they couldn't keep any fish or use the equipment they wanted...20 years later I still run into people that tell me they haven't fished in years because the regulations took all their fun out of the sport...

This is my argument...you regulate and you run the risk of making the "game" elitist...

« **Reply #43 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:59:23 AM »

Craig Sweet,

You forgot an important component in your presentation regarding the woes that Joe Sixpack is complaining about.

1. Why is he complaining about the rough being too
deep ? If it's too deep he has a legitimate complaint.
And, instead of worrying about a course down the
street, worry about your customer and fix the rough.

2, Why is he complaining about the greens being too
fast ? Are they too fast ? If so, worry about
his needs and not the issues down the street, and
fix the greens.

3. The rough and greens may be perfect, but Joe Sixpack
like almost every golfer, likes to complain. If you
listen to everyone's complaints and put full faith and
credence in them, as if they're the gospel, you'll drive
yourself crazy. Most complaints aren't valid. They are
usually made in the sole context of that particular
players game and how it is impacted by the features
and conditions he comes in contact with.

In your position, you're a reactionary because you're constantly hammered by complaints, most of which aren't valid. This is why dictatorships work best at clubs.
Once members know that whining isn't permited they stop complaining. But, if they get owners, boards, presidents, officers, committeemen and chairmen to listen to them, the complaining becomes non-stop because they know they have an audience, and those of us who play golf all know that you can always find something to complain about.

This is also why some clubs forbid members to address issues with other than the department head, committee chairman, board member or president.

If someone stood at the 18th green and asked each member of the foursome that just finished, what they found wrong with the course today, they'd need a court reporter and 30 reems of paper to take down all of the complaints.

There's too much sand in the bunkers.
There's not enough sand in the bunkers
The greens are too fast
The greens are too slow

I learned a lesson a long while ago when I was a green chairman. When someone would come to me with a complaint, I would tell them that I had a lot of issues on my mind and could they do me a favor and drop me a note regarding their complaint/issue and that I'd look into it.

How many notes do you think I received over a period of several years ?

You're problem is that you don't understand the more global issue of human nature and it's interaction with golf and golfers, and what happens when you offer yourself up as a dart board for golfers.

P.S. If the golf course that Joe Sixpack is complaining about
has all of these problems that his game can't overcome,
why is he playing there ? Why doesn't he play at
another club without these difficult conditions ?

I think you're creating a false and flawed argument to justify your concept that rich white golfers want to preserve their old line classic golf course and don't care about the game or other peoples enjoyment of the game.

If you look at the broad spectrum of people calling for a rollback to protect the game, it includes the greatest golfers in the world, great architects, developers of golf properties, club owners and club's memberships. It's not the narrow spectrum you would have us believe.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 13, 2005, 10:12:51 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 13, 2005, 08:59:23 AM

I think you're creating a false and flawed argument to justify your concept that rich white golfers want to preserve their old line classic golf course and don't care about the game or other peoples enjoyment of the game.

If you look at the broad spectrum of people calling for a rollback to protect the game, it includes the greatest golfers in the world, great architects, developers of golf properties, club owners and club's memberships. It's not the narrow spectrum you would have us believe.

I dunno, Pat. Your final paragraph approaches a private clubs vs. public golf dichotomy. Intentionally or not you're assigning one side of the argument to those who are "greatest", "great", "developers" or private clubs (with two different constituencies). Sounds a lot like elites vs. the masses to me.

I am really coming to think that's what this is all about. The more a person considers himself or herself part of golf's elite the more insistent his or her belief that distance is ruining the game. It's not totally that simplistic of course but there's an element of class warfare in the whole argument.

« **Reply #45 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:11:19 PM »

Your off by about 400 bucks according Edwin, about $1300 total price tag (with all your claims of elitism, I figured you'd low ball)...although you were accurate with golf balls...about $40 a dozen.

Technology begats more technology....obviously you upgrade periodically. You are about due for a new set I reckon.

It looks like the only people who can afford your technology are the elite and those who work at public golf courses. Those appear to be the two groups you are most interested in protecting.

« **Reply #46 on:** October 13, 2005, 09:15:22 PM »

I've played with people at very nice courses whose bag of clubs could be purchased for about $500. The fact of enough people wanting $1,300 clubs that the Edwin Watts catalog is full of them doesn't mean it costs $1,300 to buy a set of golf clubs. Heck, you can spend twice that much for a set that don't perform any differently than the $1,300 ones (which don't perform any better than the $500 ones).

I'm a high-handicap short-hitter. If anyone needs help from his equipment it's me. The irons I used for my last round are nearly eight years old (and I bought them after they were no longer on the market) and cost me $400. The fairway woods were bought on closeout three years ago for $100 each and my driver is a discontinued model clubhead (under $30) on a $20 graphite shaft. The only thing that is frequently upgraded on my equipment is are the grips which I change every year or two. I do admit to having several putters but only one of them cost over $100 and the one that I use all the time was bought on closeout for about $40-$50.

Technology does not beget technology. People buying New! Imrpoved! equipment begets more New! Improved! equipment but that's just the modern consumer society. OTOH, a lightweight graphite driver shaft can help most people get a little more clubhead speed. Perimeter weighted irons with fat soles help poor golfers get the ball in the air. Oversized Ti heads can keep the ball a little more under control. None of that costs any more in inflation-adjusted dollars than your MacGregor Tourney blades or whatever cost back during the last ice age.

However, the new golf balls do fly farther and straighter at high clubhead speeds. That's a genuine improvement or advance or pity or disaster (depending on your point of view) but it really only affects those who hit the ball pretty hard.

« **Reply #47 on:** October 13, 2005, 09:34:02 PM »

Tom...I told you what I PAID for the clubs...used Mizuno's...a $299 Ping driver...the Cleveland fairway wood I got for something like $125 because I traded another fairway wood for it...

I am in it for about $700....do you know what a mower monkey makes...hourly?

But, speaking of elitists....its funny, but I hear very few public golf course regulars bitching and moaning about "the distance problem" and the need for a rollback....and I hear very few of them crying over the loss of a classic course to this percieved "problem".

I guess their "ignorance" is bliss?

« **Reply #48 on:** October 13, 2005, 10:57:57 PM »

I didn't ask you what you paid. I asked you (twice) what the average Joe would pay off the shelf. The true is the equipment you are interested in protecting is only able to be utilized by a small percentage of the golfing public--the elite if you will

You have no idea who is public golf course regular and who is not. You ought not make uninformed judgments based on your perceived class distinctions.

« **Reply #49 on:** October 13, 2005, 11:02:39 PM »

Tom....Hardly...you had better check the bags of people golfing...do you go to the golf course....ever?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Sweet

A_Clay_Man

JESII

George Pazin

Kirk Gill

RJ_Daley

Jim_Kennedy

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Craig Sweet

Doug Siebert

T_MacWood

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Patrick_Mucci

Brent Hutto

T_MacWood

Brent Hutto

Craig Sweet

T_MacWood

Craig Sweet