[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently, I lost a lot of weight and strength and was a good 50 yards shorter with my driver and several irons shorter with my irons.

The result.

The architectural features on the golf course took on more significance.

I had to rethink and re-execute my way around the golf course.

It was a lot more fun, although my scoring suffered.

The biggest impediment I faced was trajectory at distance.
But, that placed more emphasis on strategy.
I couldn't overpower the golf course, I had to navigate it as it was intended to be played.
 
I find the notion that the game would lose its appeal if there was a dial back, contrary to what I experienced.

I also watched Ran Morrissett play Sand Hills for several days using hickories circa 1918-1929.   He thoroughly enjoyed himself.

Is laziness and being spoiled, vis a vis, the "me" generation responsible for the need for distance as the primary focus and objective of some when they play a golf course ?

Noone doubts the fascination with the long ball, but, Father Time will eventually put an end to that pursuit.

Would golf be a better game, a more enjoyable game, if we were forced to interface with the architectural features instead of mostly ignoring them ?

Are centerline bunkers an extension of this premise ?

[Michael Moore]

Is laziness and being spoiled, vis a vis, the "me" generation responsible for the need for distance as the primary focus and objective of some when they play a golf course ?

Pat -

I have heard golfers explain the quest for more distance by saying that they have fallen in love with technology, that they feel more masculine when they crush a tee shot, that they can't stop comparing themselves to other golfers at the course and at the range, that they have fallen in love with the sight of the ball soaring against the sky, and that they want to get closer to the hole off the tee.

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,

I've experienced exactly the same thing giving playing lessons to women-playing their tees and using the same clubs they use-i.e. using a 6 iron from 90 yards (without opening it up)
I've also experienced it to a lesser degree when playing while recovering from wrist and back injuries.

The lack of height and spin at low clubhead speeds opens up a whole new set of hazards and decisions when playing.
Short game becomes quite difficult if you restrict yourself to only the speed an average woman can generate. i.e. no flop shots or long blasts from rough or bunkers.

The game is ENTIRELY different at lower clubhead speeds and the architecture ON the course becomes the dominant theme.
And the hazards on the course are much more scary with limited strength/skill to escape them.
As opposed to my usual game of trying to keep the ball ON the course-with very little fear of on course hazards due to recovery skills.

[Tom Huckaby]

This subject has come up several times before - via Pat's personal example, the discussion of the worth of using hickories, general thoughts about distance these days.  And every time, I say the same thing:  lack of distance - however that occurs, by choice or by it being forced upon one via illness - is fun in the SHORT TERM, but in the long run one does like to see what his abilities allow him to achieve sans constraint; or to put it another way, does tire of being constrained.

Pat, if that wasn't the case, wouldn't you be using hickories or the like to this day?

You sure seemed to enjoy having 100% of your ability back when I played with you.  

In any case Pat is right, assuming he just leaves this to the short term - shorter distance does make require one to THINK more - and the thinking part is a great part of this game.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

Sure they do, by their actions.

They don't want to work hard on their game, they want to buy it.  They think they're entitled to it.
 
Why do you think they buy the newest model driver, the one touted to be the latest and greatest way to get more distance, within six months of the purchase of their current driver ?[/color]

[ForkaB]

Pat

Have you regained most or all of your length?  If so, are you planning to switch to hickories to cut back your length and maintain that sense of JOY?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

It's the TREND that's disturbing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Have you regained most or all of your length?  
NO[/color]

If so, are you planning to switch to hickories to cut back your length and maintain that sense of JOY?

If I had regained my length, I would not switch to hickories.

I'm at an age when it's safe to say that my golfing future is behind me.

Mother Nature and/or Father Time have and continue to transition my game for me, despite my best efforts to the contrary.  I do not need additional, artificial means to accelerate and accomplish that end.

For the first time in my life, I no longer, automatically, go to the back tees.  I consider the conditions, my condition and the purpose of the round before making my decision.

In addition, as I head in one direction, and back tees are heading in another, vis a vis, lengthening, the choice, by default, seems to be other than the back tees at long courses.

But, while I continue to strive for length, one of golf's irresistable pursuits, I realize that I should probably take more club.

If High Tech continues, you may not have to worry about this problem until you're 90. [/color]

[Kyle Harris]

I've found that courses I played when I was younger and less skilled are MUCH more fun with shorter equipment and the wisdom of having played the game for some time.

[ForkaB]

I'm at an age when it's safe to say that my golfing future is behind me.

Pat

I resemble that remark!  However, as I only have to get back to 3 to re-experience earlier "glories," whereas you have to get back to +3, I think my task is more feasible......

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

My situation is much like Pat's and I had the same result. Once one  gets a feel for how far one hits what clubs, the firm knowledge that you will not overpower anything really brings the strategy back. I am enjoying the game of golf more than ever and really am doing a much better job of managing my game and seeing the strategic options on a hole. I am getting closer to my old strength now but the Joy Pat noted is so alive and appriciated. However, it was fun to drive #7 at Sandhills and I loved making an eagle Sunday with a driver and 5 wood on a 500 par 5 here at home. So lets not trash the power game completely. lol

[JLahrman]

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

Sure they do, by their actions.

They don't want to work hard on their game, they want to buy it.  They think they're entitled to it.
 
Why do you think they buy the newest model driver, the one touted to be the latest and greatest way to get more distance, within six months of the purchase of their current driver ?[/color]

So people who upgrade to what they consider to be superior equipment do so out of a sense of entitlement, and because they don't want to work hard?  Was this also true of players who abandoned gutta percha and hickory shafts?

Your allegations seem to imply that professional golfers don't want to work hard at their game.  After all, they are at the head of the equipment forefront.

Also, could you define the age parameters of the lazy, spoiled, "me" generation who you believe may be part of this trend towards longer, stronger equipment?  I don't see any one age demographic being more likely to upgrade clubs and balls.  Most avid golfers, regardless of age, try to acquire the equipment that will help their games as much as possible.  Perhaps you're defining the "me" generation as anyone alive today?

Additionally Pat, could you please clarify your definition of "additional, artificial means"?

I do think that trying hickories, or at the least persimmons, would be an enjoyable and valuable experience for most any avid player.

[RSLivingston_III]

Thanks guys, I now have an adaquate description of why I feel I "see" the architecture better when I play with Hickories.

JAL -
Gutty balls were given up mostly because of the cost. Not only the balls, but also the cost of equipment. The club makers didn't want the gutty to go away because of the constant stream of repairs and replacement clubs. Read Hutchison for a more detailed explaination.

Hickory shafts went away because they ran out of usable wood.

[JLahrman]

Ralph,

Those were only examples, perhaps poor ones.  But my belief is that golfers have always been trying to upgrade to improve their games via perimeter weighted clubs, metal wood heads, better grips, better balls, better shoes, etc. I don't think the present time is any different.

[paul cowley]

 Patrick.....I agree as my biggest joy lately has been breaking 40 with my three spoons from the ladies tee....and there is not a bit of metal on any of the clubs.

[cary lichtenstein]

My golf buddies recently decided all move to the back tees. Prior to that we played a mixed set at 6850 yards. They now play a course  at 7250yds and I tried that a few times.

Too long for me and neither my game or ego enjoyed it, so I moved up to the blue tees at 6600. What a huge difference that makes. I can now hold greens that were marginal for me at the longer distances, etc.

I still can't reach any of the par 5's in 2, but the course now fits my game.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I can certainly confirm to this website how quickly and intelligently and successfully you adapted to entirely new strategies due to severely decreased length, and in a tournament situation. (The MC of the entire tournament mentioned this to the entire field fellas! ). In my opinion that takes a rare and realistic intelligence of course management that not that many have in the first place.

I know what you mean about new and different strategies though. I was always short even when I played well but now I'm even shorter and I'm seeing and having to deal with features and strategies I never even thought of or noticed before.

To me it was novel and pretty interesting at first but I can also tell you it gets old pretty quick--just like me.  

I realize that underlying the subject of this particular thread there's a much larger issue here and Rick Goodale touched on it. And that is if high-tech equipment that produces a lot more distance is out there and legal who in the HELL is NOT going to use it? The fact is Ran Morrissett is basically the ONLY golfer I'm aware of who seems content to use hickory clubs regularly.

So the reality is---if distance producing high-tech equipment is out there and legal just about every golfer will use it even if they endorse or strongly endorse a roll-back of distance.

SO, given that reality golf course architecture is just going to have to deal with that fact and circumstance to stay relevent.

I realize it's unfortunate but it's undeniably true.

And it's also true that this reality filters into and directly impacts the entire issue of architectural restoration and preservation decisions or their flip sides.

Unfortunately, everyone, realists and even unrealistic purists are just going to have to deal with this reality. That is if or until the USGA/R&A really does roll back distance significantly.

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP:

That was exceedingly well-said, and is what I was getting at in my post here.  You see it is all well and good to restrain one's self via hickory or whatever, and yes it can bring out strategic play one otherwise wouldn't find, but in the end, it's scaled-back golf, not golf.  It's just impossible to resist seeing how one can play with no restraints, and if the techology is legal, then people are going to use it.  Or to put it another way, for every one Ran there are 1000 Joe Bombers in this game.  Of course one might look at that as a good thing...  

So yes, as distasteful as this is, the answer isn't to self-scale back.  Not enough will ever do that, and damn near all that do eventually tire of it.

The answer does lie in the rules of the game.

That is, if any answer is needed.  I'm among those who believe we haven't reached that point yet.  But the signs are ominous.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

Sure they do, by their actions.

They don't want to work hard on their game, they want to buy it.  They think they're entitled to it.
 
Why do you think they buy the newest model driver, the one touted to be the latest and greatest way to get more distance, within six months of the purchase of their current driver ?[/color]

So people who upgrade to what they consider to be superior equipment do so out of a sense of entitlement, and because they don't want to work hard?  

Go back and read the last sentence in my quote, the part about purchasing the most modern driver six months after they purchased their previous driver.[/color]

Was this also true of players who abandoned gutta percha and hickory shafts?

I don't think they replaced their inventory every six monts, do you ?[/color]

Your allegations seem to imply that professional golfers don't want to work hard at their game.  

Gp back and reread my posts, and this time, take your time, read it carefully, see, see the quote, comprehend, comprehend the quote.[/color]

After all, they are at the head of the equipment forefront.

YES, but they don't have to purchase their equipment do they ?

Who has to purchase their equipment ?

Think in that context.[/color]

Also, could you define the age parameters of the lazy, spoiled, "me" generation who you believe may be part of this trend towards longer, stronger equipment?  

I didn't coin the phrase, the "me generation" but, I'd imagine the folks that did can define the exact age parameters for you.[/color]

I don't see any one age demographic being more likely to upgrade clubs and balls.  
Most avid golfers, regardless of age, try to acquire the equipment that will help their games as much as possible.  


Every six months ?[/color]


Additionally Pat, could you please clarify your definition of "additional, artificial means"?

Think of "additional" in the context that you used it in the above sentence.  

As to "artificial", man made would suffice.

"means" = to have an intended purpose.

But, rather than take my word for it, consultation with Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary could have provided you with the same answers. [/color]

I do think that trying hickories, or at the least persimmons, would be an enjoyable and valuable experience for most any avid player.

Perhaps, but, I've had the same irons for 20+ years and before that had the same irons for 30 years and I've had the same putter for 40 years, so you could say that I resist change.[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
  Since you mentioned it four times in your last post...out of golfers who don't receive free equipment (the pros and anybody else that might qualify), what percentage of golfers do you really think BUY a new driver every six months?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary,

I have exceedingly fond memories of Admiral's Cove from the back tees.  The first time I played it I had an exceptional round, one that I'll never forget.

TEPaul,

It is a challenge and you do gain a new perspective on the architectural features and play of the holes.

And, it's either adapt or perish.

Yes, you could say it gets old in the context of your former game, but, there's good news and there's bad news.

In 2011 you'll be happy to have played the game you played in 2006.  That's the bad news.   It's also the good news.

Like a bell curve, what goes down, must come up and handicaps and playing ability are not immune from the influence of Father Time

There may be a spike along the way, but the trend is clearly there.

But, the beauty of the game as you get older is keyed to acceptance, rather than denial of the forces that change your game, and how to best deal with them.

For me, the most frustrating problem was getting good trajectory on long iron and fairway wood shots.

The inability to get those shots high really caused me to alter my thinking and play.

One of the benefits of acceptance is the tendency to swing "within" yourself, thus producing more accurate shots.

I'm striving to be longer.
I swing the "Momentus" 20 times every day in an attempt to stay limber, retain my balance and gain some degree of strength and length.

And, I've had some recent success despite not being as long as I used to be.

Not once in my diminished state did the game cease being fun.

There's no doubt that it's fun to hit the ball far.
But, that's not the object of the game.
The object remains getting the ball from point A to point B in the fewest strokes possible.   It's that challenge and the route you take in that pursuit that provides the lure, the enjoyment.

In the end, irrespective of our handicaps, don't we all want to be thought of as ferocious competitors who play to our handicaps when the pressure is on ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Troeger,

The guys that want to "buy" a game rather than work to build one.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
  I get that part  ...I just want to know how many (in a %) that really is  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

That too is all well said - and one thing that I haven't really considered is the effect of Father Time.  You have an exceedingly good attitude about this - one that all should emulate.  If we can treat this loss of strength and dexterity as a challenge rather than a curse, than the game will indeed never cease being fun, the challenges and standards just being different rather than lesser. That just has to be tougher to say than to do, though.

One bone I will pick:  while I would love to be known as a ferocious competitor who plays to his handicap when the pressure is on, well the fact is that happens so rarely NOW, I can't see it changing.  I'm content with the fact that when the pressure is on, I usually gag.  Well, content isn't the right word - grudgingly realistic is.

Thus what I'd like to be known as is a great guy to play with - a decent competitor, but a better sportsman and wit.  I work hard at that.  The first parts are easy, the "whit" part requires more practice than becoming a better golfer.

We all have different takes and goals - don't assume that competition is what it's all about for all of us.  

I don't expect you to fully understand this, though - as the great competitor that you are, it has to be very strange.

TH

[Mark Brown]

Patrick,

This is a great post and could generate a long discussion. I agree that it's more fun to play a course that not only penalizes you (thus you avoid the hazard), but also helps you if you read the terrain and hit a good shot.

One example is a Redan hole that feeds your ball to the pin if you hit a good shot. I like some contours around greensites that direct your ball toward the green. It's fun and rewarding to hit that type of shot.

We need more courses that you have to think your way around by recognizing the route of play that fits your game  and helps you score better.

There is also a place for containment in design. For example a swale or bank (usually on the right) that helps high handicappers stay in play rather than repelling it to the hard cart path and into the forest. There's nothing worse than looking for balls. A good shot need not always be aimed directly at the pin when you have clever contours.

On most holes there should also be a safe route of play that makes it difficult to make par, but offers a  reasonable chance to make a bogey.

I would like to see more features within fairways that players can use to their advantage if they see the strategy and hit a good shot.

I also like small staggered bunkers within a wide fairway that allows each player to choose the route that's best for him.
As you said the golfer interacting with the features of the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()