There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players. Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect. Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment. Course maintenance has an effect. I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.
Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players.
I think the distance problem is more pronounced at that level, but, that doesn't exclude the distance problem from affecting other levels.[/color]
I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates.
I don't think that's true.
There's been a good deal of discussion on the distance issue affecting golfers at other than the elite level[/color]
Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.
That's absolutely untrue.
The members of "golfden age" clubs had nothing to do with the quantum leap in distance over the last two decades.
It was the aggressive development on the part of the manufacturers and the silence of the USGA that created the problem, not the "golden age" clubs or their members.[/color]
I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected.
Sean, I can't speak to your game, but, I can speak to mine and to the games of others I've watched over the last two or more decades, and, improved equipment has had a significant impact.
I know guys who are considerably longer at 65 than they were at 25, and, they're straighter too. And, they are NOWHERE near the shape they were in 40 years ago.
14 year old kids are hitting it far longer than Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime. That alone should register on your "something's changed scale"[/color]
It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees.
However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of.
Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so.
It is, provided you can.
The "GAME" is inherently FUN and CHALLENGING irrespective of how far you hit it.
Handicap is a wonderful offset for lack of ability.
When I could only hit the ball 180 yards with my best drive, I enjoyed the game as much as I ever did.
That doesn't mean that I didn't want to hit the ball farther, only that "THE" INHERENT LURE isn't about distance.[/color]
Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.
But, aren't the ones that rip you off, the more desirable courses ?
If they weren't, they couldn't rip you off.[/color]
The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.
My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance,[/color] I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat.
I agree with you, it DOESN'T solve the distance problem.
But, it DOESN'T get to the heart of the matter either.[/color]
Patrick
Club members change their courses. They may have reasons for doing so, but the responsibility of changing the course and how it is changed is down to the club members. Blaming someone or something else is neither constructive or accurate. Furthermore, as consumers, all golfers have something to do with all changes in equipment.
If you read my words and keep them in context, it would be very difficult to conclude that I believe the lure of the game is about distance. Surely, length is one aspect of the game which many people enjoy, but it isn't the only lure of the game.
In many cases, the courses which charge more are the more desirable ones to play and I still want to play some of them if given the opportunity. However, in the vast majority of instances, the courses I want to play that have high green fees are not expensive because the ball goes further. They are more expensive because people are willing to pay. Luckily, because I don't view golf as an attractive game purely for its challenge, I can enjoy many so called lesser courses with reasonable green fees.
Golf is a game that has changed dramatically over the years and it will continue to change. Hence, the challenges of the game will change. Some people like some changes and others don't. Once there is some sort of concensus on the part of the ruling bodies, manufacturers and consumers about what is good or bad, then we can get at whatever the heart of the problem is with golf - assuming there is a problem. Suggesting that one person's idea of a certain decrease in distance is the heart of the matter is simple minded.
Perhaps there are solutions staring us in the face these past 100 years or perhaps the heart of the matter is more complicated than you believe. I don't have any solutions to a distance problem, but then I don't have a problem with distance and I can't think of a single person I know that does - regardless of how far he hits the ball now compared to however many years ago. So far as I can tell, very few people do have a problem with distance and of those people who do, most are pros - in which case it doesn't really matter to me. I spose only each individual can answer if he has a distance problem for themselves. Perhaps a 12 step program can be invented.
While I don't personally care much if the ball is rolled back, I don't like the idea of folks making decisions for me. I don't need a granny state ruling to tell me I have been naughty and therefore should now use a ball which doesn't go as far. I can make my own decisions concerning length and believe me, if I thought I was taking the piss, I would not hit driver because I am not nearly as caught up in the "equal footing" mentality side of competition that some are. For instance, I don't take advantage of 14 clubs, I very rarely use a caddy, I don't use trolleys, I try not to consult yardage guides, I don't get fitted for clubs, I have never had a lesson, etc. These are all personal decisions which I understand most likely place me at a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint, but maximizing every possible advantage is not my goal. I play for enjoyment so I don't deem these advantages as terribly important.
If the goal of distance reduction is to bring back architectural integrity, which era of architecture would you like to be restored to? Somebody once said that to get the full measure of TOC today compared to 1850, the course would have to be 9000 yards long. Sounds like a slog to me. Perhaps many courses even as little as 50 years ago were too difficult for the average golfer.
Ciao