The Average Golfer Speaks Out

[JESII]

I don't want to hijack this thread (good posts, thanks). But JES and Jamie S have contributed here, and I thought they are the best people to ask about this, i.e.excellent amateur players. You played perhaps THE golden age course recently (and probably have played others besides): did you find that technology-drive distance has ruined the character of the course(s)?

Thanks
Peter

   

Peter,

Sorry for the delay...Pine Valley and Merion have both undergone lengthening programs in recent years. They both needed it to counter act the longer yardages top players hit the ball today and therefore maintain the approach shot integrity the architect intended...Interestingly, they each have a tremendous set of short par fours that were not, and are not, drivers off the tee. They have (wisely IMO) focused their lengthening on the driver holes that had become "too short" to mandate a driver for the 285 - 300 set.

One good example hole for this discussion is probably #5 at Merion. Most people know the hole as a very challenging 430 hole that moves slowly to the left with a creek on the inside edge of the fairway all the way to the green. The entire area of the hole slopes significantly from right to left...including the green, which is quite steep...creating a very natural challenge. Because the green is steeply tilted to the left you would like to hit a shot into it with left to right spin, but the fairway makes that very difficult.

In the old days, I would guess this hole was approached (by top players) from outside of 175, and upwards of 200 so the club was a long one. In this summers Philadelphia Open I hit a pair of good (although not maximum) drives that left me at 141 and 146 to the center of the green. If I possesed a hard running draw, I could have been 20 yards closer. Here's the rub...they have added a tee that was used during the 2005 Amateur that is a full 75 yards behind the one we played.

Drives from that tee would have been to a much narrower landing area and resulted in an approach from 200+ yards to one of the more severe greens you'll ever play. Seems to be in keeping with the architects intent, but I wonder if he intended stimpmeter readings above 10 feet. In the morning round from 146 to the pin with a very slight breeze in my face I hit a very nice 3/4 7 iron a bit to the right of the pin (albeit, not with left-to-right spin) that checked pretty quickly and then just trickled 30 feet down to the corner of the green.


Peter,

My answer to your direct question is that courses play much shorter than they used to...and shorter, I presume, than their architect would appreciate...but their character is not "ruined", merely changed a bit. Don't all things change with time?



p.s. I agree with the notion Jason Topp suggested in point #5 that elite players should be ignored as it pertains to length obsoleting golf courses...how often does length go hand in hand with scoring? I think there are a couple hindred guys in the world capable of both...

[Brent Hutto]

I think you are catching on.  I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game.  Folks go on about distance like it is some sort  Holy Grail of answers.

Yep, we're on the same page after all. If "they" were to roll back the springiness of the golf ball 10%-15% or so for those 130mph hitters and if that were to save a few classic courses from being stretched beyond recognition then I'd be all for it. But if we're stuck with "The Distance Problem" and with the game as it exists right now it's not a problem that keeps me up nights. I have fun every Saturday and Sunday and when the pros play at Carnoustie or Hoylake or Shinnecock then Tiger or somebody usually puts on a good show.

[JESII]

Sean,


Re: Daly...Can you tell, when watching on TV with the sound off, how far Daly hits the ball? What percentage of the, lets just say, 100,000 people that pay to get into a Tour event actually have a clue how far het hits the ball compared to the other guys out there?

Seeing the ball land and splat is boring to all spectators while seeing the ball bounce and run is just as interesting while watching as it is while playing...

What is the most exciting (and impressive) shot the TV guys hit today? The wedge that lands 30 feet past the hole and spins back right next to the hole. What is the least impressive shot? The wedge that lands right next to the hole and spins 30 feet back off the front of the green.

Spectators want the TV guys to have total control of the ball, and nothing illustrates/tests ball control better than The Open venues because they are almost always so firm...it's just that the cameras suck...

[Powell Arms]

I've thought about this a lot as well, and it is one of the motivations behind joining this discussion group. I wanted to add a few thoughts into the discussion without too much repetition.

The biggest distance increases with the new equipment are realized only by the very elite player.  However, what troubles me is the difference that now exists between the elite player and just the "very good" player.   Pre-pro v, the "very good player" could, on occasion, drive with the pros, or was perhaps 10-15 yards short.  Now, the gap is more like 30-50 yards.  

I think it is very difficult to develop a new course that is not championship length.  Regardless of the fact the average consumer does not need the length; the lack of championship length would likely cause the course to be “ranked” lower in the eyes of the consumer.

The resources wasted in creating this seldom used length certainly translates into increased maintenance and real estate costs.  Sean, perhaps this is where you and I disagree, as I do not think the increased cost is balanced out by the fun of hitting the ball further.  IMO, the average golfer is not hitting the ball further.  Straighter perhaps, with more forgiveness on misses, but not further.

As a result, the price of the game is higher than it should be because the cost of new course development is higher than it should be.  And I do think the easy answer that directly addresses the problem is a competition ball.   I believe there are three direct benefits to this solution.

1.   Championship courses no longer need to be 7500 yards +.  The can be 6500 – 6800 yards.  A shorter course equals less real estate and less area to maintain.

2.   Shotmaking must be part of the pro repertoire.

3.   The average golfer using today’s equipment and balls can directly relate to the pros, hitting similar distances, making similar strategic choices, etc.

In essence, the argument could be made the rules are currently bifurcated already because the pros gain a disproportionate advantage through equipment modernization, and that a competition ball, while bifurcating the rules, actually increases the similarity of  the game played by the pro and amateur.

[Sean_A]

I think you are catching on.  I am positive that resolving any perceived distance problem at the pro level will not in and of itself solve what is ailing the game.  Folks go on about distance like it is some sort  Holy Grail of answers.

Yep, we're on the same page after all. If "they" were to roll back the springiness of the golf ball 10%-15% or so for those 130mph hitters and if that were to save a few classic courses from being stretched beyond recognition then I'd be all for it. But if we're stuck with "The Distance Problem" and with the game as it exists right now it's not a problem that keeps me up nights. I have fun every Saturday and Sunday and when the pros play at Carnoustie or Hoylake or Shinnecock then Tiger or somebody usually puts on a good show.

Brent

I believe there is a legitimate theoretical side to all of this which is based largely on what individuals think the important aspects of the game are.  I was certainly uncomfortable when I tried to answer my own question of how I would feel if manufacturers announced a substantial increase in distance tomorrow.  

I honestly don't care if some golden age clubs are supposedly saved from alterations because that is a decision the clubs make.  Blaming distance is a copout excuse to go chasing top/prestigious pro and amateur events.  So far as the memberships are concerned, added distance is largely a waste of time and money.  IMO, clubs are going to want to change their courses regardless.  Its human nature only at the moment we have a great scapegoat in distance.  

Sully

I am not disagreeing with you and in fact I much prefer firmer courses because they imo are part of what is best about carrying on traditions of golf.  I am only saying that there is more than one way to entertain a golf fan.  Everything about how Daly attacks the ball suggest power and people enjoy watching this.  Do you think the commentators fake their enthusiasm for watching power golf?  

Ciao    

[Brent Hutto]

3.   The average golfer using today’s equipment and balls can directly relate to the pros, hitting similar distances, making similar strategic choices, etc.

I think you overestimate the golfing public's (admittedly considerable) powers of self-delusion. If the guys playing on TV are using a Cayman ball then my feeling is that I'd no longer have any way to relate my own game to theirs.

If it came down to a choice between every course in the USA becoming an 8,000 yards monster versus having the Tour players competing with a reduced-distance ball then maybe it would be worth it. But I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.

The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.

IMO, clubs are going to want to change their courses regardless.  Its human nature only at the moment we have a great scapegoat in distance.  

You've got that one right, mate. An important principle to remember in these discussions.

[John Kavanaugh]

Did any of you guys who think shotmaking, both good and bad, are out of the game watch the finish of the Texas Open yesterday?  These were not long holes by any stretch of the imagination that were being butchered and mastered down the stretch.  They weren't even particularly interesting holes.  Who are these pros you talk about who no longer make shots?

[JESII]

...I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.

The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.

I'll second that one...

[John Kavanaugh]

Was slow pitch softball the answer for the hack baseball player who wanted to continue to play the game?  Is that what you guys want to become?

[Sean_A]

...I personally place great value in the seamless continuum or Rules, equipment and courses connecting my Saturday game to the professional major championships.

The fact that Tiger gets his clubs tweaked to a fare-thee-well as he sees fit does absolutely nothing to change the level playing field provided by a single set of Rules. Having an elite few players (BTW, just Tour golfers or do you include guys like JSlonis and JES as well?) tie one hand behind their back with a downgraded ball would blow the whole thing out of the water. Just one hacker's opinion, of course.

I'll second that one...

I like the idea of the same equipment for all who can afford it, but I don't think it is a sacred or untouchable principle.  

John

Softball is a good game in its own right.  If it keeps people active and happy whats there to bitch about?

Ciao  

[JESII]

Sean,

I gave up paying any attention to what the guys on TV say distance wise when I played in the Kingsmill tour event in 2000. The two measured driving holes were slightly into the wind and it was cool October weather and my two drives were right next to the stripes that said 250 and 260...on the computer, my average measurement was something like 277...


But, your Daly statement..."Everything about how Daly attacks the ball suggest power and people enjoy watching this." is dead on accurate...people would love a kamikaze driver on the NASCAR circuit as well...even if his car didn't go any faster...

[Powell Arms]

I agree, not an easy decision.  My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.

[Peter Pallotta]

JES
Thanks very much, that was a terrific post. The details on the 5th at Merion under tournament conditions I couldn’t get anywhere else.

I go back and forth on this question myself.  To play the devil’s advocate (with myself), it seems to me that for all our talk about being disinterested in the professional game (in terms of architecture), never before have amateurs given so much thought to, and been so influenced by, the professional games’ standards, goals, and objectives.

When I read your description of playing the 5th at Merion, or of playing Pine Valley, or Jamie’s answer, or I read the scorecard (and various scorecards) for the Pennsylvania Mid-Am, it seems pretty clear that the challenge to scoring is still there (even if the challenges have changed over the years), and that PAR hasn’t been made meaningless because of technology…..and that’s for some of the very best amateurs around; so what are the rest of us even talking about?

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

I agree, not an easy decision.  My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.

Powell,

You are simply wrong.  There are more amateurs today that hit the ball as far as Tiger as there were that hit the ball as far as Nicklaus in the 70's.  In the 70's I seriously doubt that you had thousands of double digit handicaps in the world that hit the ball as far as the greatest player in the game.

[Ken Moum]

I know Kmoum says that the USGA had a solution to the distance deal, but it must have been temporary and therefore inadequate or we wouldn't be where we are now.  As I said before, any deal has to include the consumer, ruling bodies and manufacturers.  

The this about the solution was that they went too far for the balls of the 1930s. So they rolled part of it back.

In the intervening 50-some years, it was more than enough to keep the distance/finesse equation in a place most of us found entertaining.

Then the new balls came along and tilted the scale in favor of distance again.

My point was that re-implementing the weight limit that was rolled back might be all that's necessary to balance the equation again.

I have no beef with long hitters, despite my status as a short hitter. I do think the elite game has tilted so far in favor of power that it's not longer entertaining.

The beauty of a lighter ball is that it most likely wouldn't be at all shorter for the average player, and might actually be longer for juniors, women and seniors.

Ken

[Powell Arms]

I agree, not an easy decision.  My point is that one can look at bifurcation two ways, and I think that the game, not the rules, is as bifurcated now between hacks and pros as at any point in its history.

Powell,

You are simply wrong.  There are more amateurs today that hit the ball as far as Tiger as there were that hit the ball as far as Nicklaus in the 70's.  In the 70's I seriously doubt that you had thousands of double digit handicaps in the world that hit the ball as far as the greatest player in the game.

I'll agree to disagree.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I never agree to disagree.  You are wrong.  Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand.  If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground.  It was much harder and took far more talent than today.  The game is less bifurcated today than ever.

[Powell Arms]

I never agree to disagree.  You are wrong.  Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand.  If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground.  It was much harder and took far more talent than today.  The game is less bifurcated today than ever.

I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill.  He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.  

In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?

[Tony_Muldoon]

I have a novel idea...Instead of trying to make great players worse through legislation go out and practice and get better through hard work.

John,

My goodness...what a great concept.  I'm nowhere near the level of the average tour player, but I've seen enough of the "average" player to know that if they spent just 10% of their time that they put into the game, and practice from 100 yards and in, that they would decrease their handicap beyond what they could imagine.

I'd bet even your more active average golfer has no clue how much time a tour player practices each day/week during the year.

My favorite thing to see at the local practice range is guy after guy dropping their bucket o' balls and grabbing their DRIVER right away.  That is a lost cause.

I think most of us choose to be as bad as we are.

I agree entirely with this John and that is why the average handicap hasn't shifted in 50 years... but that's probably another thread on Joe Average.

[Sean_A]

When I read your description of playing the 5th at Merion, or of playing Pine Valley, or Jamie’s answer, or I read the scorecard (and various scorecards) for the Pennsylvania Mid-Am, it seems pretty clear that the challenge to scoring is still there (even if the challenges have changed over the years), and that PAR hasn’t been made meaningless because of technology…..and that’s for some of the very best amateurs around; so what are the rest of us even talking about?

Peter

Peter

I am not sold on the concept of par and think it is largely irrelevant.  However, changes to many a great course have been made in the name of protecting the challenge (ie par imo) that is perceived to have been reduced by length and other improvements in equipment, conditions and players.  This concept stretches back for 100 years - since the Haskell become the dominant ball in elite golf.  

Strangely enough, TOC may have been the first course to actually be toughened up (as oppossed to a complete redesign) for championship play by adding several championship tees and considerable bunker work for the 1905 Open - ironic isn't it?  This the trend has continued to this day with the final extreme of a few tees being created off the course for the 2005 Open.  TOC is something like 1000 yards longer than 100 years ago, yet scores are far lower.  It is clear that adding yardage to courses is no protection for par, yet the same thinking prevails.  Perhaps it might be better if we alter our idea of par.  

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

I never agree to disagree.  You are wrong.  Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand.  If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground.  It was much harder and took far more talent than today.  The game is less bifurcated today than ever.

I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill.  He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.  

In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?

Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment.  As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round.  On their worst day and my best of the year.  I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.

[JESII]

...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.

BS

[Powell Arms]

I never agree to disagree.  You are wrong.  Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand.  If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground.  It was much harder and took far more talent than today.  The game is less bifurcated today than ever.

I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill.  He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.  

In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?

Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment.  As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round.  On their worst day and my best of the year.  I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.

Sounds great, but I think it lacks substance in the end.  Doesn't the new groove rule bifurcate the rules anyway by making the adoption as follows, "Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend that the Condition apply only to competitions involving expert players."?

[John Kavanaugh]

...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.

BS

Because I pave airports I often have access to runways that are closed and freshly paved.  One time I took a S500 out and took it to the limit and could not believe how scared I was...It is much tougher than I ever dreamed and this is with no traffic.

[John Kavanaugh]

I never agree to disagree.  You are wrong.  Do you have any idea how much talent it took to hit a balata ball as far as Nicklaus could on demand.  If you did not get the spin just right the ball simply ballooned and fell to the ground.  It was much harder and took far more talent than today.  The game is less bifurcated today than ever.

I do have idea of the skill required to hit the balata the length Nicklaus did - not to say I actually possess that skill.  He is one of the golfers that has noted this growing differnce in length between his prime and present day.  

In any event, where does having a competition ball harm golf any more than driver / wedge golf harms golf?

Because golf is the one sport that I can still play on the same field as the best in the world with the same equipment.  As lousy as I am I can still beat Tiger on any given hole and many pros over the course of an entire round.  On their worst day and my best of the year.  I can not even come close in any other sport including NASCAR...I get to 140 MPH and freak out.

Sounds great, but I think it lacks substance in the end.  Doesn't the new groove rule bifurcate the rules anyway by making the adoption as follows, "Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend that the Condition apply only to competitions involving expert players."?

Do not know the new groove rule or understand it.  I thought my TP Y-Cutters had as good of grooves as could be purchased legally.  On this I agree to be ignorant.