[Chris_Clouser]

Tom D.,

I saw your question to Craig Sweet.

I would nominate the Purgatory course here in my home town.

I think you just need to up the par to about 78 when you play the back tees.  

[Sean_A]

When golfers look in the mirror and take the blame for creating the distance issue and decide to do something about it then perhaps things will change.

Sean, you don't really believe that'll ever happen, do you? No matter how far JB Holmes or Daly or Tiger hits it on the TV freakshow, how many golfers/consumers think the ball goes too far [b[for them[/b], or that strategies have been lost because they now hit the ball too far?
The process you wish for will never happen. How do I know? Because of Pat Mucci's  'Joy of hitting it shorter' thread from 2 weeks ago. In spite of what Pat wrote in that thread, in spite of Pat's love of architecture and strategy and classic courses, he will be trying to hit it as far as possible with the latest and greatest equipment as soon as he can.

Andy

If this is the case, perhaps there isn't a distance problem.  I have yet to be convinced of any problem, but that is mostly down to my own inability to play the game properly and not givin' a toss for what professionals do.  The pro game is for pros to sort out.

I don't know if the punter will ever tire of spending on the next biggest and best.  You are probably right, they most likely won't.  I am convinced that relying on the USGA to solve any distance problem is a long wait for nothing.  The distance issue has been brewing for nearly as long as the USGA has existed.  

It is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough.  I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone.  I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.  

Ciao

Sean

[Scott Cannon]

name a good 7500 yard course which is also an interesting 6500 yard course.  Just one, please.  I don't believe the two are really compatible.

Stonebridge Ranch The Dye Course. 7300 tips-6300 members.
They have had several q-schools there and the boys get pretty beat up by it.
I am a 3-4 hdcp and dont it it Bubba Holmes or anything, but I can carry it 245-255 or so and was playing with a buddy that hit it short. He wanted to play the 6300 tees so I agreed.
I started my round carrying all the trouble, only to find out Mr. Dye had made it virtually impossible to play from past the intended landing area. It's been some time since that round, and I cant quite remember what horrible troubles I found myself in, but I do remember hitting a lot of 3 and 4 irons they rest of the day.
I am not saying this qualifies as a great course, but Pete did find a way to slow "speeders" down.

[john_stiles]

The ruination certainly started with the PGA Tour and the all the hoopla associated there with.

In the beginning, you hold an event, you like the event, and you want to host the event a second time.  Naturally,  before you do anything, you reflect upon the last years event, discuss with PGA Tour, and see how things can improve.

Ain't nobody embarking on course redos/renovations etc. without getting some sort of head nods from the Tour if you want an event or want to keep an event.

And if you want an event, you ain't getting squat until the Tour visits, and you implement any 'suggestions' from the Tour.  It is just natural that the Tour imposes this on a course to display their product.

A truly bad combination of technology (long ball), greed, money in regards to the playing fields.

If you like building longer courses every 5 to 10 years, or making your course 'better' or 'tougher' then it's your cup of tea and this is truly the golden age of new equipment.

The sad or tough part is that everyone benefits from the new ball and technology affecting Tour sites. This ultimately requires much expensive work on many more courses.

This golden age of new equipment combined with the money and greed of sports has affected many playing fields.

Tournaments have been responsible for pushing course changes and the Tour has been a big part of that.

[Craig Sweet]

It does seem everything exploded with the coming of Tiger. Tour purse money went through the roof, equipment changes came fast and furious, work out facilities are the norm on tour now,additional "minor league" tours were established, long drive contest were organized and became something other than a "freak show" and are now regular ESPN fodder.

I say blame it all on Tiger....

I think the continued use of classic courses to host tournaments is  a misguided effort to fit a new model into an old way of doing things. The sooner people wake up and realize this is not working, the better. People need to put aside their notion that classic courses can and should host tournaments for players of this caliber.  

[Andy Hughes]

If this is the case, perhaps there isn't a distance problem.  I have yet to be convinced of any problem, but that is mostly down to my own inability to play the game properly and not givin' a toss for what professionals do.  The pro game is for pros to sort out.

Sean, I couldn't agree more.
For myself, I play ok, maybe drive it 255-260 if I catch it and I have not seen my distance make the game too easy, or make classic courses too short.

t is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough.  I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone.  I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.

Again, I agree, but would take it a step further.  
If someone feels the strategy of a classic course has been lost
because the clubs and/or balls are too long, then by all means, use older clubs and older balls. If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please,  play without a modern driver.  Use hickories.  There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.  
If your concern is how JB Holmes or Tiger plays the course, well, not sure why anyone else should care?  I have had the good fortune to play the Old Course several times, and it was thrilling, and the hazards definitely applied to me. Carrying Hell into the breeze was a definite decision.  Do I care, or was my enjoyment impacted, because Daly can fly the ball past some things I needed to consider and navigate around? Nope.

[Rick Shefchik]

I think the continued use of classic courses to host tournaments is  a misguided effort to fit a new model into an old way of doing things. The sooner people wake up and realize this is not working, the better. People need to put aside their notion that classic courses can and should host tournaments for players of this caliber.  

I agree. It's too late to retrofit the modern game of golf into the classic old courses, and the effort to retrofit the classic courses into the modern game of golf is an abomination.

[SL_Solow]

The issue is, when is a game "mature" so that further changes tend to harm the game rather than help it.  Obviously this is a matter of taste.  As noted in other threads, most observers think that tennis has been harmed at the highest level by the new equipment which allows greater pace and spin without any significant benefit to the amateur.  The loss of spectator interest has added to the decline of tennis as a participant sport.  In golf, the difference is more subtle.  It depends in part on the importance of classic architecture.  Until recently the classic courses provided an interesting test to the greatest players while allowing the amateur a chance to experience the challenge of these courses without too many differences.  While the disparity between the types of players was great, it was related more to skill and accuracy than to strength and distance because the nature of the equipment (softer balls with greater spin, smaller clubheads requiring greater precision in striking) emphasized these characteristics.  While I agree that there are more players capable of hitting it long today, if you saw Nicklaus in his prime or studied Snead etc, there is no reason to believe that they could not have kept up given the same equipment.

But the difference now is that the synergy between the new balls and clubs increases as swing speed increases so that the disparity in distance  between the pros and the ams has grown and continues to grow.  Thus they can no longer play the same courses.  The pros can no longer be fairly tested by the benchmark courses and have no way to measure thenselves against Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus etc.  A course wishing to be deemed "championship" must be made longer.  Acquisition and maintenance costs go up and the amateur can't reasonably enjoy the experience.  The game was mature and the changes have only weakened it.

Was all this "caused" by the tour?  Probably not; there are a large number of culprits.  But many of our young people are drawn to sport by watching their professinal heroes and many other amateurs use the pro tours as benchmarks for what is good.  Serve as a green chairman and listen to your members compare your course conditions to those on TV and you'll see what I mean.  Thus if there is to be change (and I am dubious that it will come) it must occur at the pro level.  The USGA must do its part but if the pro tours would stand up, change would come that much sooner.  Will the ball companies object?  That's an interesting question.  Titleist would but for those trying to get market share, a change in the rules might give them a better chance as Titleisr's advantage would be lessened.  So long as the pros were bound, there would be little amateur objection.  Alternatively, amateurs could play whatever they wanted in nontournament rounds and if a market continued to exist, the manufacturers could supply it.

[john_stiles]

Rather silly, all in all, for a $2 ball.  Just do the tourney ball thingy, and all will follow.     Or would it be better to change all the courses for millions again in another 5-10 years.

The people writing the B&I rules do not make B&I quipment and cannot possibly know, and will never ever know, as much as the manufacturers.

By nature, the manufacturers will always find ways around the rules.  

Out of the trade show,  I noticed someone was touting a hollow core ball.  I guess we should ask the USGA/R&A what they have done to evaluate a hollow core ball.  Probably nothing except testing the ball if submitted.

There will be more ideas on how to gain distance within the existing rules.  And ideas do not have to be submitted to the USGA.  As the manufacturers normally test before submittal,  the USGA will likely never know until it is on the market that they have been out-foxed again.

The manufacturers' leading promoters & sellers, the Tour, will always demand advancement.

[PThomas]

maybe Jack should designate a lesser flying ball for The Memorial...he's been maybe the leading voice in this regard for about 20 years, and the boys usually wack par around pretty good there, and I guarantee at least some players would show up, cause not all of them have zillions...

[Brian_Sleeman]

It's the equipment manufacturer's fault, for innovatively building more advanced equipment to make the game a little easier in an attempt to make a profit and build on it by advertising on TV.

It's the Tour player's fault, for accepting a check from the manufacturers and playing their equipment in an attempt to play better, make more money, and get more air time on TV.

It's the Tour administration's fault, for choosing over-conditioned, long, pretty, and difficult courses every week and broadcasting them all on TV.

It's the course developer's fault, for catering to the masses and demanding architects build them courses that look like the ones they see on TV.

It's the course architect's fault, for selling out and acquiescing to the developer's demands for a course that looks like the ones they see on TV.

It's the player's fault, for believing his TV is always right and that the courses it shows him are the ones to play, and insisting that whatever course he belongs to or pays fees at looks as much like the TV courses as possible.

It's the player's friends' fault, for being impressed and jealous when a friend plays a place they've seen on TV and comes back with a hat proudly proclaiming as much.

It's the greens committee's fault, for being made up of groups of those players who demand that their superintendent make their course look and play like the ones on TV.

It's the superintendent's fault, for not putting his job on the line by going against the greens committee and instead giving them a course that looks like the ones they see on TV.

It's the TV maker's fault, for making a product that turns people into zombies who define their hobbies (and the equipment they use, and the people they try to emulate, and the places they perform their hobbies) by what they see on TV.

It's the Open Championship's fault, for being on TV only once a year.

Maybe if people spent less time in front of it and more time finding courses they enjoyed, it'd all resolve itself.

[john_stiles]

Another dream would be for the Tour to stick to TPC courses, plus a fixed rota for the majors,  or just build new courses for the majors.

The urge to play the classics can also be laid at the feet of those sitting in Far Hills.

I did not mean to imply I have no fault (I do own some Pro Vs ).  But I agree with the idea to roll the ball back and I'll take that lick on my game.

[DMoriarty]

I agree with others who have said that the US Open and the Masters most impact the way much of the golfing world views course design and setup.   Of these two, I am more inclined to place blame on the US Open because it the USGA is our governing body, and therefore owes us a duty to only act "for the good of the game."   The US Open sets the standard for what should be considered a good, challenging championship golf course, and unfortunately many courses are influenced by what they see at the USOpen.  

So when the USGA stretches Bethpage to absurd lengths and sets it up so that some of the top golfers in the world cannot even reach some of the fairways, this sends a message.  And when the USGA chooses courses like Torrey Pines South (very long and a great view, but far from great) to host our national championship, it sends a message.  

Ocassionally they send a message I can support (like considering public courses for our nat'l championship,) but generally the message they send is not good for architecture and not "good for the game."

,

Bogey....I think the Old Works is a pretty good golf course from several of its tee's...to name one.

I like Old Works very much but not sure one could consider it a great course from any tee . . .

Plus, there are a number of holes which are significanly different (and arguably better) from the back tees.  No. 1 and No. 10 are two examples-- both have back tees calling for an interesting diagonal drive over the creek while the other tees are all on the other side of the creek.   Similarly, I recall a few other holes where the back tee required a choice of just how much rough or hazard or slag to carry from the tee, and the others tees required much less choice.  

[Craig Sweet]

Well, like I said Old Works is a GOOD course from various tees. I agree, from the tips #1 and #10 are very different holes than they are from the next set of forward tees...

Phantom Hills is another Montana course thats pretty good from several different tees...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean, I couldn't agree more.
For myself, I play ok, maybe drive it 255-260 if I catch it and I have not seen my distance make the game too easy, or make classic courses too short.

Let's see if I understand this.
You are a vastly inferior talent when compared to Hogan, Snead, Sarazen and others, yet you routinely outdrive them by a good margin.

But, you don't think technology has changed the play of golf classic golf courses, the same ones they played ?

Or have you forgotten that these courses have all been  lengthened to counter act the trend.

t is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough.  I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone.  I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.

Again, I agree, but would take it a step further.  
If someone feels the strategy of a classic course has been lost
because the clubs and/or balls are too long, then by all means, use older clubs and older balls.

Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?

When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?

If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ?

And, while finding old clubs is relatively easy, where do you find old balls, except on TEPaul ?

If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please,  play without a modern driver.  Use hickories.  There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.  

It's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.

If your concern is how JB Holmes or Tiger plays the course, well, not sure why anyone else should care?  I have had the good fortune to play the Old Course several times, and it was thrilling, and the hazards definitely applied to me. Carrying Hell into the breeze was a definite decision.  Do I care, or was my enjoyment impacted, because Daly can fly the ball past some things I needed to consider and navigate around? Nope.

Except when Susan Daly, age 9 is the one carrying Hell Bunker into the breeze, then you'll care, but, it will be too late.

[Sean_A]

Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?

When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?

If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ?


If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please,  play without a modern driver.  Use hickories.  There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.  

It's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.

late.[/b]

Pat

I play in a few tournaments, but generally try to avoid them or play in ones which are are easy to enjoy myself while playing.  I play for money nearly every time out.  Not much though, just enough to keep things interesting.  I am not bothererd about getting an "edge" or being disadvantaged.  Guys that carry on complaining about distance then contribute to the problem by hitting mega drivers and the best balls don't make sense to me unless you are a top amateur or pro.  Even then they are putting their success as more important than their idea of what the game should be.

I generally don't have a problem "interfacing" with architecture.  It seems to come naturally to the vast majority of guys I see on golf courses.  True, there are some courses which I really enjoy that technology has passed by.  The solution is simple.  Don't play these old favourites or don't use ultra modern equipment.  

The distance problem isn't new.  If golfers continue to rely on somebody else to solve the problem then the next generation of golfers will have this same conversation, just as the past four generations have.  If the USGA ever decides to act and I believe they will, it will be a compromise which has little effect.  A USGA action will come nowhere near a rollback to 1995 or whatever date people think was optimum "interfacing" between architecture and technology.  Any action on the part of the USGA may stop some advances for the future.  It isn't going to stop 300 yard drives.  

Ciao

Sean

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

The "distance" problem is new.

For the first time, golfers can swing as hard as they want without fear of consequence.

The ball, vis a vis the equipment goes straighter.
When you combine this with swinging harder ....... unbelievable distance is the new byproduct.

Mishits go farther then the best drives of 40 years ago.

Explain that.

[TEPaul]

"Is the PGA Tour primarily responsible for the ruination of classic architecture?"


Patrick:

Aren't you the one who's so often says you see your friends and some contemporaries hitting the ball so much farther today than they used to?

Are all those friends and contemporaries of yours on the PGA Tour?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Surely, you've heard of the "trickle down" effect.  

[Sean_A]

Pat

If a golfer can swing as hard as he can without fear of consequence then it is the fault of the designer and/or the set up of the course.  I watch pros often enough to know that on proper courses their sprayed drives are penalized.  Watch a tape of nearly any Open.

Pros and commentators have been complaining about the distance flat bellies achieve since anybody cared to read about golf.  Drives haven't suddenly gone from 150 to 315 overnight.  There has been steady progress with balls and sticks over 125 years.  The advancements of today were made possible by the advancements of yesterday.  Courses have been lengthening since 1900ish to combat distance.  So the distance problem certainly isn't new.  

I am guessing that the recent quantum leap in technology which has effectively skipped a generation or two of normal progression is what has people up in arms.  If progress had gone on at a steady pace and the distances achieved today weren't achieved for 20 years, would so many people be on the distance band wagon?  

Either way all golfers have to answer the same question.  Do they care about the distance issue enough to not use equipment which affords "unbelievable distance"?  When enough people answer that question positively then there is a chance for effective change.  There is no point in hammering on about distance when you are stood in the proshop swinging the latest driver while the pro is ringing up a dozen mega fly balls on the register.

Ciao

Sean

[Brent Hutto]

OK, so the Haskell ball went much farther than the balls it superceded. Was it also straighter? I have a hunch that just about 100 years ago this whole scenario played out except there was no PGA Tour to televise.

[Sean_A]

Brent

I know since I was a child companies have fooled around with dimple patterns looking for straighter flight.  I am totally clueless to what degree ball flight was improved.

It has been my impression that when the rubber core ball came into existence it flew farther, but the flight was less predictable.  This was especially true around greens.  The old gp was much easier to control.  Can anybody confirm either way?

Ciao

Sean

[Andy Hughes]

Let's see if I understand this.
You are a vastly inferior talent when compared to Hogan, Snead, Sarazen and others, yet you routinely outdrive them by a good margin.

Pat, we've never played together--how can you state that I am vastly inferior?  That would be like discussing a course you had never played

But, you don't think technology has changed the play of golf classic golf courses, the same ones they played ?

I never said that. I said for me . Far different things.
Example--I played Inwood once, and on 18 I had a shorter club into the green than Jones' famous approach.  Does that mean the course was too short to challenge me, or for me to enjoy? No, for me, the course was both challenging and fun, even though equipment has made the course play shorter for me than it did many years ago for a far better player like Jones.

Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?
When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?
If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ?
And, while finding old clubs is relatively easy, where do you find old balls, except on TEPaul ?

Then you need to make a choice Pat: play the game for fun, for the joy that you eloquently wrote about in your post several weeks ago, for the thrill of interfacing with the architecture. Or play it so you can win a $2 nassau from your buds.
Or best yet, play with buds who all agree to play with a 10 year old driver and you can have the best of al worlds.

t's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.

The features are obsolete if you hit the ball too far seems to be your contention. If that is the case, it should be very, very easy for you to remedy that (i.e. a simple change to the equipment you put in your bag will solve it).
If the Bottle Hole is no longer as thrilling/fun/interesting, then clearly you should not be hitting your latest and greatest Callaway.  Bring a 10 year old driver with you, or use your 3 wood, and you can interface to your heart's content.

Except when Susan Daly, age 9 is the one carrying Hell Bunker into the breeze, then you'll care, but, it will be too late.

Pat, why exactly do I care what Susan does?  My only concerns are my game, not Miss Daly's.  As long as the features on the course are still applicable to me, then I am content.  If the features are not applicable to me any longer, then I have two choices: accept it and carry on, or do something to bring the features back to relevance.  

[john_stiles]

Yes, yes, yes.  This has all happened before and was decried before by some.

And, no doubt,  it will keep going.  If you think anyone at the manufacturers are taking sabbaticals,  you can forgetta about that.

And the trickle down is a flood.  If you have not seen this at your course, you need to play outside the old man's group or the Sunday School nine hole match.

If you take the approach, oh well, it is just a game;  I think you will continue to be flattened.  

Such a shame to lessen so many courses because of the B&I.

$2 for the ball,  millions for killing the courses.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Surely, you've heard of the "trickle down" effect."  

Patrick:

Yes, I have heard of the trickle down effect, some people use it in an economic context, but is there a point somewhere in that remark of yours?    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()