[Craig Sweet]

Sean...this is only a guess, or an assumption on my part, but if a long hitter (the mythical 350 yard driver) found a classic course to be too easy because he was driving the par 4's and hitting wedges into the greens on all the par 5's...he would find another place to play...but I don't see a stampede away from classic courses...quite the opposite...I see long waiting lists for membership...

As for technology driving up the cost of playing golf...I seriously doubt that clubs and balls are doing much of that...HOWEVER...in the quest for faster greens and fairways...there has been a monumental increase in what it cost to maintain that on a golf course...and the price of failure (dead greens...bare fairways) is even greater....

These guys that want to use the USGA as a scapegoat will surely do that, and regardless of what the USGA does, they will move on to another topic...cart paths...cell phone bills...land costs...slow play...too much rough...too little rough...bad hat logo's...etc...

The big problem is, people...golfers...demand way, way more than they did 25-30 years ago...in terms of conditions...equipment...bells and whistles...and they have the MEANS to buy what they want....$200,000 to join Sand Hills and play 6 times a year??? No problem!  $4 for a golf ball?? No problem....An endless summer of travel and playing the Top 100??? No problem....28 bathrooms in your "cabin" at the Stock Farm in Montana? No problem....

[Daniel_Wexler]

Sean:

I certainly don't think there's any shortage of ideas as to precisely how the USGA could have "controlled changes in the game."  Sandy Tatum has been very specific in his ideas on the subject, Jack Nicklaus about 10 times moreso, and top players from Els to Faldo to Crenshaw to Norman (with a few etc.s added) are on record similarly.  Hell, even Arnold Palmer -- who saw no problem being the USGA's figurehead while getting paid to endorse an illegal club -- has said that something needs to be done about the ball.  

I blame the USGA thoroughly and absolutely.  No outside agency thrust that silly "guardians of the game" stuff upon them, they appointed themselves.  As Deane Beman suggested in his recent letter to Fred Ridley, if the organization no longer wishes to govern equipment issues in an effective manner, then they should simply say so up front and let someone else take on the responsibility.  Individual golfers don't write the rulebook, regulate equipment, run course rating and handicapping systems, oversee the national championships, etc.  To suggest that individual golfers carry the blame for the state of the game is simply ludicrous.

[Aside: I would agree -- at least a little -- that individuals bear some of the blame if they weren't making their opinion fairly clear to the USGA on these issues.  But as Geoff's book points out, the organization has lost 20% of its membership in recent years -- 20% !! - and Far Hills continues to blather along aimlessly.  I cannot fathom any business, politician or organization losing one-fifth of its support and not changing its ways in response.  A business would be bankrupt, a politician out of office...but these clowns simply rocket onward "For The Good of the Game"].

Lastly, I'm not sure how you can have the phrases "distance doesn't effect me at all" and "If golf becomes more expensive because of distance, this I do care about" in the same post.  One of the saddest aspects of this whole discussion is that so many seem honestly to believe that the professional's ability to hit a modern driver (and ball) 360 yards doesn't effect them.  True, most amateurs aren't helped nearly to the same degree as a first-class ball-striker, but it is the first-class ball-striker around whom the entire field of golf course construction is tailored.  It makes no difference if the white tees remain at 6,200 yards (which, on new courses, they generally don't); if new layouts are being built substantially longer from the tips, the cost of the entire project (as well as future maintenance, property taxes, etc.) goes up proportionally.  And who's paying for that?  Your game may not be effected by this equipment anywhere near as much as the professional's -- but they're not the ones who pay greens fees!

And I ask again, to all concerned, what are we GAINING by allowing the equipment to advance unchecked?  

DW

[Daniel_Wexler]

Craig:

I have never, on this site or in any book/magazine/newspaper piece, EVER expressed even the faintest interest in the USGA's connection to "cart paths...cell phone bills...slow play...too much rough...too little rough...bad hat logo's...etc."

But did you really want to slip "land costs" in there?  Are you suggesting that purchasing/maintaining/paying property taxes on 180-200 acres instead of 150 isn't a primary component to the game's added cost?

And I'll repeat my earlier request: I can list numerous things the game has lost through unchecked equipment growth.  Please tell me something we've gained...

DW

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel, the equipment is not advancing unchecked. That is a fact. See their recent proposal for limits to MOI.

Second, the USGA has stated they will use ShotLink data, as well has their own testing, to assess how great the problem is regarding the pros'...as they have said, reacting emotionally is no good...hard data is needed.

Third, Sean is absolutely correct. The distance issue is not a factor for 99% of the golfers at your course. The technology is not making the course absolete for them. Would your course hold up under an onslaught from the pro tour, NO...very few courses would. And those classic courses that have chosen to "sleep with" the USGA or the PGA and host a tournament, have no one but themselves to blame for any modifications needed to defend against this onslaught.

Lastly, from what I can gather, 50% of the posters to this site are Ludites, and would be most comfortable using hickory shafts and balls stuffed with feathers. It's a wonder they bother with a computer
 

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel, the last time I checked they weren't making anymore land...land costs are pretty high and will only get higher...but there is absolutely no reason to build 7800 yard courses. That is pure ego....right up there with wanting the hottest architech to design your course...THAT adds to the high cost as well...

[Daniel_Wexler]

Craig:

We agree absolutely that most golfers at ANY course do not reap massive benefits from this equipment; that's not the issue (at least in my posts).  But I'm saying that the increased land/maintenance/tax costs associated with said equipment is a major factor in the game's expense.  What aspect of that do you disagree with?

And no, strictly speaking, the equipment advance has not been unchecked.  The spring-like effect rule was added (which is good) and an overall clubhead size as well (of course it's way too large).  But the USGA has been "closely monitoring" (or insert the synonym of your choice -- they've used them all) the equipment situation for about 10 years.  But "closely monitoring" and writing eloquent statements of concern don't do very much and have come WAY too late.  As Nick Faldo said recently on this subject, "The horse is so far out of the barn, it's in stud."

And I'll ask you for a third time:  What are we GAINING from all of this?

DW

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel, I totally disagree that a $4 golf ball and a club with some screw weights in the back have led to increases in land costs, taxes and maintenance costs.

I do NOT think they have led to more land being needed to construct golf courses...I have seen no proof that this is happening. I will further state, that I do not believe there is any need for 7800 yd. courses and when we do hear about one being built, it is either at altitude, or involve a developer with a huge ego...

The single biggest increase in maintenance costs has been a desire for shorter mowing heights, and daily playing conditions that resemble what people see on TV...

What have we gained from this technology? Like I said in a previous post...every aspect of our lives have benefited from improvements in technology and golf is no exception...

I'm curious...what's in your bag?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Craig:

What's in my bag has little relevance here since, disinterested in hitting driver-wedge where I used to hit driver-6 iron, I haven't played in several years.  I can tell you, however, that if I were to play again, I'd have no choice but to purchase new equipment -- that is, assuming I was going to measure my game in any fashion against anyone else's.

I'm not sure how you don't see more land being utilized for full-sized new courses; it's pretty self-evident in most places.

And OBVIOUSLY technology benefits most aspects of our lives; there's no great insight there.  But I'm asking you specifically: What is the game of golf gaining from this new equipment?  As I've said, I can name several prominent things we've lost/are losing.  Please tell me what positives there are to offset these losses?  What have we gained?

DW

[Sean_A]

Daniel

I don't know what we are gaining by advanced technology in golf.  This is a very good question.  However, I don't know what we are losing either.  I am more or less neutral on the subject.  That is why I don't think urgent action by any governing body is necessary.  I believe this is largely a personal matter and for me, distance is not something I worry about in the slightest.  However, if the R&A put a limit on technology, it doesn't really bother me.  I will still play and comply with the rules.

As for courses costing more to build  because of increased land, I have no doubt you are right.  However, why do we need to build courses over 7000 yards long (or even 6700 yards long)?  I guess this question ranks up there with why do we need greens to roll more than 9 on the stimp?  Both, completely unnecessary in my opinion, but if the punter wants them, they will be provided.  In fact, why do we need to build more courses?  There are plenty.  I can't possibly get around to playing all the courses I can easily access let alone worry about what will be built tomorrow.  If a course costs too much (for whatever reason) for me to play, I won't play it.  Golf is consumer driven.  

As for controlled changes in the game, I still think it is a matter of opinion, not fact.  I may disagree with the ball going 300 yards and Joe Bloggs feels the limit should be 250 yards, who is right?  Any decision is arbitrary.  I don't care about the opinions of Jack, Arnie, Ben etc. etc. They don't pay my club dues.    

I don't understand why people are waiting for the USGA to decide for them how the game should be played.  The USGA is not the guardian of my game.  I am the guardian of my golf game.  It is completely my choice if I wish to comply with the USGA on any matter.  It is a very simple matter to hit the ball a shorter distance.  What the pros do, unless people have a vested interest in the pro game, is largely irrelevant.  What makes people so passionate about the distance issue?  It is beyond me.  

Ciao

Sean

[Alfie]

Jim Thompson,

"Or maybe they could defend the game from those that would take advantage of it for purely financial purposes?
As golf as an industry continues to be whored out by real estate developers, equipment manufactures, optics companies, and operators bent on squeezing every dollar out of their customer rather than working in concert with the best interest of the game the popularity of the game decreases."


And I thought I was a radical !

May I compliment you on all subject matter of your posts for your resolute HONESTY and frankness.
Mr Thompson, you are a humanitarian ! And the sooner golf  and it's golfers begin to UNDERSTAND that the very essence is being wiped from the sport, then the sooner we can all get the ship back in order. In my mind, if you have something uniquely SPECIAL - then only fools would do anything other than preserve those special qualities / properties.
HONESTY is at the heart of golf's problems, I mean, the lack of it !
Liars, cheats, vagabonds, and bastards that would sell their dead grannies ! The people ruining golf are NOT golfers. They might play golf, they may even be highly talented at doing so - but they would not know the meaning of being a "golfer !" Nor do they CARE about small things like honesty, integrity, spirit, respect, consideration for others, either now, or more critically, for those of the FUTURE.
For those who don't know the value of preservation try looking at cricket and it's "rule makers" ? Didn't the ruling bodies of Baseball stand their ground and - DID THE RIGHT THING TO PRESERVE THEIR SPORT ?

There are, IMO, far too many R & A / USGA apologists in all aspects of golfing life. People who DO have influence, who DO know that the sport needs a cure, but who cannot find the honesty within themselves to put golf first, even though they may well have reaped lucrative rewards in their lifetimes off the back of golf ?

There are NO excuses left for technology in golf ! The rollback is the cure which displays "damage limitation" (even for the ball manufacturers)

I'm sick of hearing that the USGA / R&A are blameless, that their hands are tied, that they're scared of litigation, that THEY don't recognise a problem exists, that they know exactly what they are doing ?
BULLSHIT !

Golf needs more radicals as opposed to the politically correct pussies who are changing our society.

Someone needs to "do the right thing" and do it right - NOW !

Alfie

[Craig Sweet]

For the life of me Alfie, I do not see why there needs to be a "roll back".

Handicaps have not gone down due to technology. Hackers are still hackers...Most golfers are lucky to knock it 225 yards...very lucky.

Money?? Everything cost more money...yes, we are paying for technology in all aspects of our lives whether we need that technology or not...so what? Isn't that the capitalist way? Bigger, better, more....money...isnt that what drove the great industrialist at the turn of the century to buy land and build the clubs of the golden age of golf...make a place where they couold rub elbows with other of wealth...do their wheeling and dealing in privacy....

If golf has become something you abhor, then get ou of the sport...Daniel said he no longer plays for that reason...that's fine with me...but the don't sit and blame the USGA for human nature and their inability to regulate it.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Thank you, Alfie!

Sean:

Regretfully I only have a few moments to reply to post as I'm heading out the door but very briefly, here's what I believe we've lost/are losing:

1) Many of our finest courses are obsolete (or fast becoming) for major tournament play.  This may not concern those who say "Well, I'm not a professional" but it materially effects the quality of those events and thus the game itself.  Major championships contested at Merion, for example, have long held a bit more cache than those played at Kemper Lakes.

2) FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, those same classic courses do not play the way they were intended for most players of reasonably competent ball-striking ability.  Well-designed holes are built to offer advantages/disadvantages from various distances and angles.  When we throw off the distances, we materially alter the equation of how these holes play -- and very, very seldom for the better.

3) Today's records mean virtually nothing.  For those of us who actually care about the game's history (that slap was not aimed at you, by the way), we can no longer compare modern achievements with old ones in any meaningful fashion.  Obviously there has always been an element of this (hence our utter inability to really judge Young Tom) but in our present state we can't truly compare Tiger even to Jack Nicklaus, never mind Hogan, Jones or Vardon.

4) The game is too damned expensive!!  Of course it's never been cheap (at least not in anything resembling "high-quality" form) but one cannot compete in even a friendly weekend game without today's vastly more expensive equipment -- and that's not even getting into the increased land/maintenance/property tax costs that some above have suggested don't exist.  And please bear in mind that I am NOT one of these "grow the game" guys.  I'm perfectly comfortable with it being, for lack of a better phrase, a small-market game.  But it's costs have increased needlessly.

I could go on....

DW

[Daniel_Wexler]

Craig:

While I certainly respect your opinion that there doesn't need to be a rollback, I must confess to respecting the opinions of Nicklaus, Faldo, Els, Norman, Crenshaw and yes, even Arnold Palmer a bit more.  Not to mention Deane Beman and Tim Finchem from the coporate side of things, and just about every architect I know from a third perspective.

And I'm still waiting for your thoughts as to what exactly we've gained....

DW

[Sean_A]

Daniel

1)  Already stated my views.  I personally don't care if Merion holds another US Open.  None of my business.

2)  You could be right about this.  I think you are certainly right when it comes to some of the old, very short courses (~6000 yards).  However, a reasonably competent ball striker is far and few between in my experience.  Probably somewhere in the sub 5 capper category.  

3)  Records are more or less only meaningful within generations of golfers.  It is very subjective to compare across generations.   Having said this, I have no doubt that the top champions of years gone by would be champions today.  Guys like Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Harry Vardon, Gene Sarazen, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and Tom Watson are eternal.  They will always be champions because they were winners.  This ability to win many championships is about the only skill that can be compared across generations.  

4)  I agree that the game is too expensive.  I know I spend too much on the game and can certainly see the day when playing a big gun will be a rare treat indeed.  However, the game has always been expensive relative to the average wage earner.  Playing the big guns is well out of control, but you can't blame technology for this.  Most of the big guns were built many moons ago.  I am afraid greed has as much to do with high green fees as any other factor.  What I find particularly distasteful is when a club charges $200 for a guest to play.    

Golfers seem to be particular suckers when it comes to deciphering what is necessary to enjoy the game and what is fluff.  I am at times guilty of being caught up in hype rather than focusing on what makes the game great.  

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel, what have we gained? I for one enjoy golf a lot more. I'm sure others do as well. That is the biggest gain...

The cost of this technology is not that much more than it was 30 years ago. My first set of MacGregor Tourney's cost in 1968 dollars as much as today's Mizuno's...today's technology makes hitting those Mizuno's easier,gives me better ball flight, more spin,and makes miss hits a non hand stinging event...

A ProV-1 will last me easily thru 18 holes without so much as a wrinkle, regardless of how much I miss hit it...in the old days you could chew thru balls....

The cost of playing the game has gone up...but so has labor cost, fuel cost, and the overall cost of maintaining a course....growth regulators, ferts and other chemicals, lower mowing heights, all cost lots of money...expectations have risen and so have costs...these costs are passed on to the golfer...

[Alfie]

Craig,
"For the life of me Alfie, I do not see why there needs to be a "roll back".
........

Well Craig, it's only an opinion of mine and others and as it's late, I don't want to go into War & Peace with this issue tonight  

But, if you will. Please just imagine what would happen if the ball was returned to, say, it's 1960's conformities ? That's right - we'd all be hitting the ball shorter, including the pro's !
Courses would automatically and instantly would become LONGER - perhaps TOO long in some cases. Effectively we might then all be debating whether to SHRINK our local / national course which might come as a relief as opposed to the problem of finding more acres like todays scenario ?
Most golfers admit (now) that they don't gain a great deal from distance (forgiving club technology is another matter). So it's not going to hurt that much - for anyone ! Tom Doak posted the theory of doing away with tee pegs ? Fascinating, and if everyone thought like me, it would even be possible to instigate. But that just wouldn't work because the genie IS out of the bottle in regard to forgiving golf play IMO. The rollback of the ball alone, allows every Joe Blogg to continue enjoying the benefits of technology through their impliments !
Bifurcation I would also welcome, but the USGA / R&A have made it absolutely clear that they would have no truck with this proposal as it eliminates the comparisons of good and not so good players.

All technology is not bad. Believe it or not, I love hundreds of aspects of modern technology - but not in golf ! Daniel's post cites a "few" of the people who agree that there is a problem in golf today. They must all be numpties - like me ?
Jesus, they nearly hung yon Italian (?) for suggesting that the world was round !

You talk of the great industrialists and capitalism ? Andrew Carnegie was possibly the most famous of all capitalists - but I'll bet you a pound to a dollar - THAT HE DIED A SOCIALIST ?

Sometimes people live their lives and then reflect. 20 years ago, I would probably be agreeing with many of your posts. Better make that 30 years !

And please don't be thinking that this is just another boring old fart stuck in his traditions and history. Traditions can go by the wayside - but isn't it strange that we never learn from our own history ! It's a fact, that everything that man has created, he ultimately destroys. We just haven't learned when to say STOP - enough is enough. Golf, I believe, is so special in it's unique values/ properties/ essence and more. Would it be so rediculous to consider keeping those qualities and preserving them for future generations ? No ! Let's just do it the mankind way, and **** it up like we always do !

Quit golf ? Not on your nelly pal ! We'll soon find out who the quitters are, once the ball is standardised ! (coming soon, at a golf course near you. Available at $5 a dozen in assorted colours. The very latest in rollback technology giving the golfer a special feel to every shot unlike the "old" Titleist rocks of 2005. Buy them now, the balls that saved ye Royal & Ancient game. Special discounts for historians etc......)

Alfie.

[Craig Sweet]

Palmer, Nicklaus, etc...are talking about the pro game and the excessive distance they **percieve**....

[Alfie]

Palmer, Nicklaus, etc...are talking about the pro game and the excessive distance they **percieve**....
.....

Perhaps....but I'm talking about the entire game and the excessive senselessness we all **perceive**....

Palmer, Nicklaus etc...haven't quite found their inner honesty....yet ?

Alfie

[Paul Richards]

Craig

As it seems you are into defending the USGA, maybe take a look at the future of golf -

see the thread entitled "7200 yds....par 68 [from the tips]
« on: Today at 10:04:43pm »"


 

[ed_getka]

Craig,
   Are you just endlessly posting to amuse yourself? I would love to hear your explanation for why an average round of golf costs significantly more than it did when I started 25 years ago? Why do rounds take around 5 hours? Why some courses don't allow walking, even if you offer to pay for the cart you are not going to use? Why do putters cost over $100, and drivers over $400? Why are courses inexorably moving towards 8,000 yards? And in what way are these things good for the game? This has nothing to do with preserving classic courses as museums, it has to do with preserving the game of golf, before it becomes a game of the rich and those who have all day to whack a ball around the course.
   

[Daniel_Wexler]

Craig:

Perhaps you could expand a bit on what exactly it is that you find more enjoyable.  I say this because while you may well have a deeper reason that can be expounded upon, the "I enjoy it more" rationale generally translates to people who like having their skills artificially boosted by hopped up equipment.  Since the declining number of contemporary players hardly suggests that this artificial boost has been embraced on any grand scale, I would strongly suggest that sacrificing the things I've mentioned above so that a relatively small number of players can enjoy hitting it further doesn't even begin to approach the game gaining something.  especially since that option will always remain simply by choosing to use non-conforming equipment.

But perhaps you've got a better reason....

BTW, if you actually think that the distance jump that Palmer and Nicklaus see is only "perceived," then you're either on somebody's payroll or auditioning to replace JakaB.

DW

[Craig Sweet]

Ed...slow play (5 hour rounds) has little to do with technology, which was the basis for the original post.

The cost of golf, like the cost of a car, a day on the slopes, a box of cereal, reflects increase costs for providing the product...by the way, do you know how much it cost to apply growth regulators on a regular basis?  25 years ago no one was using growth regulators...

The game of golf, like everything else is expensive...do I have any answers for that? No...at our course we do what we can to provide the best conditions we can and still keep the costs down. A round at my muni cost $24...a cart is another $25 or so....

[Craig Sweet]

Daniel...in the overall scheme of things, YES...I do think the "distance jump" is mostly percieved.

Ask Jack or Arnie how far they would have hit the ball if the fairways 30 years ago were maintained like todays.  I would guess another 20 yards minimum...I think the stats coming from ShotLink will show that players are longer, but not by as much as everyone thinks...the perception is a lot like greens speed...a PGA official said the average green speed on tour last year was 10.8...up from 10.2 in the mid 90's...yet I bet we all think PGA greens run 12...

Whenever this topic comes up I like to look outside golf, to what is happening in other sports...are people running faster, jumping higher, lifting more, hitting more homeruns? I think the trend is bigger, faster, better conditioned athletes...golf is no  different.

Is the technology a factor? Of course it is....but it is not the single most important factor...course maintinence and stronger athletes are...if the USGA rolls back the technology these guys will still hit it farther than Jack and Arnie ever did...

[Paul Richards]

Craig

>slow play (5 hour rounds) has little to do with technology

A patently false statement.

Try reading "The Future of Golf" before you say something as silly as this, please.

 

[Craig Sweet]

Paul..yes, I know the argument...to defend against bombastic drives courses have been lenghtened, rough grown longer and thicker, and that adds up to slow play...

However, as I stated in my first post on this subject....that is a decision being made by the membership at your club...it doesn't have to be that way...as Shackleford says in his book, there is nothing wrong with short, quirky courses, with wide fairways, that yield 3 hour rounds...

Lets get back to your original post and what you said to the USGA...older, classic courses are being made obsolete...

Is that a bad thing? Nothing is permenent. We morn the passing of great ballparks, old buildings, etc...but we learn and move on...Are we not seeing "modern" classics being built to replace those courses that have lost their relevancy in light of modern equipment and todays golfer expectations?  Is there something here...a love...an attachment to these courses...that we have to get over?  I once suggested, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Augusta National say enough is enough...no more making changes to this beautiful course to host a tournament for 4 days...and at the same time announce they were designing and building a completely new course right next door to host the tournament ...and when it was ready for play, the Masters would move to this new course...a bold and radical move...but why not?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()