[Mike Hendren]

George,

With apologies to any NRA members:  Techology doesn't ruin golf courses.  People ruin golf courses.  Repeat after me:  NO is a complete sentence.

Huck,

Build 'em miles long.  I don't care.  I know it costs more to build and maintain, but price is ultimatelyh a function of the relationship between supply and demand and I could use the extra walk between greens and tees to burn a few calories.

BTW, my smooth 37 yesterday was from the white tees:  3000 yards and par 35.  Big whoop.  On the way home I felt like I'd won The Open Championship.  

With apologies to Kip Dynamite:

"You know I love technology.
But not as much as golf you see.
But still I love technology.
Always and forever.
Always and forever."

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Bogey - you want golf joy?  Try a 38 on one's home back nine using hickory clubs made in the 1930s.  

So I get what you're saying - there is still WAY WAY WAY WAY more joy than bad to be found in this game - and if modern sticks allow someone to do that, then God bless him.

I just also don't like the fact damn near every course around me costs way too much to play.  And the distance issue does factor into that, as overlong and overdone courses are built with it in mind.

So you are correct, NO is a complete sentence.  But if it is the answer to "can I afford to play golf today" than it's not a happy result.

TH

[Mike Hendren]

I just also don't like the fact damn near every course around me costs way too much to play.  

That has zero to do with technology.  More with highest and best permitted use, land entitlement issues, climate and job growth.

Mike

[George Pazin]

Bogey, I understand your position, and the free market guy that dominates my soul agrees with much of it, but we are talking about a game/sport with rules.

What is easier/more realistic? Tweaking the rules, or convincing everyone in charge of golf courses to do nothing? The evidence out there appears to be much more in favor of my position than yours.

Huck, the Player/Trevino stuff was directed at whomever it was that said they couldn't compete today, which I know wasn't you. That's just silly, almost as silly as not acknowledging the superior skills of Big Ben.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bogey:

Of course I defer to your greater knowledge on the subject... but... isn't it logical to assume that developers want their courses to be seen as a challenge, a "too easy" course being poo-poohed by today's golfer... Then as the ball goes farther, to achieve this they have to build a lot more into the course, or so they think... making the costs more than they would have to be if the ball didn't go so far (in their perception)....

Of course thankfully courses are being built that don't buy into any of this - courses like Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse.  And obviously lower cost of land and many other things factor into their ability to charge lesser green fees... but... isn't at least a small part of this the fact they don't CARE if they build fancy hazards, eye-candy, brutally long hard holes, etc. as a reaction to making their course a "challenge" in this manner?  That they create their challenge in far more fun and cost-effective ways?

Isn't this revealed as so many people think of those courses as "too easy" at first glance?

My god I am making a lot of wild logical leaps here, I know.  But in my odd mind, it all make sense.  Technology gives some greater distance, all greater accuracy, and the foolish react to this by building horrifically long, hard, expensive courses because they think they need to challenge Tiger, even though he's never going to step foot anywhere near their course.  

And there are no shortage of fools.

TH

[David_Tepper]

If Fred Funk, at age 49, was able to win the Players Championship last year, some how think Trevino and Player would manage to win more than their fair share of tournaments in this (or any) era!

[Tom Huckaby]

George - thanks.... but wait a second....

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Another example for Mike Hendren:

In the thread on the course in New Jersey, Mayday Malone writes:


#7 was the Tillinghast award winning design. The other two guys I was with stood on the tee for a few minutes trying to figure where to go. Everyone decided to take the heroic route. We thought the penalty was not enough to give up all that distance by going right.


I assume you know the design of this hole - it's the one that was used at Lido - he meant to say MacKenzie, but hey, what's an old dead guy mix-up among friends.  

Recall the design of that hole.  Heroic route onto a small island allows the green to be easily reached in two... safer route to the side means generally three shots are required, or at least it's longer and the angle is way worse.

Note the diagram and description of it are here - hole 7:

http://www.mcculloughsgolf.com/billyCasper/courses/view.asp?id=70&page=883

If these guys weren't using modern clubs and the modern ball, the choices on that hole would NOT be so obvious.

This is how technology effects golf today.  Club selection is muted these days.  How often do you not hit driver on a hole because it's too tight?  How often do you lay up out of fear of a mis-hit?

For many, it's a great thing that they can hit the ball solidly so easily.  I can't deny that there's a lot of joy to be found in this.

But this club selection / mental part of the game is sadly missing today, don't you think?  And at least in a way isn't this a bad thing?

TH

[Jason Topp]

Huck, the Player/Trevino stuff was directed at whomever it was that said they couldn't compete today, which I know wasn't you. That's just silly, almost as silly as not acknowledging the superior skills of Big Ben.

It was me and perhaps I overstated my case, but:

In 1980 - Trevino gave up 15 yards average driving distance to the longest player on tour (259-274).  He was 67th on the driving distance list.   He gave up 7 yards to Tom Watson, the leading money winner (259-266).  

In 2005 - he would have needed to average 309 yards off the tee to be within 7 yards of the leading money winner and 303 to be within the driving distance of the longest driver (Scott Hend).  

I have no idea what his driving distance would be today, but if he were 67th on the list, he would average 292 and would have to make up 24 yards against Tiger.  My guess is that he would not average 292 today.    

[Tom Huckaby]

Bogey:

Why should their scores, or their results, determine this?

Look at the diagram of the hole.

Each of them concluded that the straight-ahead route was so easily done that it wasn't worth bothering to hit to the HUGE safe side.

In previous times that straight-ahead route would be one hell of a risk, one taken only because they couldn't reach the green otherwise.  Today, they can reach either way, it's no big deal - but most importantly, there's no fear of a mishit causing them to not reach the island at all, or miss it to the sides.

A formerly difficult choice made so simple... that to me is not a good thing.  

And it doesn't matter a lick to me what their scores were or where their drives ended up - it's all about perceptions and beliefs in abilities with today's clubs (which have to be founded on some successful experience, btw) causing no choices to be required.

TH

ps - darn it, you pulled a Kavanaugh delete on me.  I knew I should have quoted you.  

[George Pazin]

Jason, stats can be very deceiving in arguments like this. I prefer to look at who is winning. Justin Leonard isn't especially high on the distance list, yet won a major, lost 2 in playoffs, won the TPC, competed in numerous team events, etc.

I think if Player/Trevino had grown up in today's environment, they'd simply be different players. They would have understood the premium placed on length today and adjusted accordingly.

I do think your larger point is well made, though - the game's greats would win no matter what, but the game itself is less interesting.

[Jim Nugent]

I think if Player/Trevino had grown up in today's environment, they'd simply be different players. They would have understood the premium placed on length today and adjusted accordingly.

I agree with George.  

One other question.  How long would those guys be in their prime, if they had today's ball and clubs?  i.e., without any adjustments to their swing or game?

Gary was not exactly short.  He won the U.S. Open in 1965 on what was the longest course ever held till then -- nearly 7200 yards as I recall.  Trevino won everywhere but Augusta, and that was in large part mental IMO.  

Wouldn't modern technology give them at least 20 to 30 yards more distance?  That would, hypothetically speaking, make Player competitive on 7700 yard U.S. Open setups.  (Add 7180 from Bellerive to 18 x 30.)  

[DMoriarty]

Bogey,

Trevino was great in large part because both he and his game had personality, and I agree with you that most of the current players aren't even near his class.  Do you suppose that the type of game they play today has anything to do with this?  I don't see room for a guy like Trevino on the tour anymore, in part because of the money but also because the technology has created a one dimensional game.  

Your NASCAR example cuts the other way as well.  They have governed technology, yet the best guys still win.  So why not do the same thing here?  

[Kevin_Reilly]

I don't see room for a guy like Trevino on the tour anymore, in part because of the money but also because the technology has created a one dimensional game.  

I picture Trevino as a (much) better Furyk.

[David_Tepper]

Well despite all the gnashing of teeth at how the young, super-long, super-strong, power hitters have taken over and/or ruined the game, I see the LA Open leaderboard after 3 rounds tells a much different story:

6 of the players in the top ten are either past 40, shorter hitters or of modest stature: Fred Couples, Tim Clark, Trevor Immelman, Jim Furyk, Mark Brooks, Bob Estes.

Others players in the top 20 include Tom Lehman, Brad Faxon and Corey Pavin(!!!).

Again, I submit the notion that Player or Trevino could not compete in today's game is, at the very least, flawed.
   
Some courses reward power. Other courses reward precision. My guess is it has been and will always be that way.
 

[Bob_Huntley]

Jason,

I am not sure in which age group you fall,  but I get the feeling that Trevino could probably be older than your father.

I played with Gary back in 1961 and he was using a 43 and 1/2 inch shaft, a wooden headed driver and knocking the s**t out of it.

In the early seventies I played with Lee Trevino at the old  Rancho Santa Fe  Golf Club, I kept up with him off the tee but when it required a fairway wood to the green of a par five he just corked one over thirty yards past me.

I think it an exercise in futility to denigrate the talents of the old timers. Player and Trevino were competitors and had balls, a talent lacking in some of our bombers. I do not remember Player or Trevino hitting five shots into a lake or quitting like a dog as did  Daly.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Bob,

Was Trevino playing a Faultless?

Mike

[Bob_Huntley]

Mr. Hendren,

I cannot remember, but he gave me one tip.  When hitting an iron let your right shoulder get as low as possible. Have a look at some of his action shots and see how low he gets. I have yet to see a player that seems to keep the blade on the ball longer than did Lee Buck Trevino.

However, he was not the sort you would want to take to the Christian Womens Guild gathering on Friday night.

Bob

[Tom Jefferson]

Bob;

Maybe Lee Buck would have loosened those ladies up a little....they woulda loved it!  Just like most of us loved his original way.

Regarding his ball striking.........remember Mr. Hogan watching Trevino play and commenting that he had ALL the shots.

He would have gotten it done in any era, as Player would have, due to all the intangibles, especially the unrelenting drive to prevail.

Tom

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I am not sure in which age group you fall,  but I get the feeling that Trevino could probably be older than your father.

I played with Gary back in 1961 and he was using a 43 and 1/2 inch shaft, a wooden headed driver and knocking the s**t out of it.

In the early seventies I played with Lee Trevino at the old  Rancho Santa Fe  Golf Club, I kept up with him off the tee but when it required a fairway wood to the green of a par five he just corked one over thirty yards past me.

I think it an exercise in futility to denigrate the talents of the old timers. Player and Trevino were competitors and had balls, a talent lacking in some of our bombers. I do not remember Player or Trevino hitting five shots into a lake or quitting like a dog as did  Daly.

Bob

Bob - I'm 39, Trevino was the first professional I ever saw play when I was 12 (1978 - Wakonda) in what was for me a very special event in my life.  I have the greatest respect for his talent and willpower.  I have always been fascinated by his personality, gregarious in front of a crowd but very private the rest of the time.  I do not mean to denigrate his talents in the least.

The broader issue is whether the talents that he focused on in his career are being de-valued in today's game to the point that the game is being altered in a negative way.  

If the same people would win in different eras then I do not think that technology advances matter much.  However, I do not think that is the case.  I believe players that can control the ball but not hit it a mile are at a greater disadvantage today than they were 25 years ago.

In order to turn that belief into an effective argument, you need examples or statistics to validate that belief in the face of the Titleist PR machine and the interests of the average player who finds golf difficult enough as it is.  One thing this exchange has made clear to me is that pushing the Trevino/Player angle does not work even in front of a largely sympathetic audience.  I appreciate your stout defense of Trevino to make that clear.  

I'll have to keep working on my argument.  I really believe I am right.      

[DMoriarty]

Well despite all the gnashing of teeth at how the young, super-long, super-strong, power hitters have taken over and/or ruined the game, I see the LA Open leaderboard after 3 rounds tells a much different story:

David,

Riviera may be the exception that proves the rule.   The architectural greatness and overwhelming personality of the place partially mask the soullessness of the current professional game, and even give the creative ball striker a rare fighting chance.  

But even a great course like Riviera cannot escape the creeping banality which is taking over pro golf.   Look at all of the changes they have made in the past ten years. . . have any of them actually made the course better?  Or have they just made the course more compatible with the new pro game?

If you want a perfect metaphor for what is happening to the game, take a good long look at the old left fairway on Riviera No. 8, then compare it to the newer right fairway.   The contrast in personality is as stark as that between Lee Trevino and the automatrons of today's game.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

A guy I know who was there watching JB Holmes for a few holes said that he was the only guy to go to the left on #8.  He hit it 340 dead center.

[David Kelly]

Bob,

I don't think it is denigrating Trevino's talent to say that since shotmaking skills are not as required on todays PGA Tour as they were when he played that his competitive advantage might be decreased were he out there now.  

Instead I think it is an indictment of the present day Tour

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

I acknowledge the validity of what you are saying. I just find the statements of "gloom and doom" that seem so pervasive on this thread and elsewhere on this board to be a bit thick at times. More importantly, THEY ARE NOT BACKED UP BY THE FACTS!

As long as Colonial, Westchester, Hilton Head, Pebble Beach, etc. are part of the tournament circuit, there will be a places for golfers who can manage their games and manage the courses they are playing. At Torrey Pines, supposedly lengthened to eliminate the shorter hitter, Olazabal & Green (2 shorter hitters) tied Tiger in regulation.

I find the notion that Player or Trevino could be not be competitive in today's game dubious, if not silly.

But guess what, athletes are getting bigger and stronger in ALL sports! You could ask whether Ken Rosewall or Rod Laver could make it in tennis today or if Yogi Berra (at 5'8") would even be granted a major league baseball tryout today. Somehow, I think they would find a way to compete.

DT  

[TEPaul]

That's odd, when i looked at some players come through #4 on Friday they were hitting 2 irons and utility woods. A 2 iron from Freddie Couples who is definitely on the long end of the spectrum of tour pros.

"I just find the statements of "gloom and doom" that seem so pervasive on this thread and elsewhere on this board to be a bit thick at times. More importantly, THEY ARE NOT BACKED UP BY THE FACTS!"

David Tepper:

Thank you very much for that---I second that notion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()