Did anyone read this today?

[Mike_Clayton]

Craig.


It's true many athletes are running faster etc and they are not calling for changes to the fields.
It has to be partly natural evolutionary improvement but a whole lot of it is due to cheating with drugs.

That is a significant diference between golf and most other sports.
Jesse Owens would have flown too if he was full of the stuff sprinters are all on these days - and have been for decades.

[Patrick_Mucci]

James, here's the thing, athletes in many sports are running faster, jumping higher, hitting harder, throwing farther, etc. etc....

But I don't see people clamoring to make chnages in THEIR playing field.  Nor do I see the rest of us that can't run a sub four minute mile, toss a javlin, jump hurdles or hit a golf ball, etc. etc. being impacted by the advances made by elite athletes.

Then you're probably unfamiliar with the fact that the football field was altered.  The hash marks were moved toward the middle of the field, and the goal posts were moved and altered.

In basketball the lane has been widened and rules changed.
Wilt Chamberlain used to shoot foul shots by running and leaping from the foul line, dunking or practically dunking his free throws.   They also changed the rule about inbounding the basketball because of Wilt.  The basketball can no longer be inbounded by throwing it up over the backboard.

Baseball parks have moved their outfield walls closer and restricted seating behind the pitcher, often painting the area black.

There are a myriad of examples where the playing FIELD was  altered and the rules modified.[/color]

Techology is a huge part of these advances and so is better nutrition, coaching, strength work, and the fact that good athletes have access to this at a far earlier age. This is now true for golf.

Yeah, I want to get on the Craig Stadler - John Daly - Phil Mickelson nutritional and strength work bandwagon.
Those guys are really fit.
There's no way that technology has helped their games.
[/color]

If a sportwriter feels the pro game is ruined by technology, then he should be clear that it is the PRO GAME that is having a problem.

Get the driving statistics from the NCAA Tournaments and let me know if you want to amend your statement.

While you're at it, see if you can get the statistics from the U.S. Junior Amateur and see where little skinny kids are outhitting Arnold Palmer when he was fit and powerful, a bull.[/color]

The "game" of golf is 95% guys hitting the ball 200 yards off the tee and no matter the advances in technology this isn't going to change the "game" to the point where they have to have diled back equipment and 8,000 yard courses.

You must be basing your conclusions on your observations of the local golf league for old age homes, specifically, the super, super senior division.  Those are the ones that are allowed to ride in their wheelchairs and take oxygen during the course of their round.
 
10 year old kids are routinely blowing it past 200 yards.

Young teenage girls are blasting it past the best pros in the world in the 50's and 60's, and you're still insisting that the earth is flat.

Please, take your head out of the sand.[/color]

[Doug Siebert]

Craig,

I have to wonder why you keep arguing this point in thread after thread.  Do you really never see anyone other than the pros who have the length to render older courses obsolete, or do you think it only matters if the player is good enough and consistent enough to translate that to the scorecard.

Things are really changing out there.  When I was in college I hit the ball MUCH further than almost anyone I played with.  I don't remember ever playing with anyone who hit the ball further on the fly off the driver than I did (including one fairly long hitting tour pro I played with a couple times)  The very rare guys who could outdrive me had the right trajectory and/or hook to take advantage of ground conditions (I always hit it a mile in the air with too much spin so I didn't get much roll)

Nowadays if I join up with some random college aged guys I'm not surprised if they are hitting it almost as far as me, and only mildly surprised if they are outdriving me.  I'm not talking guys on the college team (the majority of them outdrive me now) I'm talking just your average guys in business school who are cutting afternoon class to ride around in a cart with a six pack.  Well, you say, maybe I'm not as strong being 20 years older, and you are probably right.

But I'm undoubtedly hitting it further, I not only carry it further than I used to (despite taking quite a bit bigger cut at it back in the day) but today's ball cured my problem of having too much spin so I don't need to play on concrete to get a decent roll.  I remember 20 years ago a 450 yard 4 was a long hole, and now it just isn't a big deal.

So I've become older, certainly don't have the clubhead speed I used to but I hit it further now.  At the same time I went from being longer than almost anyone to not being particularly remarkable in my length.  Does that give you any concept of just how much things have changed in 20 years, and why this isn't just an issue for pros?

[Sean_A]

I still believe people are using exceptionally long hitters as examples of a distance problem.  Although I am not sure who should be used as an example because we all know there is no such thing as the "average" golfer.  So I will only write from my point of view.

The threads on eclectic 18s etc. made me realize that the courses I enjoy most are on the short side.  Perhaps 6000-6500 yards.  One of the reasons I enjoy shorter courses is I want to be off the course in 3.5 hours.  If the response to distance is going to consistently be added distance rather than architectural creativity, then I can get behind controlling distance (more so than is currently happening).  I have no interest in playing 7000 yard courses.

My home course is only 6000 yards long.  I can carry a driver 240ish (but I don't like to flight my ball for this carry) so two par 4s are reachable.   Another two are reachable with favourable conditions and one is reachable under extreme conditions.  One of the the par 5s is reachable.  Still, I don't often go below 74.  My score isn't the issue though.  The problem is the course gets boring because the architecture isn't nearly good enough to make such a short course that interesting.  The reachable holes are not great risk/reward holes, they are more like smash mouth golf with some penalty on offer, but not much.    

Now, when I compare my home club to Pennard, which is slightly longer at about 6200 yards, there is a world of difference.  I can drive only one par 4.  Though I can envision driving 3, 7 & 8 under extreme conditions.  The power game is still evident because all four par 5s are reachable.  True, there are a lot of driver-short iron holes, but then I have never been a believer that a great course requires the player to use 14 clubs.  The difference is the superior architecture and land, not the 200 yards.  No matter how far I hit the ball, I find Pennard fascinating.

Hasn't there been a few incredible 6500ish yard courses built in this era of smash mouth golf?  Has the distance problem contibuted to innovative design?

Ciao

Sean

[Doug Siebert]

Hey, its hard not to like driveable par 4s, but a shorter course is perhaps becoming less speedy to play if there are more and more people who can drive those greens and have to wait.  You get enough people for whom that's the case and kiss those quick rounds goodbye if it is busy enough that you've got perhaps a dozen consecutive tee times before you filled.  I'd be interested if you asked the long time members if the course has become slower to play as more people have had to wait on those holes.

I kind of "cheat" this on some of my local courses I'm familar with and thus know exactly where I can drive it, on holes where I can drive the green but can't on the fly.  I figure most people are pretty understanding if a ball rolls on the green, and I've never had a problem or a close call.  Its bad enough to wait for the group ahead to get on the green when you've got a group coming up behind you (because you feel really stupid if you don't come anywhere near driving it) but having to wait for them to putt out would really slow things down.

I may have to amend my strategy on one of those holes since I managed to fly one about 1 yard short of the front right bunker (ball hit the muddy hillside and backed up a foot so the mark was pretty obvious) which was only 5 yards short of the front of the green.  No one was on it at the time, but the fact I've done it once means I'm going to be worried about it anytime I've got much of a helping wind like I had that day.

I guess it could be argued I should just tee off with my 1 iron and the problem is solved, but the problem was created by the ball because I sure as hell couldn't come close to driving that green when the course opened in the late 80s.  If anyone said back then they heard some guy flew it to where I did, I would have dismissed it as a near impossibility.

[David Ober]

I guess the one thing that intrigues me about all of this is that I'm not sure how much it is affecting actual scores for anyone other than those playing on the PGA Tour.

Take California amateur golf for instance: Over the last four or five years (the time I've been seriously playing in such events), the qualifying scores for events like the SCGA Amateur, SCGA Mid-Amateur, and the California State Amateur are generally in the 69-71 range on courses that range from 6600 to 7100 yards, with most in the 6600 to 6800 yard range. There are usually 7, 8, or 9 qualifying spots out of about 80 players, so that means everyone else is shooting over par on these modest length courses, and many of these players are NCAA golfers!

Now are guys hitting it farther today? Absolutely. Is technology one of the major factors? I believe that it is. But what is that doing to scoring? It seems to me that you guys shouldn't be all that worried if the average scratch player isn't shooting stupid scores on mid-length courses.

Now one thing I definitely have seen a big increase in is guys with plus handicaps. I remember when I started playing the game in the late 80's, it was rare to find even one player on a handicap sheet with a "+" next to their index. Now, there are sometimes 5 or 6 guys at ONE CLUB with plus indexes, and indexes for college golfers and top ams are now routinely in the +2 to +4 range (I was +2.9 to +3.4 all summer long last year), something unheard of on a large scale 20 years ago.

So I guess the very best players are getting better, yes. But the average golfer doesn't seem to be playing better with all of this extra length -- and that's because golf is much more about putting, short game, and focus than it is about length. At least that's how I view the game.

I routinely play with guys that hit the ball an average of 30 yards farther than I do, but I consistently beat them because I know how to PLAY GOLF, so I guess what I'm saying is that as soon as golf becomes a game of driving only, then I'll admit the sky is falling. But until then, I believe that the game is fine, while simultaneously being open to the possibility that there is a line to be crossed regarding the distance the ball can travel -- I just don't think we've quite gotten there yet...

[Brent Hutto]

Obee,

Your observations make perfect sense. If someone is really good with the wedge and an above-average putter then having ten wedge approach shots per round instead of four will make his score drop like a rock. A typical 10-handicapper hits a 7-iron to the fringe or maybe 20 feet from the hole once in a while. Give him a wedge and he hits a lot more shots 20 feet from the hole but isn't able to consistently knock it close.

So the 10-handicapper uses greater distance to become an 8-handicapper, which he could have done by practicing his wedges and chipping. Meanwhile, the scratch-handicapper uses greater distance to start making more birdies and he might also triple the number of eagle putts he has on Par 5's. Those birdies turn him from a scratch to a +1 or +2 which is a difference that he couldn't have made by refining his already solid wedge and short game.

[David Ober]

Interesting "Stat of the Week" on GolfWeek's "Approach Shots" e-newsletter this week:

Two of the five toughest courses on the PGA Tour last year were under 7,000 yards: Hilton Head and Westchester.

Interesting, especially in light of this thread...

[Paul Payne]

There is a precident out there in cycling.

When Eddie Mercx cycling world record set in 1972 was beaten, the world cycling commision reinstated his record saying that it was only beaten because of the modern equipment that had been used. From that day on anyone attempting to beat the Mercx record has to do it on 1972 vintage equipment.

Waddya' think golfers would say to that???

[Doug Siebert]

David,

I think that handicaps may trend lower for some just because as courses stretch their ratings go up -- if you can shoot the same numbers on a course that added 400 yards your handicap gets bumped a couple strokes.  I think that's been true for me but there's so many variables I couldn't prove it.

I think its definitely responsible for all the plus handicaps you see these days.  A guy who used to be a scratch on a 6800 yard course has it lengthened to 7200 and its rating goes up by 2.  He gets longer thanks to the new ball so he's hitting the same clubs into the greens and shoots the same numbers.  But now that scratch is a +2.

If the USGA doesn't ever do anything about the ball, at some point they might have to revamp their course rating system.  250 yards for a scratch player?  I don't think so!

[Sean_A]

David,

I think that handicaps may trend lower for some just because as courses stretch their ratings go up -- if you can shoot the same numbers on a course that added 400 yards your handicap gets bumped a couple strokes.  I think that's been true for me but there's so many variables I couldn't prove it.

Doug

This is an excellent post.  I was trying to explain to someone how it is quite reasonable for a 2 capper from a 6000ish yard course with a rating two shots below par to take on a +2 from a 7000ish yard course that is rated two/three shots above par.  Distance is rarely an issue for players at this level.  

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Good points by Doug and Sean

Short courses tend to be underrated in terms of difficulty for the scratch player and overrated in terms of the higher handicap.

Vis a vis the explosion of plus handicaps, part of it is due (at least in the USA) to "selective" posting of scores.  Look up some of these guys and you will be shocked.  3-4 posts/year (all good, doh!) for guys who are NCAA golfers and/or playing the full-time amateur circuit.

[David Ober]

Good points by Doug and Sean

Short courses tend to be underrated in terms of difficulty for the scratch player and overrated in terms of the higher handicap.

Vis a vis the explosion of plus handicaps, part of it is due (at least in the USA) to "selective" posting of scores.  Look up some of these guys and you will be shocked.  3-4 posts/year (all good, doh!) for guys who are NCAA golfers and/or playing the full-time amateur circuit.

I've noticed that also, but I don't think with the elite players it's due to "selective posting." It's just that they stop seeing a need for a handicap after a while, since they play almost no handicap events. And with the college guys, it's easy to see what they're shooting by just looking up their tournament scores.

[David Ober]

David,

I think that handicaps may trend lower for some just because as courses stretch their ratings go up -- if you can shoot the same numbers on a course that added 400 yards your handicap gets bumped a couple strokes.  I think that's been true for me but there's so many variables I couldn't prove it.

I think its definitely responsible for all the plus handicaps you see these days.  A guy who used to be a scratch on a 6800 yard course has it lengthened to 7200 and its rating goes up by 2.  He gets longer thanks to the new ball so he's hitting the same clubs into the greens and shoots the same numbers.  But now that scratch is a +2.

If the USGA doesn't ever do anything about the ball, at some point they might have to revamp their course rating system.  250 yards for a scratch player?  I don't think so!

I think you make a good point. Another issue is that not only are the courses longer (which increases the rating), but I think you'll find a lot of the new 7300-7500 yard courses also make generous use of elevated tees, which really help as far as distance is concerned. Plus the fairways on many of these newer courses are pretty firm and fast, so a 7400 yard course plays like many older 6900 or 7000 yard courses. At most of the really long courses that I play on occasion, many of the 470 yard par 4's play MUCH shorter than that due to the factors I listed above.

[ForkaB]

Good points by Doug and Sean

Short courses tend to be underrated in terms of difficulty for the scratch player and overrated in terms of the higher handicap.

Vis a vis the explosion of plus handicaps, part of it is due (at least in the USA) to "selective" posting of scores.  Look up some of these guys and you will be shocked.  3-4 posts/year (all good, doh!) for guys who are NCAA golfers and/or playing the full-time amateur circuit.

I've noticed that also, but I don't think with the elite players it's due to "selective posting." It's just that they stop seeing a need for a handicap after a while, since they play almost no handicap events. And with the college guys, it's easy to see what they're shooting by just looking up their tournament scores.

Yes, David , but they DO need a handicap to be able to qualify for USGA events, no?  With standards getting higher, maybe they are cheating their way into these qualifying tourneys?

[David Ober]

David,

I think that handicaps may trend lower for some just because as courses stretch their ratings go up -- if you can shoot the same numbers on a course that added 400 yards your handicap gets bumped a couple strokes.  I think that's been true for me but there's so many variables I couldn't prove it.

Doug

This is an excellent post.  I was trying to explain to someone how it is quite reasonable for a 2 capper from a 6000ish yard course with a rating two shots below par to take on a +2 from a 7000ish yard course that is rated two/three shots above par.  Distance is rarely an issue for players at this level.  

Ciao

Sean

Sean,

I have rarely noticed the effect to which you are referring. I find in general that course ratings have gotten pretty darn accurate and that my index travels no matter where I go. I will generally wax a 2 handicapper no matter where we are playing and no matter where his home course is.

Over the last 10 years, my index has remained pretty consistent, and it has been derived from several different home courses, one at 6100 yards, par 70, with a rating of 70.1 (Indian Hills CC in Riverside, CA), one at 6560, par 72, with a rating of 72.0 (Canyon Crest CC in Riverside), and one at 7060 yards, par 72 and rated 74.4 (SCGA Golf Course in Murrieta, CA).

During all that time, my index has fluctuated very little. I do think there are certain courses that are exceptions, however. One perfect example: Costa Mesa Country Club in Costa Mesa, California.

It's a fun little 5600 yard course that is par 70 and rated 66.1. I have played the course twice and shot 65 and 69, but I honestly don't know if I could get to a +3 index there simply because of the amount of birdies you need to make to post a +3 differential there! I mean, think about it. 10 out of 20 of your rounds there, you would realistically need to make between 7 and 10 birdies (assuming you make 1 or 2 bogeys a round). And most good golfers (other than seasoned professionals) start to get a little nervous when they're 5, 6, 7-under par. I know when I shot the 65, it included 8 birdies, and I felt like I was birdieing every hole!!

So I guess I'm agreeing with you, but only in extremem examples. I do know that I could maintain a +1.5 to +2 index at Costa Mesa, but that might be about it...  

[David Ober]

Good points by Doug and Sean

Short courses tend to be underrated in terms of difficulty for the scratch player and overrated in terms of the higher handicap.

Vis a vis the explosion of plus handicaps, part of it is due (at least in the USA) to "selective" posting of scores.  Look up some of these guys and you will be shocked.  3-4 posts/year (all good, doh!) for guys who are NCAA golfers and/or playing the full-time amateur circuit.

I've noticed that also, but I don't think with the elite players it's due to "selective posting." It's just that they stop seeing a need for a handicap after a while, since they play almost no handicap events. And with the college guys, it's easy to see what they're shooting by just looking up their tournament scores.

Yes, David , but they DO need a handicap to be able to qualify for USGA events, no?  With standards getting higher, maybe they are cheating their way into these qualifying tourneys?

There's no doubt that many do cheat their way into USGA qualifiers (in fact, I know several of them personally!! :lol:). However elite players don't need to do so.

I'll give you a perfect example: Look up up Scott Mc Gihon at www.scga.org. Scott is 2-time SCGA Amateur Champion, 1-time SCGA Mid-Amateur Champion, and current Trans-Mississippi Champion. He posted only 18 rounds in all of 2005, and I know for a fact he probably played about 70 rounds or more. At some point many guys like him just stop posting (casual) scores because they become meaningless. They keep a handicap with the USGA, but they rarely input scores because it's just not necessary once you get to a certain level. Most USGA events only require an index of around 2 or below. The US Am requirement is 1.1 I believe. Elite amateurs play well below that level, so once their index is in that range, and it's been there for year after year after year, the get lazy and just input tournament scores (which you are NOT supposed to do, according to the SCGA and USGA).

Still, though, it's a moot point because their index is low enough that they can get into any events necessary and nobody really questions it.

[Sean_A]

David,

I think that handicaps may trend lower for some just because as courses stretch their ratings go up -- if you can shoot the same numbers on a course that added 400 yards your handicap gets bumped a couple strokes.  I think that's been true for me but there's so many variables I couldn't prove it.

Doug

This is an excellent post.  I was trying to explain to someone how it is quite reasonable for a 2 capper from a 6000ish yard course with a rating two shots below par to take on a +2 from a 7000ish yard course that is rated two/three shots above par.  Distance is rarely an issue for players at this level.  

Ciao

Sean

Sean,

I have rarely noticed the effect to which you are referring. I find in general that course ratings have gotten pretty darn accurate and that my index travels no matter where I go. I will generally wax a 2 handicapper no matter where we are playing and no matter where his home course is.

Over the last 10 years, my index has remained pretty consistent, and it has been derived from several different home courses, one at 6100 yards, par 70, with a rating of 70.1 (Indian Hills CC in Riverside, CA), one at 6560, par 72, with a rating of 72.0 (Canyon Crest CC in Riverside), and one at 7060 yards, par 72 and rated 74.4 (SCGA Golf Course in Murrieta, CA).

During all that time, my index has fluctuated very little. I do think there are certain courses that are exceptions, however. One perfect example: Costa Mesa Country Club in Costa Mesa, California.

It's a fun little 5600 yard course that is par 70 and rated 66.1. I have played the course twice and shot 65 and 69, but I honestly don't know if I could get to a +3 index there simply because of the amount of birdies you need to make to post a +3 differential there! I mean, think about it. 10 out of 20 of your rounds there, you would realistically need to make between 7 and 10 birdies (assuming you make 1 or 2 bogeys a round). And most good golfers (other than seasoned professionals) start to get a little nervous when they're 5, 6, 7-under par. I know when I shot the 65, it included 8 birdies, and I felt like I was birdieing every hole!!

So I guess I'm agreeing with you, but only in extremem examples. I do know that I could maintain a +1.5 to +2 index at Costa Mesa, but that might be about it...  

Dave

I am talking about rarish cases, which, by the way, are not as extreme as you may think.  Here in the UK there are loads and loads of short courses and relatively few long courses.  Once young bucks get down to about 2 on many of these short courses, it is easier to cut their cap by joining a much longer and higher rated course.  Remember that these longer courses still have Average Joe members.  In any given comp. the rating can jump a shot or two (depending on how the entire field scored) making the difference between par and the rating perhaps 5 shots different.  A good game or two under these circumstances could see a 2 capper's handicap plummet.

Ciao

Sean

[Bill Warnick]

I agree that it's only a problem in the pro game. With prize money skyrocketing I don't think it will change soon. I admit that I would like to see the pros occasionally try and hit the par fours with mid to long irons like I do.  

I have prepared an amateur tournament every summer for the last 14 years where handicaps are limited to 4 or under. It's true the kids hit it farther than before. There is no doubt about it. But the scores are the same. The greens are a little smoother and somewhat faster. (I should hope so!) but the rough is shorter and more even. The course is about 6800 yards from the tips.

I agree with David Ober's comment about playing golf.