[Andy Hughes]

I would offer NGLA, CPC, PV and other classic courses as Exhibit A, as to why golfers crave yesteryears challenge.
I think there are enduring architectural values which are timeless when contexted properly.
I think drives that carry 340, 300, 280 or 250 remove that context.

Patrick, I have never played any of the three courses you mentioned but I have little doubt that the point I believe you are trying to make is correct--to wit, that the architecture of courses like NGLA and the shot values have been minimized by the use of improved clubs (and balls).  But that isn't the point--with respect, so what if what you are saying is true?  

You say the challenge has been removed, and should be restored. Again, why? Would you agree that if everyone is using these new clubs like you say they are then clearly they don't want the challenge that you say should be restored (kinda rhetorical--I know you can't say 'yes'  ) ?

[SL_Solow]

When a player is competing with others who are armed with superior equipment, he would be foolish to use older equipment to "enjoy the challenge."  He would not enjoy getting beat on a regular basis  by those who might be less skilled but who possess better armaments.  As new players enter the game, not only do they face the same issue, but never having played the game with limited equipment, they do not even know what they are missing.  The competition is equalized, although different skills are emphasized.  However the game is less interesting as some of the best venues become too short to challenge the best..

By way of example, if major league baseball allowed the use of metal or composite bats, in a short period of time everyone would be using them.  The ball would go farther.  More importantly, balls hit on the fists could be line drives or even home runs instead of the weak pop ups off of broken bats that are the wood bat results.  Hitters would "benefit" and everyone would use the metal bats.  But, I submit, the game would be less interesting.  Major league baseball agrees and has legislated against the use of wood bats.  That is the difference between its approach and that of the USGA and R&A.  I realize the authority structure is different but the fact is the governing bodies of golf have been unwilling to take on the equipment manufacturers in order to preserve the game.  While you may disagree with some of the nuance of Pat's argument, I think it is difficult to disagree with the central premise that equipment changes which promote longer hitting have altered the nature of the game and made many older courses obsolete for the upper echelon of players.  The real question is whether this matters to you and which "game" you like better.  It matters to me and if I had my "druthers" I would prefer it if the great old courses could provide sufficient challenge to the pros (as they did to Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson et al) without having to try to lengthen them beyond recognition.

[Andy Hughes]

Shel, flip it around.   You reference competition, but the very small subset that is tournament golf is such a small subset as to be almost insignificant. And with that group, I'd agree that one would be foolish to compete with lesser tools. But that group is not there to enjoy the course, to 'interface with the architecure'. They are there to win.

For all others who experience 'competition', that competition tends to be with the other 3 guys one is playing with and I see several issues down that road. The first, and most obvious, is, which is more important or more thrilling: the challenge of the architecture, the joy of 'interfacing with the architecture, trying to challenge that bunker Tille so fiendishly placed just so, seeing if you can carry that bunker Doak placed just within your reach OR winning a two dollar nassau?  

Taken further, with so many goflers playing in regular groups, if the desire to 'restore the challenge' was shared it would be trivial for friends to all agree to play their older clubs so they could both enjoy equal competition and 'restore the challenge'. Without getting over-personal, do you do so with your friends?  I would assume not--nobody does.  I have no idea what Patrick plays with (other than the Ping Eye2s he mentioned), but do you suppose he still uses his old persimmon woods to 'retain the challenge' and make sure he can continue to interface with the bunkers at NGLA as McDonald intended? If he doesn't (and I would bet he doesn't) then hasn't he implicitly said that winning his nassau is more important than the challenge and the joy and the thrill he wants everyone to return to? (I should mention, I keep saying Patrick but I do not mean to single him out in any way. It could just as easily apply to anyone. Well, other than the NGLA part  )

I think the baseball comparison is flawed as well. Golf is a game where the tiniest percentage of participants are the pros and the great majority are amateurs playing for fun  Other than youth baseball though, most baseball is professional so a rule restricting the bats doesn't have any effect on anyone other than the 20 odd teams in MLB. As we get older and more portly, we move on to softball and do use the metal bats.

The real question is whether this matters to you and which "game" you like better.  It matters to me and if I had my "druthers" I would prefer it if the great old courses could provide sufficient challenge to the pros (as they did to Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson et al) without having to try to lengthen them beyond recognition.

Well, I can honestly say no course has been made obsolete for me, nor any of my friends. So the game remains unchanged for me.  But I admit to a desire deep down to see the best of the best play with equipment comparable to players of old for comparsion's sake (leaving aside which players of old we mean: Nicklaus? Jones? Vardon? Young Tom?).  I assume you would be in favor of a tour ball and equipment then?

Bottom line? It sounds like you'd like the very best to use restricted equipment to ensure the classics can continue to be used for high level competitions.  That seems a different subject, but I am pretty sure the 99.5% who are not in that group would prefer Patrick not 'return the challenge'.

[SL_Solow]

A,  Thanks for the response.  In my experience, we are a rare group who spend a lot of time thinking about the architecture, the impact of equipment and the long term impact on the game.  Most players are interested only in the competition, whether its winning a $5 nassau, trying to post a lower score or lowering their handicap.  So your suggestion that the competition argument is limited to the few ultimately fails in my opinion.  Moreover, you fail to comment on the long term impact caused by the newer generations introduction to a game where only the new equipment is used.

As courses are lengthened because many players want to play on courses that are "championship" tests, other factors pertaining to cost and pace of play are impacted adversely as well.

If your objection to the baseball analogy is that the game is largely professional and the governing structureis better able to evaluate equipment changes and regulate them for the good of their business I accept the point notwithstanding their inability to deal with the steroid issue.  However, the fact that they are better structured to regulate their game does not change the fact that they have done a better job of presrving the challenge.  Bases are still 90 feet apart.  Fences haven't been extended.  Other than steroids, the major impact on the game has been when they surreptitiously fiddle with the ball (sound familiar) or adjust the strike zone and/or the height of the mound.

Finally, I don't want to see bifurcation of equipment between the elite and the masses although it has always existed.  Anybody has the right to play nonconforming equipment outside of tournaments and any manufacturer has the right to sell it.  I don't think we can ever go back to persimmon woods but we can limit the size and cor of clubs.  In fact we are doing it now, we just came to the dance too late.  Most importantly we could place achievable limits on the ball adjusting resiliency, weight, dimple patterns (spin) and the like.  If there remains a market for the current ball, the manufacturers can fill it.  But those who want to play by the rules will buy only those balls that are conforming.  The pros will still be better than us but we may be able to reduce the distance balls travel and recapture the use of some of our classic courses.  If I lose some distance in the bargain I am prepared to accept that result if the other benefits come along.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You say the challenge has been removed, and should be restored.

New golf courses was the context of the post that started this thread.  The "restoration" aspect is tangential.

Think of the challenge that an architect faces.
How to design a golf course that will present an enjoyable challenge for every level of golfer ?  That's a tough assignment these days as the disparity between the golfers has grown.

Distance alone isn't the answer and narrow fairways and deep rough aren't the answer.  Especially in an age when many are encouraging tree removal, wide fairways as well as fast and firm conditions.

I think part of the answer may lie elsewhere, where players of all abilities eventually meet.  On and around the green.[/color]

Again, why?

See my answer above[/color]

Would you agree that if everyone is using these new clubs like you say they are then clearly they don't want the challenge that you say should be restored (kinda rhetorical--I know you can't say 'yes'  ) ?

YES, I agree, there is resistance, in many areas.

Bunker removal, flattening greens, dumbing down the design, the challenge.  These are all manifestations of making the game "more fair" or eliminating the challenge.

I think that's part of the problem golf is encountering.  The concept of "buying" a game instead of "developing" a game.

Instant gratification and making the game easier are the enemies of unique architecture.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You reference competition, but the very small subset that is tournament golf is such a small subset as to be almost insignificant.


That's totally untrue, probably 90 % of golf is competitive, whether you're playing against your friends for bragging rights, a drink, caddy fees, lunch or more.

In addition, almost every round involves another form of competition, the golfer against the golf course.

And, that particular form of competition is not isolated to those two parties.  The issue of relativity rears its head, whether it's in the form of determining handicap or comparing how you did against others who played that day, be they friend or foe, acquiantance or stranger.

The core and lure of the game are based on competition, ie,
getting from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible.[/color]

And with that group, I'd agree that one would be foolish to compete with lesser tools. But that group is not there to enjoy the course, to 'interface with the architecure'. They are there to win.

So, when you play with your pals, for $ 5, drinks, caddies, or pride, you're not there to win ?  ?  ?  Of course you are.
If you weren't you'd be out hiking or chasing beach bunnies.[/color]

For all others who experience 'competition', that competition tends to be with the other 3 guys one is playing with and I see several issues down that road. The first, and most obvious, is, which is more important or more thrilling: the challenge of the architecture, the joy of 'interfacing with the architecture, trying to challenge that bunker Tille so fiendishly placed just so, seeing if you can carry that bunker Doak placed just within your reach OR winning a two dollar nassau?

It's both, it's the tactical and strategic challenge, the micro and the macro challenge.

If you're all even, playing the last hole, and your opponent, who you genuinely dislike, along with his wife, has just hit a shot that's got him in a little trouble, are you going to challenge that Tillie bunker and risk losing to him  ?

Now if you say "Yes", I'm not buying it.
OR, when can we meet and play ? [/color]

Taken further, with so many goflers playing in regular groups, if the desire to 'restore the challenge' was shared it would be trivial for friends to all agree to play their older clubs so they could both enjoy equal competition and 'restore the challenge'.

You're missing the point.
Who drinks first from the rumored poisoned well ?

Old equipment won't be played with for a variety of reasons.
It's now a cultural issue and not just an equipment issue.
Until the USGA legislates modifications to the I&B, noone is going to voluntarily toss their clubs and balls, with the rare exception of the "Hickory" crowd.[/color]

Without getting over-personal, do you do so with your friends?  I would assume not--nobody does.  I have no idea what Patrick plays with (other than the Ping Eye2s he mentioned), but do you suppose he still uses his old persimmon woods to 'retain the challenge' and make sure he can continue to interface with the bunkers at NGLA as McDonald intended? If he doesn't (and I would bet he doesn't) then hasn't he implicitly said that winning his nassau is more important than the challenge and the joy and the thrill he wants everyone to return to? (I should mention, I keep saying Patrick but I do not mean to single him out in any way. It could just as easily apply to anyone. Well, other than the NGLA part  )

AHughes, you have to seperate the disciplines.

1.  I"m not going to play for any wagers with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs
2.  I'm not going to play competitively with my 1960-1970
     vintage clubs.
3.  I'm not going to play golf courses that have been
     lengthened CONSIDERABLY with my 1960-1970 vintage
     clubs
4.  I'm not going to play a round where my score will be
     recorded for handicap purposes with my 1960-1970
     vintage clubs.
5.  Because I play 99 % of my 18 hole rounds under one or
     more of the above categories, playing with my 1960-1970
     vintage clubs just isn't going to become a reality.

But, the real and overriding reason, as of last fall is:
My wife made me clean out the garage, basement and a
spare room of 99 % of my 1960-1970 vintage clubs.
Hundreds of clubs that I had amassed over many decades where given away.[/color]

I think the baseball comparison is flawed as well. Golf is a game where the tiniest percentage of participants are the pros and the great majority are amateurs playing for fun.

You mean to tell me that all those golfers I see throwing clubs, ranting and raving and cursing like crazy are playing for fun ?   I never knew that.   They don't seem like they're having too much fun.[/color]  

Other than youth baseball though, most baseball is professional so a rule restricting the bats doesn't have any effect on anyone other than the 20 odd teams in MLB.


I believe that New York City and perhaps New York State have recently implemented a BAN on metal bats in youth and high school baseball.  New Jersey and other States are considering similar action.
The manufacturers have joined with other organizations and are suing to overturn the legislation[/color]

As we get older and more portly, we move on to softball and do use the metal bats.

The real question is whether this matters to you and which "game" you like better.  It matters to me and if I had my "druthers" I would prefer it if the great old courses could provide sufficient challenge to the pros (as they did to Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson et al) without having to try to lengthen them beyond recognition.

Well, I can honestly say no course has been made obsolete for me, nor any of my friends.

Is it your contention that NONE of the golf courses you play have been lengthened in the last 20 years ?[/color]

So the game remains unchanged for me.  But I admit to a desire deep down to see the best of the best play with equipment comparable to players of old for comparsion's sake (leaving aside which players of old we mean: Nicklaus? Jones? Vardon? Young Tom?).  I assume you would be in favor of a tour ball and equipment then?

A competition ball first, the STYMIE second.[/color]

Bottom line? It sounds like you'd like the very best to use restricted equipment to ensure the classics can continue to be used for high level competitions.  That seems a different subject, but I am pretty sure the 99.5% who are not in that group would prefer Patrick not 'return the challenge'.

Give backs are difficult.
The USGA let the genie out of the bottle on this issue.

But, when the R&A instituted play with the American ball, the game and the golfers in the UK all survived quite well.

I think it would be deja vu all over again if the USGA dialed back I&B.  Then golf courses could abandon all of those stupid little 3X3 tees hidden back in a chute in the woods where they can't grow grass, that are off to awkward angles.
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

To think that local clubs are going to disengage from the USGA isn't being realistic.

Local clubs depend on the USGA for a variety reasons.

Handicapping, Turf Consulting, The rules of Golf, Tournaments, etc., etc..

The Ohio State Golf Association, dismayed that the USGA hadn't addressed what they considered to be an important issue, undertook that issue themselves.

But, to ask or expect local clubs to break away from the USGA is sheer folly.

As to playing USGA approved equipment.

If a golfer was to compete in the U.S. Open, Amateur, Mid-Amateur or Senior Amateur with equipment from 20-40 years ago, he wouldn't be competitive, and noone with the ability to compete in those events is going to deliberately remove themselves from a competition vis a vis using equipment that produces inferior results.  

You can add regional and state events to that list.

You're out of touch with reality on that issue.

In addition, noone is going to wager against competitors and give their opponents a huge advantage, unless they're a schmuck and the beneficiary of a very large trust fund.

Breaking away from the USGA is the last thing a club should consider.  Clubs and their members should express their opinions that the I&B have gotten out of control, if they believe that to be true.  

Peer pressure, not secession is the solution

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am no fan of the USGA, but I don't recall mentioning anything about club secession from the organization.  

I thought you framed the issue in the context of local clubs
[/color]

Though I do agree that trying to compete at the highest levels without competitive equipment is not likely to be a successful tactic, but IMO if the issue is that important to people then these people will need to make a value judgement.

That's akin to taking a bucket of water out of the ocean.
It's not going to have any impact on the high water mark.[/color]  

It is clear to me that most players value their equipment more than rectifying any perceived problem with the game because of the equipment.

I'd agree with that.
But, most players don't understand the problems associated with increased distance, thus being uninformed leaves them with a large blind spot on the issue.[/color]  

If folks really believe that equipment is reducing the challenge of the game so much so that the integrity of the game can only be maintained by beefing up classic courses (and possibly eliminating some of what makes these courses classic) and continuing to build the monsters of today, then they should question their own use of modern equipment.  

Those are two seperate issues.
Suppose that tomorrow, 1,000 golfers reverted to equipment circa 1987, would it make a difference ?  NO
10,000 ?   NO
Like many changes, it has to start at the top, not the bottom, especially when an organization or two controls the rules and the equipment being used to play the game.

More and more individuals have expressed their concerns, architects included, starting with Ron Prichard years ago, Nicklaus, Doak and many others.   PGA Tour players have objected as well.  Virtually EVERY golf course has responded by adding length to their golf course.  The Ohio State Golf Association expressed their concerns and ACTED to stem the problem.[/color]

In this case, it really is black or white.  If one believes there is a problem, one is either part of the problem or part of the solution.  

That's a nice phrase, but, it's not true.
You have to learn that there are things you can change and things you can't change, and the wisdom to know which is which.

Passengers on a jumbo jet whose engines have flamed out on takeoff are neither part of the problem nor part of the solution, they're just neutral, in terms of their ability to influence an outcome.  And so it is with the average golfer.[/color]

Standing back and pointing a finger at the USGA is not being part of the solution.  

Of course it is.
To say nothing is to condone the status quo or worse.
Without criticism, progress is impossible.[/color]

This organization may or may not act and if it does act it may or may not take a significant step toward resolving the problem - which as I understand is to preserve the inherent challenge of the game and thereby hope to preserve some classic architecture.

That's not going to happen because someone at the USGA has a light bulb moment.  It's going to happen through peer pressure, through the continued presentation of the problem from various influences.  The USGA is NOW aware of and recongnizes the problem.  That wasn't always the case.[/color]

I know my take on the matter gets short shrift in the name of competition, but I think it is also because guys realize that hypocrisy involved.  

I don't think that's the case.[/color]

It is uncomfortable to feel forced into making hard decisions about how they play the game and how that meshes with the game they would like to see now and in the future.

I'd refer you to the bullet points I listed as to why your position isn't realistic.[/color]

It is easier to point a finger at the all powerful USGA than to look in the mirror.  

That's sheer nonsense.
The USGA determines the specs on I&B, not golfers who shave every morning.

The USGA and R&A are the only forces/organizations that can make the changes with the stroke of a pen.[/color]

The problem really is akin to an arms race with everybody standing around waiting for somebody else to make the first move.  

NO, the problem really isn't akin to that.
The problem is simple.
The USGA and the R&A determine what's conforming and what isn't conforming.
When those organizations dictate what's conforming, that's what golfers will play with.[/color]

As I say, it is difficult to take a guy seriously on the subject if he is against modern equipment, but stands in line to buy it especially when one considers that very, very few people are really playing in anything of importance.

Both statements are untrue.
Almost every, if not every golfer I know plays for something important TO THEM, whether it's tangible or intangible.

And, if you'll reread my bullet points I think you'll see the folly of the position that a golfer should compete at any level with equipment circa 1980, it's just not practical, even though it's the foundation of your argument.[/color]  

IMO, the bottom line is that the issue hasn't really hit a boiling point because the vast majority of golfers don't care about architecture.  

Neither the rules of golf, etiquette, nor conforming specs are determined by what the vast majority of golfers want.
That would be one of the worst possible scenarios for golf.[/color]  

Perhaps this is down to a lack of education which may be possible to correct by the involvement of the USGA and the stewards of the classic courses.

You speak of the stewards of classic courses as if they're part of a confederation.  This issue is simple to correct and it has nothing to do with collaboration between a thousand moving parts.  The USGA has to revise its I&B specs.[/color]  

The average guy doesn't give a rats ass about Riviera because he feels there is a tenuous connection at best between him and the club.  

The average guy would like "winter rules" all the time, the cup increased to 6 inches, and four mulligans per nine, but, golf isn't about voting to determine rules and equipment.[/color]

In short, he has no emotional investment in that club and it is the rare club with a classical course that engages with the average golfer to get them invested.  

What you and others fail to grasp is the financial impact to the average guy.  Longer courses mean higher acquisition and construction costs, higher maintainance costs, all of which translates to higher green fees.  Hence, every average guy is adversely affected by the dilema, they just don't understand that the cause and the effect is distance related.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

A,  Thanks for the response.  In my experience, we are a rare group who spend a lot of time thinking about the architecture, the impact of equipment and the long term impact on the game.  Most players are interested only in the competition, whether its winning a $5 nassau, trying to post a lower score or lowering their handicap.  So your suggestion that the competition argument is limited to the few ultimately fails in my opinion.  Moreover, you fail to comment on the long term impact caused by the newer generations introduction to a game where only the new equipment is used.

Hi Shel, sorry for the delay. Agreed, the participants on this site are a rare breed!  I do agree, for many participants it is the competition that matters most. But that is two clearly different groups--high-level tournament golf, for whom the architecture is irrelevant and winning is all, and all others. The 'others' are the only ones who might care about returning the challenge or 'interfacing with the architecture'.  If there was a desire to do so, I think they already would. But they don't. That tells me several things:
1. The challenge is likely still there for most
2. The overwhelming majority would prefer to play with their oversized driver.
3. The desire to 'return the challenge' or 'interface with the architecture is so miniscule, even among the nuts here, that it is perhaps more posture or theoretical that actual. Otherwise, what else are we to make of those that push for such changes but do not do so themselves when the opportunity is readily available?

As courses are lengthened because many players want to play on courses that are "championship" tests, other factors pertaining to cost and pace of play are impacted adversely as well.

On this we do agree. I think most people are fools for playing tees they are ill-prepared to play. But I suspect that has always been so.  

If your objection to the baseball analogy is that the game is largely professional and the governing structureis better able to evaluate equipment changes and regulate them for the good of their business I accept the point notwithstanding their inability to deal with the steroid issue.  However, the fact that they are better structured to regulate their game does not change the fact that they have done a better job of presrving the challenge.

That actually was not the point I tried to make.  I have two issues with the baseball comparison:
1. In baseball, there is a tiny universe of people who play the game post-teenage and they are all playing the game professionally (yes, yes, I am sure there are some statistically insignificant number who put the lie to me comment, but still....).  In golf, it is quite the opposite--the majority of the golfing world is us, the amateurs, and the very top level is the tiny percentage.  If they decide to ban metal bats, it effects nobody else, and nobody cares that the kids playing the game are not using the same equipment as the pros.
2.  Pro baseball banned metal bats, but they never had been legal or used in the majors so there was no need to put the genie back in the bottle. That seems a very different beast than what is being pushed here.

In fact we are doing it now, we just came to the dance too late.  Most importantly we could place achievable limits on the ball adjusting resiliency, weight, dimple patterns (spin) and the like.

I am, actually, more than fine with that.  My bigger issues are:
1. Going backwards
2. This sense that it is hellfire important to 'return the challenge', that the game is no fun or less interesting contrasted with the reality that even those making those statements do not play the equipment that would both return the challenge and make it more interesting.  It can only mean to me that those things are not terribly important.

If there remains a market for the current ball, the manufacturers can fill it.  But those who want to play by the rules will buy only those balls that are conforming.  The pros will still be better than us but we may be able to reduce the distance balls travel and recapture the use of some of our classic courses.  If I lose some distance in the bargain I am prepared to accept that result if the other benefits come along.

Shel, I mean no offense at all, but are you saying that there are some classic courses that are not challenging or fun for you any longer because of your oversized driver and Pro V1? Or is your concern with the very elite playing their Opens on the classic courses?

[Andy Hughes]

You reference competition, but the very small subset that is tournament golf is such a small subset as to be almost insignificant.
That's totally untrue, probably 90 % of golf is competitive, whether you're playing against your friends for bragging rights, a drink, caddy fees, lunch or more.
Patrick, I have enough trouble making sense of my own words when I type them--if you are going to then put words in my mouth I'll never be able to keep up. I said tournament golf, the high level stuff. You then turn around and imply that I said any old type of competition. I didn't  

In addition, almost every round involves another form of competition, the golfer against the golf course.

Right, and this is the crux of things, no?  You want the challenge returned to that competition between you and NGLA; you want to interface properly with the bunkers off the tee of the Bottle as CBM intended.  
The means to do so are sitting in your basement (or mine, if your sainted wife truly disposed of all your goodies!). And yet, you have chosen not to take the easily taken step and instead use a driver and ball that makes a mockery of the bunkers dividing the fairway.  You have in a way, by your actions, shown how important 'returning the challenge' is haven't you?
 

And, that particular form of competition is not isolated to those two parties.  The issue of relativity rears its head, whether it's in the form of determining handicap or comparing how you did against others who played that day, be they friend or foe, acquiantance or stranger.

As above, you have the option to interface with NGLA just as CBM wished. That the comparison with others who may have played that day is more important to you than playing a world-class course as intended by one of the alltime greats says something.

The core and lure of the game are based on competition, ie,
getting from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible.

What happened to 'interfacing with the architecture' and 'returning the challenge'?  

So, when you play with your pals, for $ 5, drinks, caddies, or pride, you're not there to win ?  ?  ?  Of course you are.
If you weren't you'd be out hiking or chasing beach bunnies.

Yes, I am. But I am not the one complaining the challenge has been minimized.

If you're all even, playing the last hole, and your opponent, who you genuinely dislike, along with his wife, has just hit a shot that's got him in a little trouble, are you going to challenge that Tillie bunker and risk losing to him  ?

Life's way too short to spend one of my rare rounds with someone I dislike, especially if he has a loathsome wife. Perhaps he, like you, is interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture and so has agreed not to play with a brand new oversized driver or Pro V1, and you can both enjoy the competition AND have the challenge returned?

Now if you say "Yes", I'm not buying it.
OR, when can we meet and play ?  

Patrick, I am always open to a round with you!  

Old equipment won't be played with for a variety of reasons.
It's now a cultural issue and not just an equipment issue.
Until the USGA legislates modifications to the I&B, noone is going to voluntarily toss their clubs and balls, with the rare exception of the "Hickory" crowd.

And here I thought you were more of a 'my own man' kind of guy.  Didn't realize you'd let a cultural issue get between you and interfacing with CBM as intended. How important is it then to you?  

AHughes, you have to seperate the disciplines.

1.  I"m not going to play for any wagers with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs
2.  I'm not going to play competitively with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs.
3.  I'm not going to play golf courses that have been
    lengthened CONSIDERABLY with my 1960-1970 vintage
    clubs
4.  I'm not going to play a round where my score will be
    recorded for handicap purposes with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs.
5.  Because I play 99 % of my 18 hole rounds under one or
    more of the above categories, playing with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs just isn't going to become a reality.

Patrick, all true, and I don't really have much to disagree with. Other than the bottom line--how important is returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture to you? If I had the opportunity to play NGLA (NOTE: this is not an access request!), I would not play with clubs that removed all strategy or did away with the strategies incorporated by CBM.  The fact that you do does show how you rank things in order of importance. Or am I reading things wrong?

You mean to tell me that all those golfers I see throwing clubs, ranting and raving and cursing like crazy are playing for fun ?  I never knew that.  They don't seem like they're having too much fun.

But you think they need more challenge restored??

[Ken Moum]

What you and others fail to grasp is the financial impact to the average guy.  Longer courses mean higher acquisition and construction costs, higher maintainance costs, all of which translates to higher green fees.  Hence, every average guy is adversely affected by the dilema, they just don't understand that the cause and the effect is distance related.

And that doesn't include the cost of feeling pressure to fight the ever-more costly arms race of equipment. Time was, a player could find a driver he liked and play it 10--or 20--years.

I think the OEMs are being silly about this, however. It's entirely possible that a limited ball would allow the USGA to drop all the expensive, complicated, hard-to-enforce rules on COR, grooves, volume, etc., etc. If I'm right, it would allow them to create a whole new line of innovation, one that might actually help a hacker like me get it around more efficiently

[Patrick_Mucci]

To cut a long story short; yes I do believe that the right 10,000 or 1000 people can affect change.  For that matter even 1 person can affect change.  For those that believe golf is in the jaws of a monstrous peril it would be wonderful if the USGA stood up to be counted.  However, how long is one willing to wait?  

Evidently the Ohio Golf Association wasn't willing to wait any longer[/color]

My argument isn't based on committing competitive suicide.
 
My argument is based on the premise that without sufficient leadership from the USGA every golfer still has a clear choice to make.  

Which belief holds more weight, the concept of competition against others (not the course obviously - if such a thing exists) or an adherence to maintaining the integrity of the game (assuming one believes the integrity of the game is at risk)?  

You can't seperate the two, they're inextricably entwined.

Competition is one of the life bloods of the game.[/color]

The USGA sets a maximum (if you will) standard for equipment.  We all can choose to use equipment less than the maximum allowed.  

That's also unrealistic.
Noone is going to compete, using 8 clubs, against someone using 14 clubs.

Neither you, nor anyone else has addressed another critical issue, the establishment of handicaps.[/color]

Some who believe the integrity of the game is at risk have chosen to use inferior equipment for this very reason.  

I'm unaware of anyone who's done that other than the "hickory" crowd, and they compete against each other.[/color]

These chaps that are willing to act on their beliefs are the ones I take seriously on the matter.  And to be truthful, guys like Ralph Livingston have made me reconsider my position.  I wouldn't say that I have bought the argument hook line and sinker, but I am listening.  

They're all competing on an equal footing with respect to implements.  But, what balls are they playing ?[/color]

As for the cost of the golf going up because of longer courses, well, I am one to believe that courses charge what the amrket can bear.  

That's where you're naive.
Fixed costs must be accounted for.
And, when fixed costs are increased due to length, those costs must be recaptured.
Drive up acquisition, design, construction and maintainance costs and they have to be recaptured in your fee/dues.
It's a basic business principle that can't be glossed.
If those costs were lower, the price to play the golf course would be lower, making it more attractive.[/color]

Perhaps a small section of courses are forced to raise prices because of extra length, but I think this a fairly minor reason for the rise of green fees.

Then you should talk to owners like Roger Hansen who will provide you with a more than ample dose of reality.

Or, just listen to Tom Doak and others on the subject.[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I routinely compete with 8-10 clubs against others with 14.

For money or for fun ?  
[/color]

I do so mostly because it allows me to carry and save my back, but also because I believe the limit of 14 clubs is girlie-boy golf.  

I also compete with inferior equipment.  
My trip to the States back in April made that quite clear.

What ball do you play ?[/color]  

I don't put nearly the stock in new equipment as you do.  


I play with Ping Irons vintage 1985 and a MacGregor Tommy Armour putter, circa 1960.  What clubs do you play with ?[/color]

For the most part its a marketing gimmick.  

You're in a dream world.

How does my friend, aged 78 manage to hit the ball farther today then he did 30 years ago, when he was 48 and about to play in five U.S. Senior Opens ?  Does he employ a marketing gimmick ?

Please don't avoid the above question.
I'd like to know how you think marketing gimmicks and not technology have helped his game[/color]

If I was so inclined to improve, my money would be better invested in lessons, practicing and getting in shape - sounds like advice a pro may take eh?  

Ahhh, but imagine how much better you'd be if, in addition to taking lessons and practicing, you had your swing monitored and customized to maximize your performance.[/color]

Additionally, I am not terribly bothered by losing a match - to me it is truly a game.  

Show me someone who doesn't mind losing and I'll show you a loser.

One can be highly competitive, a gentleman and a good sport.[/color]

Yeah, I wanna win, but if I wanted to win that bad, I wouldn't run out and buy eqiupment.  I would take my earlier advice: practice, get lessons and get in shape.  I suspect that many others who "compete" like I do, would do better with my advice rather than trying to buy an equipment fix - despite the hype, there ain't no such thing.

Yes there is, it's called being fitted for clubs that optimize your abilities and your performance, practice and lessons will  hone your abilities, but, if you're playing with the wrong equipment, your scoring abilities are limited.

You can argue until you're blue in the face and it won't change those facts.[/color]

I would like to see the evidence which proves that the extra length in golf courses is the main reason for the massive rise in green fees.  

You conveniently added the word "massive", which is absurd.
To maintain that increased length hasn't driven costs up is to have your head planted firmly in the sand.[/color]

There are ever so many older clubs out there that have hiked their green fees/dues astronomically in the past 20 years.  

I know of NO clubs in the U.S. that have hiked their dues, from one year to the next, astronomically, do you ?

Again, you convenienlty added qualifiers.
Take courses built in the last 5 to 10 years.

Noone is building 6,200 yard courses, they're building much longer courses, which require more land, more construction costs, more maintainance costs.  Do you deny this ?[/color]

In the vast majority of cases, I don't think the cost of land can be cited for this rise.  

For clubs built 40+ years ago, most land costs have been amortized.  However, the cost to lengthen those courses is a factor as it the cost to maintain longer courses.[/color]

IMO, the over-riding reason for rising green fees is based on what owners/operators of clubs think the market will bear.  


Then why aren't costs going down as competition heats up ?[/color]

I think this is a direct correlation of "never let a sucker keep a buck".

You're out of touch with reality[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You reference competition, but the very small subset that is tournament golf is such a small subset as to be almost insignificant.

That's totally untrue, probably 90 % of golf is competitive, whether you're playing against your friends for bragging rights, a drink, caddy fees, lunch or more.

Patrick, I have enough trouble making sense of my own words when I type them--if you are going to then put words in my mouth I'll never be able to keep up. I said tournament golf, the high level stuff. You then turn around and imply that I said any old type of competition. I didn't  

Every weekend, almost every local club in my area holds a
tournament in one form or another [/color]

In addition, almost every round involves another form of competition, the golfer against the golf course.

Right, and this is the crux of things, no?  
You want the challenge returned to that competition between you and NGLA; you want to interface properly with the bunkers off the tee of the Bottle as CBM intended.  

The means to do so are sitting in your basement (or mine, if your sainted wife truly disposed of all your goodies!). And yet, you have chosen not to take the easily taken step and instead use a driver and ball that makes a mockery of the bunkers dividing the fairway.  

You have in a way, by your actions, shown how important 'returning the challenge' is haven't you?

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.[/color]
 

And, that particular form of competition is not isolated to those two parties.  The issue of relativity rears its head, whether it's in the form of determining handicap or comparing how you did against others who played that day, be they friend or foe, acquiantance or stranger.

As above, you have the option to interface with NGLA just as CBM wished. That the comparison with others who may have played that day is more important to you than playing a world-class course as intended by one of the alltime greats says something.

Since 99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competition, I don't have that luxury.

However, for several years, I couldn't hit a drive 200 yards with my best hit.
And, playing NGLA with diminished abilities, distance and loft was just as much, if not more, fun.[/color]

The core and lure of the game are based on competition, ie,
getting from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible.

What happened to 'interfacing with the architecture' and 'returning the challenge'?  

Golfers must get from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible.  It is the architect's function to impede and frustrate that attempt which creates the interest and the challenge in that endeavor.

When hi-teched, modern equipment overrides the architect's intent, the game begins to lose its lure[/color]

So, when you play with your pals, for $ 5, drinks, caddies, or pride, you're not there to win ?  ?  ?  Of course you are.
If you weren't you'd be out hiking or chasing beach bunnies.

Yes, I am. But I am not the one complaining the challenge has been minimized.

If you're all even, playing the last hole, and your opponent, who you genuinely dislike, along with his wife, has just hit a shot that's got him in a little trouble, are you going to challenge that Tillie bunker and risk losing to him  ?

Life's way too short to spend one of my rare rounds with someone I dislike, especially if he has a loathsome wife.

Yes, but you might not have a choice.
You may have drawn him as your opponent.
Would you WD from the tournament/event ? [/color]

Perhaps he, like you, is interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture and so has agreed not to play with a brand new oversized driver or Pro V1, and you can both enjoy the competition AND have the challenge returned?

I haven't seen any evidence of that at any level of competition.[/color]

Now if you say "Yes", I'm not buying it.
OR, when can we meet and play ?  

Patrick, I am always open to a round with you!  

Ditto[/color]

Old equipment won't be played with for a variety of reasons.
It's now a cultural issue and not just an equipment issue.
Until the USGA legislates modifications to the I&B, noone is going to voluntarily toss their clubs and balls, with the rare exception of the "Hickory" crowd.

And here I thought you were more of a 'my own man' kind of guy.  Didn't realize you'd let a cultural issue get between you and interfacing with CBM as intended. How important is it then to you?  

It's critically important that it be returned for everyone, not just me.  

I'm not going to play with I&B from 20-30 years ago when my fellow competitors are playing with the most modern equipment available.[/color]

AHughes, you have to seperate the disciplines.

1.  I"m not going to play for any wagers with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs
2.  I'm not going to play competitively with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs.
3.  I'm not going to play golf courses that have been
    lengthened CONSIDERABLY with my 1960-1970 vintage
    clubs
4.  I'm not going to play a round where my score will be
    recorded for handicap purposes with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs.
5.  Because I play 99 % of my 18 hole rounds under one or
    more of the above categories, playing with my 1960-1970
    vintage clubs just isn't going to become a reality.

Patrick, all true, and I don't really have much to disagree with.

Other than the bottom line--how important is returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture to you?

If I had the opportunity to play NGLA (NOTE: this is not an access request!), I would not play with clubs that removed all strategy or did away with the strategies incorporated by CBM.  

You would if you were invited to compete in a tournament and your performance determined whether or not you'd be invited back[/color]

The fact that you do does show how you rank things in order of importance. Or am I reading things wrong?

You're reading things wrong.
99 % of my rounds at  NGLA are in competitions.[/color]

You mean to tell me that all those golfers I see throwing clubs, ranting and raving and cursing like crazy are playing for fun ?  I never knew that.  They don't seem like they're having too much fun.

But you think they need more challenge restored??

Absolutely[/color]

[Lloyd_Cole]

Pat

Rushing to bed without time to go through all points but just for the record I will be playing in the AM at Wahcona CC against friends for money with 12 clubs. I had it down to 10 in Australia, but 12 seems about right. 8 degree gaps between clubs plus one hybrid for high shots and rough escape, and one mid sand wedge.

[Andy Hughes]

Every weekend, almost every local club in my area holds a tournament in one form or another

While that sounds very nice for you, what percentage of the rounds of golf played do you suppose are actually in high level tournaments?  I will happily stick with my assertion that the percentage of golf played in high level tournaments is quite low to the point of virtual statistical meaninglessness.

You have in a way, by your actions, shown how important 'returning the challenge' is haven't you?

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.

Sure you are. You told Sean your irons are 20 years old and your putter is 40 years old.  

Assuming for the sake of argument that not every round played at NGLA is a high level tournament round, what clubs do the members use for the non-tournament rounds? If they still use their new fangled gizmos (and I would be happy to wager lunch that the great majority do), why do you suppose they are so disinterested in interfacing with CBM's bunkers and other hazards and features?  I am surprised the members and stewards of a club like NGLA have as little regard for restoring the challenge and interfacing with the architecture as you.  

Since 99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competition, I don't have that luxury.
However, for several years, I couldn't hit a drive 200 yards with my best hit.
And, playing NGLA with diminished abilities, distance and loft was just as much, if not more, fun.

Pity you and the NGLA members don't routinely play that way. Pity interfacing with CBM is so low on the priority list.

Life's way too short to spend one of my rare rounds with someone I dislike, especially if he has a loathsome wife.

Yes, but you might not have a choice.
You may have drawn him as your opponent.
Would you WD from the tournament/event ?

Patrick, I think you need to remember that the vast majority of rounds are not big club matches.  I suspect that colors your view of things too much.

Perhaps he, like you, is interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture and so has agreed not to play with a brand new oversized driver or Pro V1, and you can both enjoy the competition AND have the challenge returned?

I haven't seen any evidence of that at any level of competition

So you truly have no golfing friends that are interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture as you claim to desire?? That seems very odd, no?  Please, come to DC and lets go play one of my munis with a driver, 4-5 irons and a putter and revel in the challenge and simplicity.   (sounds snarky, but isn't)

And here I thought you were more of a 'my own man' kind of guy.  Didn't realize you'd let a cultural issue get between you and interfacing with CBM as intended. How important is it then to you?  

It's critically important that it be returned for everyone, not just me.  

I'm not going to play with I&B from 20-30 years ago when my fellow competitors are playing with the most modern equipment available.

Again, I think it is important to remember that there are tournament rounds, and then there is the great majority of rounds which are non-high level tournament.  And I find it rather odd, and a little sad somehow, that the joy of the game, or the interfacing with the architecure which is the soul of the game and which I know you feel, is less important than always feeling like you need to have the latest and greatest to keep up with whomever you are playing with.

You played Sand Hills last year with Huckaby et al. I know it was certianly not a high level tournament; what driver did you use, and what does that ultimately say about where your priorities lie (and if you come back and body slam me by saying that you used an older driver and ball, then I will happily accept the rebuke as I know all is well with your soul  )?

If I had the opportunity to play NGLA (NOTE: this is not an access request!), I would not play with clubs that removed all strategy or did away with the strategies incorporated by CBM.  

You would if you were invited to compete in a tournament and your performance determined whether or not you'd be invited back

Again, percentage rounds in tournaments vs percentage not.  Not even close.
PS If someone invited me to NGLA for tournament performance, they would get what they deserve for choosing poorly.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You're digging so deep on these points that your internal logic is starting to be self contradictory.

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.

I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time.

On another aspect of your posts, it's nice to see that I'm "at odds with the golfing universe"  and Sean is "out of touch with reality", and Chris is "moronic" and AHughes is "reading things wrong".  Seems like all the rest of us posting on this thread live in a different reality or universe than you do.  Perhaps you could be more gentlemanly about putting us down for the shortcomings you perceive that we have.

Re your 78 year old friend, he must be an extraordinary gentleman.  How far did he hit it when he was 48?  How far does he hit it now?  The 76 year old guy I play with is nowhere near the length he was when he was club champion.  I wonder how long that other (almost) 78 year old, Arnold Palmer, was as the honorary starter at Augusta this year.  Do you suppose he hit it as far, or further, than when he played the Masters when he was 48?

Noone is building 6,200 yard courses, they're building much longer courses, which require more land, more construction costs, more maintainance costs.

As one exception, Richmond Hill Golf Club was built in the last 10 years at 6,000 yards from the tips.  It's green fees are on a par with other courses in the area that were built in the same time period and that are 1,000 yards longer.

In your reality, what era was it that new courses were built at 6,200 yards from the tips?

To maintain that increased length hasn't driven costs up is to have your head planted firmly in the sand.

How do you explain a place like Bandon Dunes?  Bandon Dunes is longer than Pacific Dunes.  Therefore it's costs must be higher?  Therefore it's fees should be higher?  What has happened in the last 5 or 6 years that caused their fees to double?  Did their costs go up? Or is it what the market will bear?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Playing for money is fun.  I don't mind losing because I know that  whatever I am playing in has little relevance on my life.


In other words, you play for nominal or inconsequential amounts.[/color]

Golf is recreation so I don't tend to think of it in terms of losers and winners.  I want to enjoy myself first and foremost, the winning or losing is secondary.

How many times do you enjoy yourself when you lose ?[/color]  

I am not sure why you mentioned this business about being a gentleman, good sport and highly competitve.  I don't mind if others are highly competitive so long as their competiveness doesn't muck with my fun.  This is a rare happenstance and it is fairly easy to avoid these chaps in the future, so I don't think the three terms are at all mutually exclusive.

They're not.[/color]    

You need to learn to read posts a bit better.  I stated that most of the new equipment is a gimmick.  

I read your post very carefully.

Could you identify most of the new equipment that you categorize as a gimmick "

Let's start with some basics.

Are hi-tech graphite shafts a gimmick ?
Are large headed titanium Drivers a gimmick ?
Are the balls a gimmick, like the Pro V and its peers
Are perimeter weighted irons a gimmick ?
Are perimeter weighted putters a gimmick ?
Are hybrid/specialty clubs a gimmick ?
Are Metal fairway woods a gimmick ?[/color]

Even if the perfect fit of equipment to player, IMO, most golfers would be much better off practicing, getting lessons and getting into shape.  

That's an entirely different issue.

What is your current handicap ?

What's the lowest its ever been and when ?[/color]

I am quite confident that if I did at least two of the above my handicap would drop to a level when I did do two of the above.  I am not nearly as confident that buying new equipment will cut 7 shots from my handicap.  

It's interesting that you didn't quantify the former, but, chose to quantify the latter.  Your example is flawed[/color]

Of course I could be wrong, but I am gonna stick with that belief for now.  

You have to, it's the foundation of your argument.[/color]

I never stated that lengthening courses isn't a factor for rising green fees.  I stated that it is a minor reason.  

I pointed to the incredible rise in green fees/dues over the past 20 years (the years of added mega length) and stated that I believe in the vast majoriy of cases, land prices are not main reason for high green fees.

I think it has more to do with what the market will bear as much as anything.  All I need to do is look around the UK for evidence of this.  

How many new golf courses have been built in the UK in the last 5 years ?[/color]

As for courses that are 10-15 years old, I don't know the breakdown of operating costs to make a guess as to the percentage of green fees directly attributable to added length of courses - which I would estimate at 300 to 400 yards, maybe 500 yards more length tops (compared to 20 years ago) plus added costs of maintenance, paths etc etc.


Then how can you state that it only has a minor effect on green fees ?[/color]
 
I do applaud the efforts of Doak and others who are building courses the length of 20+ years ago.   It is a trend which I hope continues.

You're out of touch with reality.

Does it cost more to purchase land to build a 6,400 yard golf course or a 7,400 yard golf course ?

Does it cost more to build a 6,400 yard golf course or a 7,400 yard golf course ?

Does it cost more to maintain a 6,400 yard golf course or a 7,400 yard golf course ?

And you think that those costs only result in a MINOR increase in green fees ?

As I stated above, you're out of touch with reality.[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Every weekend, almost every local club in my area holds a tournament in one form or another

While that sounds very nice for you, what percentage of the rounds of golf played do you suppose are actually in high level tournaments?  I will happily stick with my assertion that the percentage of golf played in high level tournaments is quite low to the point of virtual statistical meaninglessness.
Why should the influence of shot patterns be limited to HIGH level tournaments when all golfers benefit from the technology ?[/color]

You have in a way, by your actions, shown how important 'returning the challenge' is haven't you?

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.

Sure you are. You told Sean your irons are 20 years old and your putter is 40 years old.  

20 years old isn't 40 years old.
The Ping Eye 2's benefit from perimeter weighting, something that my MacGregor and Toney Penna Irons don't.

As to my putter, sadly it's currently in the penalty box in favor of a RIFE putter.[/color]

Assuming for the sake of argument that not every round played at NGLA is a high level tournament round, what clubs do the members use for the non-tournament rounds?

How in the hell would I know ?[/color]

If they still use their new fangled gizmos (and I would be happy to wager lunch that the great majority do), why do you suppose they are so disinterested in interfacing with CBM's bunkers and other hazards and features?  

How can you make the assumption that they're not interfacing with the architecture ?

Do you think that all of the members at NGLA hit the ball as I have for the last 40 years ?

In a current membership that might have an average age of 72 or more, I don't think any of those over the average age are flying the centerline bunkers on # 8[/color]

I am surprised the members and stewards of a club like NGLA have as little regard for restoring the challenge and interfacing with the architecture as you.  

Why do you state that they're not interfacing with the architecture ?[/color]

Since 99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competition, I don't have that luxury.
However, for several years, I couldn't hit a drive 200 yards with my best hit.
And, playing NGLA with diminished abilities, distance and loft was just as much, if not more, fun.

Pity you and the NGLA members don't routinely play that way. Pity interfacing with CBM is so low on the priority list.


Why would I want to remain uncompetitive when it's my ability to be competitive that allows me to get invited to compete at NGLA[/color]

Life's way too short to spend one of my rare rounds with someone I dislike, especially if he has a loathsome wife.

Yes, but you might not have a choice.
You may have drawn him as your opponent.
Would you WD from the tournament/event ?

Patrick, I think you need to remember that the vast majority of rounds are not big club matches.  I suspect that colors your view of things too much.

Perhaps he, like you, is interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture and so has agreed not to play with a brand new oversized driver or Pro V1, and you can both enjoy the competition AND have the challenge returned?

I haven't seen any evidence of that at any level of competition

So you truly have no golfing friends that are interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture as you claim to desire??

Sure, some on this site plus others share my interest.
But, that doesn't extract them from playing for or under the same conditions that I play under.

For most weekends, I've been playing with the same 16 or so fellows for the last 40 years, and we've been known to wager every now and then.
We blind draw the teams, if 16 of us showed up, it would be 1 foursome, competing against the other 3 foursomes.  Within eeach foursomes, the twosomes would compete against other twosomes in the other three other foursomes, and then, the individuals in the foursomes compete against individuals in the other foursomes.

Since we play two seperate matches in our foursomes and twosomes, best ball and two best balls, and since we play 7 ways for each match, 2 for the front, 2 for the back, 3 for overall, with automatic presses when you're two up or two down.  You can see what would happen on a good or bad day.

The foursome bets are the largest, followed by the twosomes and followed by the individuals, but, the individuals are more prone to individual selection, whereas the team matches are rather fixed.

We determine handicaps for our matches based solely on scores shot within our matches.
Scores shot with your wife, your kids or under any other circumstances aren't accepted for calculation.

Just for the purpose of example, and this is an extreme example since every combination doesn't play every other combination.  If the foursomes played for a $ 25 nassau, twosomes for a $ 15 nassau and individuals for a $ 5 nassau and every combination played every other combination and you had a bad day, losing to the other three foursomes by 15 ways, losing to the other twosomes by 10 ways and losing all the individual matches by 10 ways, here's the math.

Individual matches = 12 X 10 X 5 = $ 600
Twosomes = 54 X 10 X 15 = 8,100
foursomes = 3 X 15 X 25 = 1,125  
Total = $ 9.825 for the day.

Do you think anyone is going to abandon their equipment in favor of equipment circa 1967-1987 ?[/color]

That seems very odd, no?  

Not at all[/color]


Please, come to DC and lets go play one of my munis with a driver, 4-5 irons and a putter and revel in the challenge and simplicity.   (sounds snarky, but isn't)

And here I thought you were more of a 'my own man' kind of guy.  Didn't realize you'd let a cultural issue get between you and interfacing with CBM as intended. How important is it then to you?  

It's critically important that it be returned for everyone, not just me.  

I'm not going to play with I&B from 20-30 years ago when my fellow competitors are playing with the most modern equipment available.

Again, I think it is important to remember that there are tournament rounds, and then there is the great majority of rounds which are non-high level tournament.  

Perhaps you missed the math exercise above and the reference to high competitive matches that don't involve the U.S. Open[/color]

And I find it rather odd, and a little sad somehow, that the joy of the game, or the interfacing with the architecure which is the soul of the game and which I know you feel, is less important than always feeling like you need to have the latest and greatest to keep up with whomever you are playing with.

It's not odd.
I donate a reasonable amount of money to charities every year, I just don't want to donate money to those I'm competing against, and I don't want those that I play for pride to be given an undue advantage.[/color]

You played Sand Hills last year with Huckaby et al. I know it was certianly not a high level tournament;

You couldn't be further off the mark.

It was an intense competition whereas, my rounds against Ran were ferociously competitive.

The beauty of golf and the point you miss is that you can be highly, if not ferociously, competitive without playing in the U.S. Open.[/color]

what driver did you use,

In June of 2005, I used a Taylor 580 with a UST 46 inch shaft, the same driver that I couldn't hit 200 yards in 2004.[/color]

and what does that ultimately say about where your priorities lie (and if you come back and body slam me by saying that you used an older driver and ball, then I will happily accept the rebuke as I know all is well with your soul  )?

It says that I wasn't going to give my extremely worthy opponent and undue advantage.

My match against Ran was one of the most competitive rounds I ever played, and I've played a few.  
I gave him 12 shots, shot under par and lost on # 17 when a long putt he hit at warp speed hit a pebble, which deflected the ball's line causing it to hit the back of the hole, popping up into the air, and then down into the cup, which had to be repaired afterward.  My brilliant birdie putt for the halve rimmed out and the man has been on cloud 9 ever since.
[/color]

If I had the opportunity to play NGLA (NOTE: this is not an access request!), I would not play with clubs that removed all strategy or did away with the strategies incorporated by CBM.  

If you knew NGLA you would realize that it's imposssible to remover ALL strategy.[/color]

You would if you were invited to compete in a tournament and your performance determined whether or not you'd be invited back

Again, percentage rounds in tournaments vs percentage not.  Not even close.

You're wrong, 100 % of my rounds at NGLA are in tournaments[/color]

PS If someone invited me to NGLA for tournament performance, they would get what they deserve for choosing poorly.

I believe that golfers with handicaps above 7 are not invited, You qualify in flights with NO handicap and you play your matches at scratch.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're digging so deep on these points that your internal logic is starting to be self contradictory.

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.

I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time.

So you would declare that drivers and 3-metals from 5 years ago don't benefit from hi-tech ?  

That they're not modern equipment that outperform persimmon ?  ?

That Ping Eye 2 irons aren't perimeter weighted ?

Currently I'm putting with a RIFE.
My Tommy Armour putter is in the penalty box.[/color]

On another aspect of your posts, it's nice to see that I'm "at odds with the golfing universe"  and Sean is "out of touch with reality", and Chris is "moronic" and AHughes is "reading things wrong".  Seems like all the rest of us posting on this thread live in a different reality or universe than you do.  


I'd agree with that.[/color]

Perhaps you could be more gentlemanly about putting us down for the shortcomings you perceive that we have.

There was nothing ungentlemanly about my comments.
Since when is telling someone that "they're reading things wrong" ungentlemanly ?  Being out of touch ?   Being at odds with the golfing Universe ?  I'd say that you're being overly sensitive or don't handle criticism well.[/color]

Re your 78 year old friend, he must be an extraordinary gentleman.  

He is, he's a terrific individual and a great golfer.[/color]

How far did he hit it when he was 48?  How far does he hit it now?  

Since I know him well, and have been familiar with his play for the last 40 years, I wasn't going to insinuate, like you have, that he might not be telling the truth.  He's a stand up guy not prone to exaggeration.

Knowing that you and others would challenge his statement, I had him repeat it in front of Mike Sweeney, a contributor to this site.  In addition, Mike played with me last Thursday and witnessed some drives I hit that I couldn't hit 20, 30 and 40 years ago when I was in good shape and maintaining a +2 to zero handicap.

Having aged 30-40 years in the last 30-40 years I should have gotten much shorter.  I should not have been able to maintain my distance, I should have lost it, but, that didn't happen, and it didn't happen for one reason and one reason only, hi-tech in I&B.[/color]

The 76 year old guy I play with is nowhere near the length he was when he was club champion.  

What you don't get is that age takes its toll on everyone, eventually, but, hi-tech equipment has offset the aging process for many golfers, allowing them to hit the ball just as far, or farther then they did when they were years younger.
[/color]

I wonder how long that other (almost) 78 year old, Arnold Palmer, was as the honorary starter at Augusta this year.  
Do you suppose he hit it as far, or further, than when he played the Masters when he was 48?

Your logic is so flawed that it's absurd.
That age has eroded one's abilities doesn't mean that the equipment doesn't allow for enhanced performance.

How do you think Palmer was able to stay competitive for so long ?  Nicklaus ?  It wasn't their diet.  It was the new, modern equipment that offset the aging process.[/color]

Noone is building 6,200 yard courses, they're building much longer courses, which require more land, more construction costs, more maintainance costs.

As one exception, Richmond Hill Golf Club was built in the last 10 years at 6,000 yards from the tips.  It's green fees are on a par with other courses in the area that were built in the same time period and that are 1,000 yards longer.

That's overwhelming evidence.  ONE EXCEPTION.

Why don't you look at the golfweek lists and see where modern lengths are trending.  You're out of touch with reality if you don't think old courses are being lengthened and that new courses are longer.[/color]

In your reality, what era was it that new courses were built at 6,200 yards from the tips?

Probably pre WWII[/color]

To maintain that increased length hasn't driven costs up is to have your head planted firmly in the sand.

How do you explain a place like Bandon Dunes?

I explain it by saying it's a good golf course on the Oregon coast, difficult to get to, but fun to play.[/color]

Bandon Dunes is longer than Pacific Dunes.

So what ?  What has that got to do with the FACT that the costs to acquire land, build and maintain a golf course are higher for courses with longer yardage ?[/color]

Therefore it's costs must be higher ?  
Therefore it's fees should be higher?

You can't be this obtuse..... can you.

They're all part of a contiguous 54 hole complex, about to become 72 holes, owned and managed by the same person.[/color]

What has happened in the last 5 or 6 years that caused their fees to double?  

Labor costs, fuel costs, building another golf course, Bandon Trails, Building a fourth golf course, building infrastructure, a rising stock market, etc., etc..

Bandon is a destination GOLF RESORT.
It's got a HOTEL complex attached to it.
Fees are supposed to go up.[/color]

Did their costs go up? Or is it what the market will bear?


Both.

Do you think that the changes to BD and PD and the introduction of BT didn't influence costs ?
Do you think that building a fourth golf course won't influence costs.   Please tell me that you're NOT an accountant or financial planner.

Or, do you think that Mike Keiser should spend all his money and NOT recapture any of his expenses and a return on his investment ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

You seem to be much better at asking questions then responding to them or properly reading posts.  I am confident I made it quite clear that I enjoy myself on the course win or lose.  

I read your posts carefully and answered your questions, however, you seem to avoid answering some of mine.[/color]

Pat, I don't build golf courses, I pay green fees.  I will go out on a very short limb and say there were far more courses built in the UK over 20 years ago than less.  

That's irrelevant.
The distance issue reared the preponderance of its head within the last 10 or so years, not before 20 years ago.[/color]

Of this overwhelming majority of courses built more than 20 years ago, very few clubs can claim that extra length is the reason green fees have gone up more than 100% (quite a conservative estimate).  

You keep trying to discuss length in the context of 20 or more years ago when the distance issue hadn't become substantive.

I understand your need to do that, for if you discuss the issue in the context of the last 5 or 10 years your example fails.[/color]

I don't think the numbers are quite so convincing in the States, but without knowing any specifics about a single course over there, I would be willing to lay a wager of 10 quid that when all courses are considered, the increase of length is NOT the single biggest factor driving up green fees.

NOONE is interested in ALL the golf courses, stay focused on courses built within the last 5 and 10 years.

Look at Sebonack with an acquisition of land cost of approx 43 million.  Look at Liberty National, Trump Los Angeles, Trump Bedminster, etc., etc..  When land costs alone are in the multi millions, with millions more for building big golf courses, what do you think drives the cost to play ?[/color]

Of course, I don't intend to lift a finger to find the answers.  It is your task to prove length is the main reason for increased green fees.

That's easy.
If you need 150 acres and the land costs $ 500,000 per acre to design and build a 6,700 yard golf course, but, you need 165 acres to build a 7,400 yard golf course are you going to tell me that the cost to acquire the land and the additional expense of $ 7,500,000 to acquire the extra 15 acres isn't the major factor in driving up the green fees ?

Throw in the cost to build out another 700 yards, about 10 % more than needed for the 6,700 yard golf course and you begin to get the picture...... hopefully.[/color]

There is no point coming up with BS about why the bet isn't sound because [size=4x]I have already acknowledged that extra length does increase green fees,[/size] how much I don't know.  

I strongly suspect you don't either.  

With Roger Hansen, the force behind Hidden Creek as my source, I like my odds better than your unfounded shot in the dark.[/color]

If you believe your bunk, take the bet.

I'll take the bet.
Let me restate it.
That the biggest factor in determining costs to play a golf course, as a member or a fee paying golfer, is the acquisition of land and the construction costs, and that increased length has increased those costs.[/color]

So far as equipment VS practice, lessons and getting fit, well I don't understand how they are entirely different issues.

Then have someone explain it to you, as I don't have the time.

One does all of these things to shoot lower scores - the ultimate goal is the same.  

Then why aren't the guys and gals on tour and at every USGA, Regional and State event playing with equipment circa 1967-1987 ?

It's simple, because that equipment doesn't perform nearly as well as today's equipment.  To deny that is to be in denial, naive or just plain stupid.

Its wonderful when a guy has the money and time do combine all four elements, but being someone grounded in reality, I realize that this is quite a rare achievement.  

Agreed, it's a luxury.[/color]

I am not at all sure what my handicap has to do with any of this, but I am a 9.  As a teenager I was briefly down to scratch (supposedly),  in truth it was more like a proper 2.  If I wanted to get back down to 2, I would put my effort (in this order): 1. Getting fit, 2. Practice 3. Lessons I have no doubt this is achievable without looking at another piece of equipment.  Shit, I could probably drop 2 shots just by playing in qualifying comps!

How do you explain all those old guys, who are far from fit, who are hitting the ball today as well if not better than they did 10, 20 and 30 years ago ?

I know guys who spend hours, every day, practicing, yet, they don't get better.   Practiciing bad habits rarely helps.
Guidance with respect to equipment and swing techniques is critical to improvement.[/color]

I wonder how a guy like me who belongs to two clubs, plays (and pays the green fees) maybe 70 games a year at all levels of clubs up and down the UK and the odd game or two in the States could get so far out of touch?  

You'd have to do some soul searching to determine the answer to that question.

But, a guy who plays golf approx 20 % of the time wouldn't seem to need to practice too much more.[/color]

Perhaps you could suggest a few reasons for my detachment from reality.  

It might take years of therapy to determine that, and I don't have the time.

You're only available 80 % of the time since you play golf the other 20 %.  I have to assume that you work, 71 % of the time, so that only leaves 9 % for other activities, hardly enough time for you to undergo treatment.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

I will happily stick with my assertion that the percentage of golf played in high level tournaments is quite low to the point of virtual statistical meaninglessness.
Why should the influence of shot patterns be limited to HIGH level tournaments when all golfers benefit from the technology ?

Patrick, it would be helpful if you would cease and desist from taking nips at the bottle while posting.    This conversation took a pronounced turn several days ago, with the emphasis apparently being that technology/increased distance hasn't made the game too easy for most of us but the desire to ensure the classics were still relevant and challenging for the best in high level tournaments was strong (please see Shel's posts and our responses).

I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.


20 years old isn't 40 years old.

And green isn't red and a carrot isn't a tomato. Now that we have all that out of the way, you said you wouldn't use clubs 20-40 years old, and then you told Sean your irons are 20 years old and your putter is over 40 years old. As I asked above, please put the bottle away while posting--it becomes tough to follow you when your posts so clearly contradict each other.

Assuming for the sake of argument that not every round played at NGLA is a high level tournament round, what clubs do the members use for the non-tournament rounds?

How in the hell would I know ?

My mistake. I made the assumption, clearly a poor one, that you might actually see what your playing companions are using.  I also assumed that someone with your passion for this issue, for the problem of increased distance and the effect it has on classic courses, might have bothered to maybe ask or even see firsthand what your friends or playing partners use and what effect it has on distance and classic courses. I didn't realize it was merely a theoretical issue for you and what the effects are in the real world were meaningless to you.  

If they still use their new fangled gizmos (and I would be happy to wager lunch that the great majority do), why do you suppose they are so disinterested in interfacing with CBM's bunkers and other hazards and features?  

How can you make the assumption that they're not interfacing with the architecture ?
Do you think that all of the members at NGLA hit the ball as I have for the last 40 years ?
In a current membership that might have an average age of 72 or more, I don't think any of those over the average age are flying the centerline bunkers on # 8

Patrick, you may not continue to have it all ways. Either the new equipment has removed the challenge or it has not. You have now been arguing both sides of the fence depending on what suits your needs at the moment.  It might be easier for all of us if I retired to the sidelines and just let you publicly argue both sides of the issue.

Pity you and the NGLA members don't routinely play that way. Pity interfacing with CBM is so low on the priority list.
Why would I want to remain uncompetitive when it's my ability to be competitive that allows me to get invited to compete at NGLA

What's the big deal about being invited to play a course that is not challenging?  Why would you even want to fight the traffic to schlepp to the far end of LI to play a course that with the new equipment is not challenging (though you say your clubs are 20-40 years, and that they are NOT 20-40 years old. Its so confusing) and further,  one that you no longer interface with the architecture as CBM intended? Is the lunch really that good?

So you truly have no golfing friends that are interested in returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture as you claim to desire??

Sure, some on this site plus others share my interest.
But, that doesn't extract them from playing for or under the same conditions that I play under.
.
.
.
.
Total = $ 9.825 for the day.
Do you think anyone is going to abandon their equipment in favor of equipment circa 1967-1987 ?

Patrick, while  certainly would not wish to lose all ways in ya'alls game (my mind started to hurt just turning over the numbers), the fact remains that even if the numbers were 10 times that amount the base reality is still the same and no attempt to mask that with big bets will change that.  You claim the challenge needs to be returned to the game, but you have yet to say why?  Really, in your world, what difference does it make how challenging the game is or even if you can or can't blow it 40 yards past the Bottle bunkers?  All that matters, and you have made this quite clear, is whether you win or lose money, or whether you are competitive at NGLA and continue to receive invites to play a course that doesn't challenge either you or other good players.

Again, I think it is important to remember that there are tournament rounds, and then there is the great majority of rounds which are non-high level tournament.  

Perhaps you missed the math exercise above and the reference to high competitive matches that don't involve the U.S. Open

No, actually you typed it a minute or two before you typed this section, so it would have been impossible for me to have seen it when I made my post which came many hours before you posted. Please tell me what it is exactly that you are imbibing while posting? I suspect it makes the world look much better    Also, for my peace of mind, please tell me that you understand that I couldn't have missed a post of yours that came after I posted? I don't need to send TEP and his orderlies in white to check on you, do I?

And I find it rather odd, and a little sad somehow, that the joy of the game, or the interfacing with the architecure which is the soul of the game and which I know you feel, is less important than always feeling like you need to have the latest and greatest to keep up with whomever you are playing with.

It's not odd.
I donate a reasonable amount of money to charities every year, I just don't want to donate money to those I'm competing against, and I don't want those that I play for pride to be given an undue advantage.

Again, you fall into the same bunker. If all that matters is the winning and the losing, then what clubs everyone uses and what level of challenge there is is meaningless.  Whether a 78 man hits it as far now as he did when 48 means nothing--your definition and your outlook makes that abundantly clear. He either wins, or he loses, and whether he can fly it well past the Bottle bunkers or has to make decisons on the tee means less than nothing according to the Mucci Gospel. Just win baby!

You played Sand Hills last year with Huckaby et al. I know it was certianly not a high level tournament;

You couldn't be further off the mark.
It was an intense competition whereas, my rounds against Ran were ferociously competitive.
The beauty of golf and the point you miss is that you can be highly, if not ferociously, competitive without playing in the U.S. Open.

Patrick, I don't miss that at all. I agree. A pair of 25s can have incredibly competitive and fun matches. But that does not make it a high level tournament.  Highly competitive DOES NOT equal high level.  
You made the choice to travel all the why to Nebraska and bring equipment that removed much (all?) of the challenge of the fine course C&C created. What sense does that make? Why travel all that way for some challenge-less rounds?  Again, was the lunch that good (don't answer that-I'm tired of hearing how good the burgers are at the turn  )

My match against Ran was one of the most competitive rounds I ever played, and I've played a few.  
I gave him 12 shots, shot under par and lost on # 17 when a long putt he hit at warp speed hit a pebble, which deflected the ball's line causing it to hit the back of the hole, popping up into the air, and then down into the cup, which had to be repaired afterward.  My brilliant birdie putt for the halve rimmed out and the man has been on cloud 9 ever since.

I would expect you to shoot under par--you are a very good player using equipment that (is either 20-40 years old or isn't) makes a course like Sand Hills virtually without challenge according to you.
Rumor has it that Ran actually placed his lucky pebble on the cup's edge and that is why your putt stayed out.  

Again, percentage rounds in tournaments vs percentage not.  Not even close.
You're wrong, 100 % of my rounds at NGLA are in tournaments

Sorry, you quoted a different percentage earlier. I really need to stop making the mistake of taking you at your word    (is it whiskey?  Vodka?)
Also, that comment wasn't in relation to you and you alone.  Truly, as hard as it may be to believe, there is more to the golfing universe than Mucci at NGLA    Of course, that may be a flaw in the universe....

PS If someone invited me to NGLA for tournament performance, they would get what they deserve for choosing poorly.

I believe that golfers with handicaps above 7 are not invited, You qualify in flights with NO handicap and you play your matches at scratch.

Ooh, there is still hope for me!  When should I check my mailbox?  

[Paul Stephenson]

I wonder how long that other (almost) 78 year old, Arnold Palmer, was as the honorary starter at Augusta this year.  
Do you suppose he hit it as far, or further, than when he played the Masters when he was 48?

Your logic is so flawed that it's absurd.
That age has eroded one's abilities doesn't mean that the equipment doesn't allow for enhanced performance.

How do you think Palmer was able to stay competitive for so long ?  Nicklaus ?  It wasn't their diet.  It was the new, modern equipment that offset the aging process.

His logic isn't flawed.  Does Palmer hit it as far now than at 48?  Anyone with a TV set knows the answer.  It is no.  

Does a 78 year old Palmer with a 460cc Driver and a HX Tour hit it farther than a 78 year old Palmer with a persimmon driver and balata ball.  IMO the answer is equally as clear.  It is yes; but that was not Sean's question.  It was your answer.  What's your opinion on that first question?

[Bryan Izatt]

BTW I am not sure where you get the percentages of how my time is spent, but it is amusing.  

Ciao  

Aw, c'mon Sean, you know that in that parallel universe known as MucciWorld, that Patrick is omniscient.  Probably omnipotent too.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You're digging so deep on these points that your internal logic is starting to be self contradictory.

Not at all.
99 % of my rounds at NGLA are in competitions.
I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive.

I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time.

So you would declare that drivers and 3-metals from 5 years ago don't benefit from hi-tech ?  

That they're not modern equipment that outperform persimmon ?  ?

That Ping Eye 2 irons aren't perimeter weighted ?[/color]

No, no, and no.  How do they relate to your confusion about your irons and putter being greate than 20 years old and that you don't play such clubs.  Why not just own up and admit that you're self-contradictory at times.

Currently I'm putting with a RIFE.
My Tommy Armour putter is in the penalty box.[/color]

...............................

Re your 78 year old friend, he must be an extraordinary gentleman.  

He is, he's a terrific individual and a great golfer.[/color]

How far did he hit it when he was 48?  How far does he hit it now?  

Since I know him well, and have been familiar with his play for the last 40 years, I wasn't going to insinuate, like you have, that he might not be telling the truth.  He's a stand up guy not prone to exaggeration.

Again you misread.  I wasn't trying to insinuate anything about your friend.  I really meant he was extraordinary - as in out of the ordinary.  I was just curious about his distances now and then.  Not to say that he was lying.

Knowing that you and others would challenge his statement, I had him repeat it in front of Mike Sweeney, a contributor to this site.  In addition, Mike played with me last Thursday and witnessed some drives I hit that I couldn't hit 20, 30 and 40 years ago when I was in good shape and maintaining a +2 to zero handicap.

Having aged 30-40 years in the last 30-40 years I should have gotten much shorter.  I should not have been able to maintain my distance, I should have lost it, but, that didn't happen, and it didn't happen for one reason and one reason only, hi-tech in I&B.[/color]

The 76 year old guy I play with is nowhere near the length he was when he was club champion.  

What you don't get is that age takes its toll on everyone, eventually, but, hi-tech equipment has offset the aging process for many golfers, allowing them to hit the ball just as far, or farther then they did when they were years younger.
[/color]

Actually, I do get that aging takes its toll on everyone.  I can speak personally about that.  And, yes technology has offset some of that deterioration.  As to whether it allows people to hit it just as far or farther as they age, that depends on the person and their age and their health and fitness.

I wonder how long that other (almost) 78 year old, Arnold Palmer, was as the honorary starter at Augusta this year.  
Do you suppose he hit it as far, or further, than when he played the Masters when he was 48?

Your logic is so flawed that it's absurd.
That age has eroded one's abilities doesn't mean that the equipment doesn't allow for enhanced performance.

How do you think Palmer was able to stay competitive for so long ?  Nicklaus ?  It wasn't their diet.  It was the new, modern equipment that offset the aging process.[/color]

The last time I could find that Palmer had a average driving distance on the Champions Tour was 1994, when he was 65.  I guess the technology didn't keep him competitive in that venue after that.  Nicklaus has of course not been competitive (in his own words) for a few years now.  Certainly before he was 65.

Noone is building 6,200 yard courses, they're building much longer courses, which require more land, more construction costs, more maintainance costs.

As one exception, Richmond Hill Golf Club was built in the last 10 years at 6,000 yards from the tips.  It's green fees are on a par with other courses in the area that were built in the same time period and that are 1,000 yards longer.

That's overwhelming evidence.  ONE EXCEPTION.

You were the one who said "Noone".  I was just pointing out the error of your absolute statement.

Why don't you look at the golfweek lists and see where modern lengths are trending.  You're out of touch with reality if you don't think old courses are being lengthened and that new courses are longer.[/color]

In your reality, what era was it that new courses were built at 6,200 yards from the tips?

Probably pre WWII[/color]

So, are you suggesting that a return to pre-WWII lengths is called for?  A 70 year rollback?

To maintain that increased length hasn't driven costs up is to have your head planted firmly in the sand.

How do you explain a place like Bandon Dunes?

...................................

Did their costs go up? Or is it what the market will bear?


Both.

Thank you for that small admission.

Do you think that the changes to BD and PD and the introduction of BT didn't influence costs ?
Do you think that building a fourth golf course won't influence costs.   Please tell me that you're NOT an accountant or financial planner.
[/color]

No, I'm not an accountant or a financial planner.  Are you?  I did, however, manage the financial side of a succesful $100M+ a year service business including cost accounting and pricing.

Or, do you think that Mike Keiser should spend all his money and NOT recapture any of his expenses and a return on his investment ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()