USGA Museum not to move to NYC

[Paul_Turner]

Thomas used the Masters for the stats because it's the same course (unlike the other 3 majors) and was relatively unchanged for a good portion of that chart.

I'm convinced that the equipment is at its maximum potential, and any further gains will be due to the players.  As is Thomas apparently, he stated this at the recent meeting at Forsgate (many GCAers were there-any comments?).

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John,

You are right, we have moved off topic, which is probably a good thing considering the Russian Tea Room episode and the closing of Golf Journal are real low points for the organization.

My only up close and personal experience with the Executive Committee came in 1995-1998 when Riviera hosted the Senior Open. I many came away very impressed by the staff, and totally unimpressed with the Executive Committee members we encountered. Perhaps they were grouchy from having to deal with Mr. Watanabe and his desire to play Wednesday afternoon of tournament week or Mr. Watanabe's idea to serve the ExCom people sushi at his suite reception.

But Mike Miller -- who was then the Director of Golf at Riviera -- and I introduced ourselves and approached one member who had played in the event on Saturday, had missed the cut and was watching play behind #2 green. Mike and I still laugh about it, because the ExCom member in question could not have been more annoyed that the Director of Golf and the person who wrote a book on the place wanted to say hello and chat about golf, Riviera, his experience playing the course, etc...

Geoff

[Gary_Nelson]

370 yard drives???  I say... "so what".  The good of the game doesn't center around the top 1% of the golfing population.  This notion of scaling back driving distances for everyone doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe I'm echoing the sentiments of Ely Callaway but here goes...

In my opinion, it is better for the game if the general golfing population (15 - 20 handicapper) can get equipment in his/her hands that will allow them to drive the ball 270 yards.  The feeling of elation that results will keep them coming back.  Right now, I doubt the average driving distance for a male golfer exceeds 220 yards.

Tour events, US Opens, US Amateurs, etc.  SHOULD be played on 8000 yard courses because those competitors really can drive the ball 300+ yards.  These select courses are making enough from TV/Tickets/etc in order to pay for the extra maintenance and acreage.   It's entertaining for the fans to see the big hitters in golf... just like we all like to watch a guy hit a home run in baseball much better than a bloop single over the shortstop.

I say that the rest of us stick with our 6500 - 7000 yard layouts and have fun for the next 100 years.

I just can't see the benefit of scaling back clubs & balls until someone proves to me that 50% of all golfers can hit 370 yard drives.

That's my opinion.  I could be wrong.

Gary

[Kevin_Reilly]

In my opinion, it is better for the game if the general golfing population (15 - 20 handicapper) can get equipment in his/her hands that will allow them to drive the ball 270 yards.  The feeling of elation that results will keep them coming back.

Gary, I have just the thing for an instant 30-40 yds for the 20 hdcp player:


For more ordering information, go to: http://www.golfun.net/fireball.htm

[JohnV]

My common sense proves to me that "the primary reason for this is technology."   But I continue to use Hogan as a standard; I doubt if anyone is going to suggest that his technique has been substantially improved upon, yet players of similar physical stature are hitting it light years past where he drove it.  Hogan hit a 1 iron (some say a 2?) into the 72nd green at Merion when the hole was playing 448 yards.  

Your common sense is a wonderful thing, but it isn't a good enough reason to change the rules to me.

As for Hogan, I was reading about that shot recently.  The author (sorry I don't remember where it was) said that Hogan was exhausted after 4 days of US Open pressure and walking all that distance on his bad legs and did not hit anywhere near his best drive.  I'm sure he was much further from the green than he could have been.  But, it seems to be many people's "best" argument about how far the players hit it today vs then.

I have seen plenty of shows the Golf Channel where players like Snead, Nicklaus and others supposedly hit it 300 yards back in the early 1960s.  Probably just as meaningful.

What I'm looking forward to is how much the ODS gets changed once they switch to a faster swing speed and a titanium driver.  Then I'd like to see what it would be if they just used the titanium driver at the old 109 MPH.  Then we could get an idea of how difference the club makes vs the swing speed.

I'm sure the USGA could do a series of tests that would show how much each of the variables effect the numbers.  It would be really interesting to see them.  Then we could be using facts instead of your common sense vs mine.

[Daniel_Wexler]

JohnV:

Those guys taking free drops from the 370-yard crosswalks must have all hit career shots-- or perhaps they were all hit downwind?

DW

[Daniel_Wexler]

Gary Nelson:

I'm sure the USGA brass will take great heart in knowing that they've got support from folks who feel that big events SHOULD be played on 8,000 yard courses...

DW

[Gary_Nelson]

Daniel Wexler,

I see no reason why the "big boys" can't play on the big courses (ie.  8000 yards).   These are the big leagues.  It's unfortunate that places like Merion aren't long enough (or have enough corporate tent area) anymore.   Except for us architecture enthusiasts, the people watching the tournament won't miss it.  

Golf architecture for the masses is my interest.  I don't see anything wrong with the masses hitting 270 yard drives and enjoying playing from the blue tees.   Give 'em all the titanium and ProV1x they can afford and let 'er rip.

Let's make provisions for the pro's (and top amateurs) and let the masses enjoy hitting it as far as they can.  I still doubt the average golfer will ever be able to drive a ball farther than 250 yards on a consistent basis.

Gary

[tlavin]

I just finished an Open experience with members of the Executive Committee and I have to say that they, along with the USGA staff, are extremely capable and well-intended.  I don't know what they're really thinking, but it was my impression that they would love to do "something about the ball" and "something about drivers", but that they can't do it without the complete participation of the PGA.  That organization seems totally committed to making professional players look superhuman.  I mean, it's bad enough that these guys can get "up and down" out of a locked car, but it really is galling to see 380 yard drives on a regular basis by pedestrian professionals.  We even have members of the Senior Tour (Watson, for one) routinely hitting their tee shots over 350 yards if the hole allows for a full lash.

I don't know about the rest of you, but driver/lob wedge on 450 yard holes isn't worth watching.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Terry,

Since you were involved with the Open, you may not have seen tapes yet of the telecasts, or more likely your natural reflexes may have taken over and fast forwarded through the interviews with Reed MacKenzie and David Fay.  But in both cases they stated  that they were comfortable with the ball and equipment rules at this point. So for the PGA Tour to get involved, they need a consistent, coherent position from the USGA, which seems impossible based on the recent inconsistencies.

The argument you make is good enough for me, but it wasn't for Fay based on his comments on the air. It's just not very interesting to watch slug and sand wedge golf. But as long as the money is coming in and not going out, it appears impossible to get the USGA brass, the PGA Tour or the average network exec to understand that it is in the best interest of the sport to restore interesting decisions and an intelligent purpose to playing a golf hole on the pro level and anywhere else.

Maybe when the ratings go down and the nest egg has been depleted while paying the Russian Tea Room property taxes (when they still own it in 2005), then they'll step up to the plate. But getting the higher ups to understand how to "sell" what exactly are the negative effects on architecture and viewing interest and the sport's popularity continues to be a tough one, even with tennis right there to point to.
Geoff

[Tim_Weiman]

Terry:

I'm with you. Watching driver/lob wedge on 450 yard holes is boring.

Too bad the PGA Tour doesn't understand that. If these guys are really so good, why not dial back the ball AND take them back to persimmon drivers with steel shafts. That would make the Tour a lot more fun to watch.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Terry:

Obviously we share a similar perspective regarding equipment, but I'm curious as to why you feel the "complete participation" of the PGA (by which I assume you mean the PGA Tour) is necessary.  Actually -- and more to the point -- is there any reason to think that the Tour wouldn't be cooperative?

Perhaps some of our more senior contributors can help here but does anyone recall an instance of the USGA making a substantial rule change (e.g. banning croquet-style putting) where the Tour put up any real resistance?  Also, hasn't Tim Finchem already indicated that he'd consider his own regulatory moves if the USGA fails to act?

It is difficult for me to envision a scenario wherein the USGA (finally) addresses this issue and the Tour's reaction presents a problem-- but even if such were the case, isn't the USGA's mission to act "for the good of the game" and not to satisfy Tour players or equipment manufacturers?

DW

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

Perhaps the greatest source of data that each individual can understand is their own performance over the years.

I carry and hit the ball longer under all conditions today, then I did 30+ years ago, when I was in substantially better shape and had far better hand-eye co-ordination, practiced and played more tournament golf.

I saw my dad's generation of very good players lament the loss of distance as they aged, especially when they hit 50.

Bill Campbell once told me, when I questioned him about the age break at 55 for the Senior Amateur, that after 55, one's game goes, along with distance, because their physical abilities are diminishing.  Yet, I can show you guys 55 to 65, today, that hit it farther than the PGA Tour pros did 30+ years ago.

I can show you a member, actually a couple of members,at Pine Tree, who are 50+ yards longer than Sam Snead in his prime, and they aren't youngsters.

My point is, whether you choose to analyze lab reports, field stats, or if you've been around long enough to just observe golfers over the last 40+ years, especially in the last 10 years, there is no question that Driver distance has taken a quantum leap, and had a negative impact on architecture, playing tactics and strategy

[JakaB]

I can show you a member, actually a couple of members,at Pine Tree, who are 50+ yards longer than Sam Snead in his prime, and they aren't youngsters.

I may live to regret this statement....but Ernie Els is not 50+ yards longer than Sam Snead in is prime.

[tlavin]

I'm with Mucci on this one.  I just bought a Titleist 983K  and I'm hitting it 35 yards further than I used to hit my Biggest Big Bertha just a few years ago.  I'm hitting the Pro VI which is also helpful.  Bottom line, I like getting extra distance, but as a spectator of professional golf, I'm getting a little bored by the sameness of the driver/wedge play.  I'm disappointed to read that Fay wasn't supportive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the USGA isn't looking at this closely.  At its most recent annual meeting, one of their research guys said that the average golf course has shrunk by 350 yards in the past four years because of the ball, technology and player fitness.  In the case of Olympia Fields, that means the 320 or so of added yardage was already technologically obsolete by the time they teed it up in the Open and started banging it past all of the fairway bunkers AND fairway crossovers.  Ultimately, they still couldn't putt the greens, which is why only four players broke par, but I'm not sure America only wants to see a putting contest every week either.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
Did you see Michael Miller's exhibit on the Golden Age at Golf House? If so, what was your impression?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Buzz Peel, a member of Pine Tree, with his new 983 K Titleist driver, with the Fujikara speeder shaft and the Pro VIX ball routinely carries the ball 300 to 300+ yards.

It's tough to believe unless you actually see it.

When I last played with him, on the 14th hole, a slight dogleg left, 370 yards, around a little lake, he drove it directly over the lake landing 10 yards short of the green.

I know, you think that the hole is measured down the centerline and that the route he took is shorter than 370 yards, and you're correct, but it's not that much shorter.

So, on the next hole, a dead straight par 4 of 350 yards, going in exactly the opposite direction as # 14, his drive carried into the green side bunker, causing some friends on the green to waive at him with a unique one digit motion.

Both of these drives never had a yard of roll, they were all carry.  Had the fairways been firm like Inverness's were this weekend, there's no telling how far the ball would go.

What makes these feats remarkable is that Buzz gave up golf for eleven years and started to play again, four years ago, and Buzz is no youngster, at 48/9 years old.  And, for the most part, he's very straight off the tee, with a little fade.

The last time I saw Buzz, he had just come back from a fitting center where they measure your swing speed, ball speed off the club face, launch angle and spin rate.  He indicated that he was going to make some modifications in equipment in order to maximize his distance potential, based on these studies.

JakaB, it's a different world out there.

[A_Clay_Man]

30 years ago 55 year olds weren't in any where near the shape the new breed is in. I'd say the age barrier now is closly approaching 75. Marty Larkin and the boys on the peninsula are getting close and golf sure has kept them young. Often times acting more like adolescents than geriatrics.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

You're right, they were in better shape 30 years ago.

Studies seem to indicate that Americans are in worse shape, and more overweight then in the past.

As to the new breed, only the Senior Tour, which provided a second life, if not a new life to older golfers, due to the amount of money at stake, seems to have inspired a few.

Go watch a Senior Amateur and tell me how many fitness buffs you see teeing it up.

Then ask yourself, were these guys more fit 30+ years ago, or today ?

Your position is more myth than reality.

[JakaB]

Pat,

I have little doubt Sam Sneed hit the ball an average of 270 yds in his prime...so maybe 30 but not 50+.   We are talking about one of the greatest swings of all time...not your average touring pro.  50+ past Hogan may be a better analogy.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- You must be joking because that post of yours shows absolutly no "life experience". Well, recent life anyway.

As a matter of fact, if you actually think that 30 years ago people in their 50's were in better shape than the people in their fifties are now, I will be a TePaul disciple and curse your apparently biased ass till the day I die.  

You can thrown irrelavant facts about, like some study on obeseity and it will be biased. The people I am talking about are the kind of people who live active lives, not sedentary.

[George Pazin]

It is indeed hard to sift through the evidence and separate the anecdotal from the scientific.

However, it's not hard to see the changes that are being made to golf courses to battle increased distance, perceived or actual.

I'd love to see the USGA do more to encourage clubs not to continually stretch & alter their courses. Step one might be to not do it at an Open site.

-----
Maybe we could all chip in and buy the Russian Tea Room & designate it the GCA Clubhouse. Heck, I raised almost $500 bucks hawking GCA tees.

[JohnV]

While we may or may not be in better shape at 50+ than our parents were, I bet we are a lot bigger.  My father was in very good shape at 50 (probably better than me), but I'm a lot bigger than he was.  As a result, I'm sure I could hit a ball further than he could at the same age even with the same equipment.  He was 6'3 and 210, I'm 6'5 and 260.  While some of that difference is fat, a fair amount is also muscle.

[A_Clay_Man]

John, I guess I'm the biased one. My California stint has swayed me to thinking that 70 year olds pack double, everywhere. Not to mention all those octogenarian golfers, who were in their fifties 30 years ago, kept telling me they never thought they lived, let alone golf, this long. I must be biased.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Sam Snead never came close to averaging 270 in his prime.
Florida is an excellent proving ground with respect to fairway conditions, due to the humidity and rain, versus up north, when no sprinkler systems existed, and those familiar with Snead's game and Buzz's game have indicated the gap.

One only has to look at the placement of bunkers in the 30's,
40,'s and 50's to understand where drives were being hit.

Bunkers were often at the 230 mark.
After a few years of watching Nicklaus it seemed that bunkers were then at the 250 mark.
Today, bunkers at the 300 mark are being carried.

A Clayman,

Would you point out a dozen PGA TOUR golfers age 60 who are now in better shape, who have better hand-eye co-ordination then they did 30 years ago ?

You're out of touch with reality.

If you want to dispute the governments study on conditioning, health and obesity in Americans today, be my guest.

If you also want to dispute the early onset of cardiovascular disease in my generation and the next generation, compared with my parents generation, again, go ahead, but that's not what the studies indicate.

My parents generation never heard of MacDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut or a zillion other fast food restaurants.
Their diets were far better, with many people growing their own vegetables, etc.,etc.., science, especially the advances in hypertensive drugs has improved the lives of older individuals versus 50 years ago.

John V,

I would agree that our parents generation was smaller then our generation, and arc is a component of distance.

But, I was bigger, faster, stronger and had better co-ordination when I was 25-30 then I do at age 61, yet I was shorter at 25-30 then I am today, despite the effects of aging.  There can be but one cause..... technology.

I'm just curious.
Are any of you fellows who don't think technology is out of hand, still members of the flat earth society ?