[RSLivingston_III]

Has anyone worked out any numbers on what a course might potentially save in costs?
Would existing courses be able to reduce there maintenence and/or liability costs? Would the wilder hitters be less troublesome?
Would you shorten the holes (take out the longer tees) to speed up play?
Any guesses on how many more rounds might be able to be had?

Just wondering if anyone had strarted thinking about about the financial aspects.

[Craig Sweet]

I think there would be some golfers that would quit the game.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ralph, I suppose the 25 yard number is for the ultimate in swings speeds. If so, the affect on the average course will be nil zilch nada. Most of the popular ones already move up their tees, place accesible pin positions, etc. to speed up play, all for naught.

Besides, if the ball is reduced 25 yards, the human factor, be it physically, or within the new designs of the other equiptment variables, will make that up in time.

[Kris Spence]

It will be the start of the re-restoration phase in golf architecture.

[RSLivingston_III]

I am assuming a 25 yard reduction is about where we were in the 80's.
In the last 20 years, has the average time to play a round of golf increased? Anyone know by how much, if at all?

[Matt_Cohn]

That would be a serious drag for about a year or two, huh? We'd get over it but golf would struggle for a little while.

[James Bennett]

Assuming this implies a 10% reduction in distance, then it would imply a 21% reduction in land area necessary for the same challenge.

Consider a square with sides of 10.  The area of the square is 100.  Increase all of the sides by 10% to 11.  The area of the square becomes 121.  So, the course built today on 121 acres could possibly provide the same challenges with the 10% distance reduction on 100 acres.

Obvious impacts on land costs, irrigation, maintenance and even time to walk the course.

[Joe Hancock]

What if we just lighten the ball up, and see what the wind does to it? Plus, it won't hurt so bad when it strikes an unwitting pedestrian who is out on their evening stroll.

Ralph,

I'm waiting to show you around the Mines as well as the par 3 course. There's some greens out on the par 3 course that will not discriminate which ball is being played.

Joe

[A.G._Crockett]

Adam C. is right; the impact will be nearly zilch.  All that will be accomplished will be seeing tour pros hit longer irons into greens.  Additionally, the longest two or three limberbacks at your club will lose yardage.  For the rest of us, nothing.

My prediction is that you will NOT see shorter courses being built because of this.  I think it will turn out that the 7000 yd. barrier is a marketing necessity, rather than an architectural one.  Escalating land costs might lead to shorter courses, but not the ball.

[Jim Thompson]

Ralph,

With regard to the 25 yard reduction question, we first need to know how it will be achieved.  The two most bandied approaches are mass reduction and spin rate restoration.  

The mass approach will impact the high swing speed players more than the slower swingers, whom it will still affect but not as dramatically.  The compression of the linear length of landing zones could result in a reduction in fairway surface needed for playability and result in significant reduction in cost.  Cost very by region and turf type...

The spin rate restoration approach would have little impact on landing zone depths as it would more likely impact all players by a percentage of reduction do to lift.  The savings here though could be recognized by a reduction in costs to maintain putting surfaces as the water commonly used to enhance receptiveness could be pulled back thus minimizing disease exposure and the like.

If the GCSAA ever unites and maintains greens so firm that a "soft spin ball" was the weapon of necessity rather then choice, we won’t have to wait for the USGA and the R&A.  The smaller heavier Euro ball would also be a choice as the added distance on firm would require a more delicate and skilled shot relative to approaches.  Savings could also abound as frontal guardian bunkers could be removed en masse.

Cheers!

JT

BTW – just got my hickory irons, we’ll have to get together

[Doug Siebert]

A 25 yard pullback isn't likely to be the same as a 10% reduction in distance.  If the USGA does it right, the pullback will mostly affect the driver and affect irons very little.  If they attack it by controlling the spin rate off the driver and therefore the high trajectory/extra long carry that allows the driver to go so much further.

I may hit my driver a little further today despite not swinging nearly as aggressively as I used to swing it with a 21 year old back, but I hit say my 6 or 7 iron pretty much the same distance I did with a balata ball 15 years ago, and I think that's pretty much true for pros as well (modulo the stronger lofts and longer shafts they've got very few use true blades any longer)

So I really don't think there is much to save in ongoing costs for existing courses.  It would help new construction by not needing as much land -- especially today if a course wants to be prepared for what might be in store 20-30 years from now if things keep getting further out of hand.  If the USGA acted now, that'd allow developers to breathe a sigh of relief that the USGA intends to control things so they don't need to worry about leaving room to expand the course to 8300 yards for golfers in 2040.  And of course it would save existing courses that want to "keep up" future costs in renovations to add new tees, move bunkers, etc.

I think there would be some golfers that would quit the game.

Craig Sweet,

If you think people will quit the game if the ball is pulled back, shouldn't we eliminate the ODS so that balls that allow Tiger to hit it 450 yards and average Joes to hit it 360 can be legal?  After all, if you claim less distance hurts the game, more distance grows it (for those who think growing the game is a necessary and good thing)

Besides, if 0.5% of golfers have such a fragile ego they can't play a slightly shorter set of tees if the set they play today becomes too long for them with a shorter ball, is that really a big problem?

[Craig Sweet]

I don't know what "average joe's you know hitting it 360 yards! I work on a golf course and I would be shocked if the average drive for 90% of the golfers approaches 250 yards.  

If you want to roll the ball, back for the pro's (though to be honest I could care less) then so be it. But for everyone? NOPE....

The guys I see USE to be able to smack it 250...maybe 270. But now, without the new technology, they would be smacking it 225-240...the new ball, the new club, the firmer fairway, have given him back the 25 yards he lost with aging....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()