[Bryan Izatt]

Does anybody see any new tech announcements this year that they think are going to significantly worsen the impact of technology on classic course architecture?

I don't see any.  The square-headed high MOI drivers look like a marketing gimmick in terms of real performance benefit.  The new Titleist ball doesn't seem to be a significant break-through.  Nobody seems to be saying they are getting 15 more yards by changing their ball.  TM is claiming distance with the Burner but that is just a 46" shaft aimed at the amateur market.

Is the technology well (temporarily) dry in terms of significant game improvement?

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

The well is never dry, they are just holding back a little water to sell you later when you're REALLY thirsty.

Plus they may be hedging their bets until they have a clear indication where the USGA is going with its disucssions on curbing certain aspects of equipment.  No use rolling something into production if it will be nonconforming in a couple of years.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom, it never occured to me that manufacturers would hold back today's sales worrying about what might happen in a couple of years.  I'd have thought they would pump it out now, keep ahead of the USGA and then reap the benefits of retailing yet more new equipment that's conforming in a couple of years.  Seems like a win-win for them.

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

You mention the MOI clubs. Will we see so much MOI that some doglegs will be deemed "unfair" and modified to give the straight ball off the MOI driver a "more fair" result?

[Bryan Izatt]

More important, Garland, is that Tiger needs to switch to the Callaway FT-i so that he doesn't hook it into lakes.  Especially since the Nike Sumo isn't conforming.  But then the FT-i is a higher spinning driver that will rob him of distance.  Oh, this is all so confusing.  

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

I believe within a year the R&A/USGA will make a proposal on a I&B rule and reg change that will reflect these prototype golf balls the USGA has asked all the manufacturers to submit for study and testing and that will be the talk of the town. It will effectively set distance back, particularly for the high swing speed elite player----that is if the manufacturers go along with it and accept the R&A/USGA I&B rule and reg proposed change on the ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

That'll be interesting if it happens.  Are you implying that you have some inside info that it will happen?  Or, are you just speculating that it's about time they did it?

Sadly, I just spent $60 today trying to optimize my drivers at the Callaway High Performance Fitting Centre.  I carry the ball between 235 and 240 yards pretty consistently.  I can hit the optimal launch angle but I can't get the spin down below 3,000 unless I go to a rock.  Need to work on the angle of attack.

In the new world, will that be 215 to 220 or closer to the same as it is now, do you suppose?  Guess I'll have to get psyched up to move up a set of tees.

[Doug Siebert]

Bryan,

If you are carrying it 240 now and doing 3000 rpm, I doubt you'd lose anything like 20 yards.  You'd lose something, but I'd bet it'd be a small enough amount that you'd have to play a few rounds before you were sure you could attribute the distance loss to the ball rather than normal day to day variations in swing quality, temperature and barometric pressure.  That is, assuming they attack it via the spin rate.

I suppose to a rough approximation, you could assume you would be driving it around the same distance you were 10 years ago, assuming you are at roughly the same strength and skill as you were then.  Maybe the COR thing in today's drivers helps a bit so you might be a little longer than you used to pre-Pro V1, but it all depends on how far they want to dial things back.  Just rest assured that Tiger will lose a lot more distance than you, even adjusting for the fact he hits it 30% further than you, unless the USGA totally bungled things.

I hope TEPaul knows something and but isn't able to tell us rather than just being optimistic.  Guess I better get all the ridiculously long drives out of my system this year just in case

[Bryan Izatt]

Well, maybe if we keep this thread on the first page Tom will revisit and tell us if he's just being optimistic.  Would his continued silence indicate some insider knowledge?

You seem to be assuming a rollback that's larger for long hitters (say 10%, Tiger from 300 to 270) and less at my length (say 5%, me from 240 to 230) and less still for the 180 yard hitter (say 0%).  Or did you have something more exponential in mind?  

I wonder if that rollback would be consistent with relative distances from  10 or 20 years ago?  I wish I had been more aware of this in my younger days so that I would have a better idea of my carry distances relative to big hitters back then. Of course there should be a bigger gap now than 20 years ago.  I'm a senior golfer now and the comparator long hitters were young studs then and are now too.

On a slight tangent, in 1980 Fuzzy Zoellor was 3rd longest driver at 271 yards total distance.  I'd guess I was maybe 240 to 245 in those, my younger late 30's days.  Today Fuzzy is down the list on the Champions tour at 269 yards.  As Mucci is fond of pointing out the technology has mitigated his distance loss as he's aged.  My average (bur inconsistent) total distance is somewhere around 250 to 255. So, technology (and a better swing) has help me get a little bit ahead of where I used to be and a little bit closer to what used to be along hitting pro of my age.  I'm not sure what, if anything, this demonstrates.  I'm still about the same distance shorter than my age contemporary pros.  But I'm further away from today's young studs.  That's as it should be I think.  If the ball is rolled back to bring the young studs back closer to my distance, is that "fair"?  Should I be within 30 yards of Tiger rather than 60 yards, as a 60+ golfer?

In any event, achieving that non-linear rollback will be an interesting engineering and nightmarish regulatory challenge I think.  

[Paul_Turner]

I think it's implausible that the manufacturers have been holding back their tech for the past 4-5 seasons (almost no increase during this period).

"You seem to be assuming a rollback that's larger for long hitters (say 10%, Tiger from 300 to 270) and less at my length (say 5%, me from 240 to 230) and less still for the 180 yard hitter (say 0%).  Or did you have something more exponential in mind?  "

Bryan

I think that would be impossible.  Everyone would have to lose some distance and likely that everyone would lose about the same in % terms i.e.  for 10% a 200 yard driver would gain about 10 yards relative a 300 yard driver.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
That'll be interesting if it happens.  Are you implying that you have some inside info that it will happen?  Or, are you just speculating that it's about time they did it?"

Bryan:

I'm totally speculating. I have no inside information at all. It just seems to me since they called for prototype balls from all the manufacturers that go 15 and 25 yards less far to test and study that it's logical to assume they may offer proposed rule and reg changes on golf ball conformance that reflects those prototype ball distance characteristics. Otherwise why would they have made that request of all the manufacturers?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

As the two I&B regulatory bodies in golf if the R&A/USGA were to make a proposed rule and regulation change on the conformance of the golf ball, I'd assume they would do it the same way they've made other proposed I&B rule and reg changes in the past----eg they study the issue, agree amongst themselves (tech centers, appropriate committee and perhaps then board approval) what that proposed change should be. Then they make the manufacturers and the public aware of what those proposed changes are and allow the proposed changes to go through what is formally called "the Notice and Comment" period.

I believe these recent proposed rule and reg changes on grooves is now in that formal "notice and comment" period.

It would be pretty reckless and even more irresponsible of them if they told me something about what any of those proposed I&B rule and reg changes may be or even intimated it before they told the manufacturers and the public. What do you think would happen if they told some guy on a golf course architecture website what they may do six months or a year before they told the manufacuturers and that guy blabbed it all over the world on the Internet?  

So, anything I say on here is just speculation on my part from the public reports the USGA has already made on I&B. One of those, and a very good one, in my opinion, was Jim Vernon's annual Equipment Standards Committee report (Vernon is the chairman of the Equipment Standards Committee) last year at the USGA annual meeting in Atlanta, Ga.

We, on here have speculated for a number of months on what the effect would be at various player levels if the characteristic of spin rate was somehow controlled or regulated in the future. It is not now one of the five areas of regulation on the golf ball.

I have no idea if they intend to do something like that (spin rate control and regulation) with new proposed ball conformance rules and regs. I have only been told by the USGA tech center that in the world of real physics that may have an effect on distance particularly through trajectory at various swing speeds. My understanding is that if I ask they may answer basic physics questions (no secrets there) but they are most certainly not going to share a shred of future policy or proposed policy with someone like me. Again, that would be very irresponsible of them and would probably lead to legal problems.

Regarding the issue of spin rate, that has only been one particular issue I once asked about regarding the ball in a general physics context.

Again, the USGA asked all the manufacturers to submit prototype golf balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far. They made that request known to the public last year.

As far as I can tell when they made that request of all the manufacturers that they submit prototype balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far they did not tell them or instruct them in how they could or would do that or accomplish that. So apparently any manufacturer can do it any way they want to just so long as those prototype balls do go 15 and 25 yards less far.

There's also the question of 15 or 25 yards less far than what? I don't know they even made that information available to the public but obviously they have to the manufacturers or logically the manufacturers would not know what to R&D and manufacture towards. I'd assume it might mean 15 and 25 yards less far than the ODS limitation.

So if all that is the case I can certainly understand why it would take the tech centers quite some time to study and test these prototype balls from a number of manufacturers.

It's probably something like asking a dozen chefs to produce something and then tasting a dozen dishes to try to figure out what's in them and how they are made.

I also understand that Titleist, right off the bat even went so far as to patent their prototype ball and process.

But again, my speculation rests on the question of why they would all go to the trouble of asking for and producing prototype golf balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far if they did not mean to do something with it in the world of golf ball conformance and manufacturing.  

[Paul_Turner]

I think you would have to do something pretty radical to the ball if it's going to travel 15-25 yards less far the average pro on tour.

Since the gain for the average pro since the boom in tech is in the range of 25-30 yards for all tech improvements (ball, driver, shaft) and non-tech improvements (strength).

It would be interesting to know how they changed these prototype balls.  Perhaps the dimple depth to alter the lift/drag of the ball?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

My understanding is that the ball would only have to be made a bit lighter to make it travel less in the air.

To answer Bryan's original question, the most likely technological improvement we will see is most likely the old standby - the new back tee.

[TEPaul]

"It would be interesting to know how they changed these prototype balls.  Perhaps the dimple depth to alter the lift/drag of the ball?"

Paul:

Obviously you're more savvy on physics and technology than I am but I suspect this answer or some of it will be found in the "swing speed/initial spin rate/lift/drag" equations or relationship. And I suspect that those equations or relationship could boil down to their resultant effect on types of trajectory resulting from various swing speeds.

Can you answer these questions?

1. Is the amount of drag on a golf ball a resultant factor of the amount of spin rate of a golf ball?

2. Does the amount of drag on a golf ball, particularly initially, influence its ability to lift or rise effectively? In other words, does an inordinant amount of initial drag keep a golf ball from rising steeply initially?

What I am angling to understand better is why high swing speed players used to create that low initial trajectory when lower swing speed players could never seem to do that. Whatever it is that's the answer to that question just may be a significant part of the answer to reigning distance in more effectively in the elite player category and perhaps without much effecting the distance production of the lower swing speed player.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

It's not just the ball.

When you take a huge hi-tech clubface and put it on the end of a long, light hi-tech shaft that produces longer, straighter drives, you not only create greater swing speeds, you encourage, if not demand, a different philosophy with respect to the drive and 3-wood.

A good deal of control has been transitioned from the golfer to the equipment, thus, swinging for the fences has become constant rather than occassional.  This in turn generates even higher swing speeds.

The focus of the drive has morphed.

Consider this.

Take a low handicap golfer, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and bet him on scoring to his handicap using all the clubs in his bag except his woods.
Replace his driver with a shallow faced persimmon H&B Citation driver and the accompanying 3-wood.
Then, monitor his swing, in terms of plane and speed and see if there's not a dramatic difference in his swing between the two dates.

I'd wager that the swing would be noticeably different as the quest for accuracy replaced the quest for raw clubhead speed as the primary goal over the course of the summer.

Many golfers have been able to swing harder/faster at the ball.

When you swung harder/faster with a shallow faced driver, you paid a terrible price for mis-hit shots.  And, seeing as how chimpanzees learn from unpleasant stimuli, so do golfers, hence, the long ball was inherently reigned in.

Today, that's not the case.
There's almost no consequence for a marginally mis-hit shot and not much in adverse consequence for a mis-hit shot.

Years ago, the prefered swing plane had the golfer keeping his right elbow tight to the body for control and an inside out swing plane.

Today, detaching the right elbow from the body allows for a greater arc which translates into greater distance.

It could be said that self-correcting equipment (bad term) is primarily responsible for this change and increase in distance while maintaining accuracy.

When I was twenty, I was in pretty good shape, playing virtually every sport reasonably well, seasonally, year round, yet, 45 years later, out of shape, slightly over weight, injured and infirmed, I hit my driver longer.  And, I don't have cutting edge equipment.

Do I enjoy it.  Yes.
But, two years ago when I couldn't hit a drive 180 yards, I enjoyed the game just as much, if not more.

One of my most enjoyable and memorable rounds was played at NGLA when a 180 yard drive was a BIG hit and I couldn't get my long irons more than a few feet off the ground.
Every architectural feature became magnified and more significant in the play of the golf course.

A KEY element in golf is interfacing with the architectural features, not disregarding them.
Unfortunately, golfers have fallen in love with the long game at the expense of the "inherent core" of the game, which is, interfacing with the architectural features meant to challenge the golfer on his journey from tee to cup.

What's happened is that the game has been redirected and misdirected by elements that don't have the game's best interest at heart, and, those new to the game have been seduced by the dark side of the game.

Where is Obi Won Kenobi when you need him ?

[TEPaul]

"Today, that's not the case.
There's almost no consequence for a marginally mis-hit shot and not much in adverse consequence for a mis-hit shot."

Patrick:

I certainly would agree that this new hi-tech equipment in the last decade or two has created a situation where this generation's players can and do swing harder than the previous generation or perhaps even than this generation would with the preceding generation's equipment.

But if you're trying to say that this generation's new hi-tech equipment has also made this generation more accurate, if that's what you're implying by saying there is not much adverse consequence these days regarding lack of accuracy, then you really are wrong.

These new generation hi-tech elite players can be every bit as inaccurate than the previous generation and probably a good deal more so.

And I think that fact can be proven from Tiger Woods on down the iine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Today, that's not the case.
There's almost no consequence for a marginally mis-hit shot and not much in adverse consequence for a mis-hit shot."

Patrick:

I certainly would agree that this new hi-tech equipment in the last decade or two has created a situation where this generation's players can and do swing harder than the previous generation or perhaps even than this generation would with the preceding generation's equipment.

But if you're trying to say that this generation's new hi-tech equipment has also made this generation more accurate, if that's what you're implying by saying there is not much adverse consequence these days regarding lack of accuracy, then you really are wrong.

NO, you're wrong.
They did studies that measured the impact of mis-hits, and those studies clearly indicated that shot's off the sweet spot on modern drivers suffered far less dire consequences relative to margins of error than the old persimmon drivers.

That's a fact, not a random generalization based on one players abberant play for a few days.[/color]

These new generation hi-tech elite players can be every bit as inaccurate than the previous generation and probably a good deal more so.

If that's the case why have fairways been dramatically narrowed over the previous generation's fairways ?

Answer:  Because today's equipment produces straighter shots.   Of all people, you should know.  That's another reason why SPIN needs to be put back into the game.[/color]

And I think that fact can be proven from Tiger Woods on down the iine.

The studies contradict your random observations.[/color]

[Ken Moum]

I think you would have to do something pretty radical to the ball if it's going to travel 15-25 yards less far the average pro on tour.

Since the gain for the average pro since the boom in tech is in the range of 25-30 yards for all tech improvements (ball, driver, shaft) and non-tech improvements (strength).

It would be interesting to know how they changed these prototype balls.  Perhaps the dimple depth to alter the lift/drag of the ball?

As Jeff Brauer noted, a lightger ball would indeed fly a shorter distance. And since it would be accomplishing that by changing the cross sectional density of the ball, it would have a slightly inversely proportional effect relative to ball speeds.

In simple terms, the rate of deceleration would be greater as ball speeds increased. So, for someone like my mother who hits it 90-100 yards off the tee, it might not have any effect at all. In fact, its lighter weight might well make it easier to keep in the air, and therefore it could be longer for her.

At the highest ball speeds, the lighter ball would shed velocity at a much higer rate initially because drag goes up exponentially with speed.

If you look at The Balloon Ball in GCA.com's In My Opinion section, you'll see what happened in the 20s when the USGA tried this approach.

Jon V. suggests that failure is why it won't happen again, but he's overlooking the fact that back then everyone played balata balls, and today the balls don't curve as much.

The other thing he's overlooking is that players in the teens and 20s had been using some VERY hot and heavy balls, so the "balloon ball" was something of a shock.

K

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I can't really answer your questions satisfactorily.

But I do know that the drag on a ball is increased with increased spin.  This effect is however small compared to how much drag is increased with increased ball speed.

The lift force on the ball is influenced by spin much more strongly than the drag.

(drag is caused by a air pressure difference between the front and back of the ball)

It's difficult to quantify how much increased driver head size has resulted in faster swing speeds.  But it's just one factor of many in those 25-30 yards.

[Bryan Izatt]

Momentarily back to the theme of this thread, I take it that nobody sees any paradigm shifting new technologies emerging this year in balls or clubs.  I'd draw the conclusion that the tech well is drying up this year, at least.

As to balls that go less far, I'd guess there are at least four ways to achieve that.  Lighter balls as suggested above.  Lower COR cores.  More spin.  Different dimpling to increase drag.  It'll be interesting to see what approaches the manufacturers took if that information ever becomes public.

Tom,

And here I thought you had the ear of the USGA    Shame on me for thinking that.  Speculation it wais then.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

It's the ball.  No, it's the club.  No, it's the shaft.  Nah, it's the players skill.  Nope it's the players' conditioning.  Who knows?  And, all of our theoretical "tests" don't prove anything.

"Today, that's not the case.
There's almost no consequence for a marginally mis-hit shot and not much in adverse consequence for a mis-hit shot."

Patrick:

I certainly would agree that this new hi-tech equipment in the last decade or two has created a situation where this generation's players can and do swing harder than the previous generation or perhaps even than this generation would with the preceding generation's equipment.

But if you're trying to say that this generation's new hi-tech equipment has also made this generation more accurate, if that's what you're implying by saying there is not much adverse consequence these days regarding lack of accuracy, then you really are wrong.

NO, you're wrong.
They did studies that measured the impact of mis-hits, and those studies clearly indicated that shot's off the sweet spot on modern drivers suffered far less dire consequences relative to margins of error than the old persimmon drivers.

That's a fact, not a random generalization based on one players abberant play for a few days.

Patrick, can you identify the "they" who did the "studies" and where we might read the studies?  I agree that the analyses on modern large headed drivers show that they lose less distance on minor mis-hits.  I don't recall any that directly address the reduction of sideways dispersion resulting from the large heads.  I'd be interested in seeing those "studies" that you refer to.  Current claims are that the new square MOI drivers are more accurate (in part because they induce more backspin).  Have you seen any "studies" that support this claim.  The square drivers don't seem to have taken the tour by storm.

These new generation hi-tech elite players can be every bit as inaccurate than the previous generation and probably a good deal more so.

If that's the case why have fairways been dramatically narrowed over the previous generation's fairways ?

Answer:  Because today's equipment produces straighter shots.   Of all people, you should know.  That's another reason why SPIN needs to be put back into the game.

I think that's fallacious logic

And I think that fact can be proven from Tiger Woods on down the iine.

The studies contradict your random observations.

On another tangent, you claim that technology has offset the natural deterioration of length in aging players. You claim to be longer than you were in your prime.  I'm as long as I ever was.  We're both into our 60's.  Anecdotal information using the Tour driving distances from 1980 and today shows that the aging players of the 1980 era are about the same length they were in their prime.  So, you're doing better than most of the rest of us (anecdotally speaking).  As we get into our 70's, even technology can't offset the ravages of aging.  Watching even Arnie is getting painful.

You've said you enjoy playing at your current length and equally you did last year when you were shorter due to your health issues.  In either case your favourites at NGLA or Seminole provided entertaining and challenging interfacing with the course architecture.  Why do you worry so much about the young studs missing the fun of great architecture. It's their loss.  Are the NGLA's and Seminole's of your world bastardizing their architectures from the tees you play from? Does the introduction of new tees and more length inherently affect the architecture of the courses from the tees that you play from?

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

Even if technology had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, the fact is that the best players have outgrown the best courses, and it would seem that a technological fix is a better solution than changing every golf course which wants to stay relevant for the best players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

It's the ball.  No, it's the club.  No, it's the shaft.  Nah, it's the players skill.  Nope it's the players' conditioning.  Who knows?  And, all of our theoretical "tests" don't prove anything.

I can attest to the fact that my skill, 40 years later, and my conditioning, 40 years later, isn't responsible for the additional distance I've gained.  Hence, in my case, I can clearly state that it's the I&B.

"Today, that's not the case.
There's almost no consequence for a marginally mis-hit shot and not much in adverse consequence for a mis-hit shot."

Patrick:

I certainly would agree that this new hi-tech equipment in the last decade or two has created a situation where this generation's players can and do swing harder than the previous generation or perhaps even than this generation would with the preceding generation's equipment.

But if you're trying to say that this generation's new hi-tech equipment has also made this generation more accurate, if that's what you're implying by saying there is not much adverse consequence these days regarding lack of accuracy, then you really are wrong.

NO, you're wrong.
They did studies that measured the impact of mis-hits, and those studies clearly indicated that shot's off the sweet spot on modern drivers suffered far less dire consequences relative to margins of error than the old persimmon drivers.

That's a fact, not a random generalization based on one players abberant play for a few days.

Patrick, can you identify the "they" who did the "studies" and where we might read the studies?  

I believe they were posted on this site within the last year of so.

I agree that the analyses on modern large headed drivers show that they lose less distance on minor mis-hits.

I don't recall any that directly address the reduction of sideways dispersion resulting from the large heads.  I'd be interested in seeing those "studies" that you refer to.

They revealed the shot patterns for shots that were hit off-center by varying measurements.  ie  1/4", 1/2" etc.,etc..

Current claims are that the new square MOI drivers are more accurate (in part because they induce more backspin).  Have you seen any "studies" that support this claim.  

No, I haven't


The square drivers don't seem to have taken the tour by storm.

These new generation hi-tech elite players can be every bit as inaccurate than the previous generation and probably a good deal more so.

If that's the case why have fairways been dramatically narrowed over the previous generation's fairways ?

Answer:  Because today's equipment produces straighter shots.   Of all people, you should know.  That's another reason why SPIN needs to be put back into the game.

I think that's fallacious logic


What's fallacious logic ?

And I think that fact can be proven from Tiger Woods on down the iine.

The studies contradict your random observations.

On another tangent, you claim that technology has offset the natural deterioration of length in aging players. You claim to be longer than you were in your prime.  I'm as long as I ever was.  We're both into our 60's.  

Anecdotal information using the Tour driving distances from 1980 and today shows that the aging players of the 1980 era are about the same length they were in their prime.  So, you're doing better than most of the rest of us (anecdotally speaking).  As we get into our 70's, even technology can't offset the ravages of aging.  

I've got another few years before I reach that stage, but, by then, you never know.  If nothing reigns in distance they might develope a 56 inch long driver with a head the size of a tennis racket that will allow us to be LONG into our 80's.

Watching even Arnie is getting painful.

Remember, you're watching him in a competition with exceptional players, but, I agree, sooner or later age takes its toll.  Even the mighty fall given enough time.


You've said you enjoy playing at your current length and equally you did last year when you were shorter due to your health issues.  In either case your favourites at NGLA or Seminole provided entertaining and challenging interfacing with the course architecture.  

Why do you worry so much about the young studs missing the fun of great architecture. It's their loss.  

It's far more than their loss.
Golf courses are being disfigured in the name of reestablishing the balance, offsetting the hi-tech induced distance issue.

Greens are being flattened, holes altered, etc., etc..

A few short years ago I enjoyed playing ANGC from the Masters tees.  Today, at 7,400 that experience is no longer enjoyable.  And, narrowing the golf course by planting trees and letting the rough grow in has been a systemic issue in GCA since the distance issue reared its head.

So, the loss extends far beyond my personal experience.


Are the NGLA's and Seminole's of your world bastardizing their architectures from the tees you play from?

There have been some changes, like the repositioning of a bunker/s, but, for the most part, NGLA and Seminole, other than tee lengthening have remained mostly intact.  'But, they're more the exception than the rule.


Does the introduction of new tees and more length inherently affect the architecture of the courses from the tees that you play from?

I mostly play the back tees, so when holes are lengthened to 485 to 500 for a par 4 it would affect me as I doubt that I could reach the greens in regulation.

But, generally, I don't have an issue with lengthening the back tees.  My concerns address the mid-section and green end of a hole.

An example might be # 18 at ANGC.

From the back tees I doubt that I could even reach the corner of the dogleg, making it impossible for me to see the green, let alone reach it in two.

The NGLA's and Seminole's of the world seem to understand their place in history and the value of their architecture, thus, changes are few and far between.  But, other courses have become open season for architectural surgery.
When you drive in the entrance, you can smell the ether.

One might suggest another set of tees for the scratch or low handicap player.  A set of tees seperate and apart from the tees intended for the PGA Tour Pro.

The other dilema arises in designing a modern day course.

The cost of the additional land needed.  The cost to build a bigger, longer golf course, the cost to maintain all of the above.

And, how does the architect design a golf course for the broad spectrum of golfers where the gap in distance between the best, good, average and poor golfers has dramaically increased ?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

No doubt the best players have outgrown the best classic courses.  I'm sure technology has had a lot, if not most, to do with it.    

As to whether it's better to do a technological fix that affects everybody for the benefit of preserving the (relative) few courses that want to stay relevant for the best players, that's debateable.  The more I think on this, the more I'm thinking that bifurcation is the way to go.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()