Has there been "material change" by the recent "shift in ammunition"?

[AndrewB]

In an article from 1914 that Joe Basuch posted, Harry S. Colt discusses the change in "ammunition" from the gutty to rubber-cored balls.

Then he started with the preposition that as substantially the same players remain at the top of the championship list, now that rubber-cored balls have replaced the gutty, no material change has been brought about by the shift in ammunition.

He does go on to discuss alterations to old courses and how that task is not an enviable one as well.  Those are thoughtful comments, but I'm more interested in his statement that the shift has not caused a material change and using the players that are successful as a measurement of that change.

What exactly do you think Colt meant by the term "material change" and do you think our recent shift in ammunition (well, all equipment really) over the past 10-15 years has brought on such a change using his measurement?  That is, are the same players (or sort of players) at the top of the championship list now as then?

Restorations and renovations are discussed all the time, but do you think the advances in golf equipment have brought about material change in the design of new courses?  And by asking this I am of course taking length as an obvious answer and hoping for discussion on other architectural features that are now being used because of equipment advances, if such a change has occurred.

[JESII]

Andrew,

I think many on here will contend that the new balls inherently fly straighter which provides a materially better product for the long hitter to use...a disproportionate advantage to them in the long hitter versus short hitter debate...I can't really disagree with them.

[Joe Bausch]

Andrew, later on in that same 1914 article is this tasty bit of info from Open champion Sandy Herd:

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

I think what Colt meant by no material change is that there had been no change on the championship list, period.

[JESII]

Sounds like another indication of the match play mindset versus the medal play mindset...score relative to par seems to not matter to Colt in the post so long as the best players are winning...

[AndrewB]

Thanks for the additional piece of that article, Joe.  It's interesting to hear that the new ball, while traveling farther, had drawbacks too.  I wonder if people think the same can be said about the recent equipment changes.  Regarding the comments about cross bunkers and those off to the side, Sandy sure seemed to consider getting a ball up in the air more indicative of a good shot than getting it on line.

TEPaul, do you really think that's all Colt meant?  I took it to mean no change in the way the game was played and what skills were required to score well, with the lack of change of the players at the top as evidence of that.

JES, I hadn't considered score changes but you raise a good point that Colt seemed concerned with which players were winning rather than how they were scoring.  I agree with your comments about distance -- though I don't know whether that's just me being bitter as a short hitter -- but what about putting?  Do you think putting is more important now than it used to be because it's easier to be a good ball striker with today's equipment?  Maybe not amongst the top players where everyone has always been a good ball striker, but amongst the group a cut below?

[JESII]

At the level you play, I think chipping is more important (and more difficult) because the balls are harder.

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

I took the quote to mean the same thing you said in the middle of your last post -- that players still had to possess the same range of skills to be successful.

I am not sure that I believe the same holds true today.  The importance of ball striking has fallen by the wayside, particularly with the driver -- everybody can drive it far now -- and the importance of controlling one's trajectory on approach shots has diminished, except in windy conditions.  It never hurt to be good with the driver and wedges and putter, but today that's all it takes -- I don't even know who is a good iron player on Tour.

[CHrisB]

I'm sure that players like Nick Price, Nick Faldo, and Corey Pavin are thanking their lucky stars that they got their careers mostly completed before the latest technology surge...

[AndrewB]

Tom,

Have the things you've stated above done anything to change how you think about designing courses?  Or does what you've said apply to few enough players that it's not worth considering?

If you were asked to design a course used specifically to test the best hundred players in the world, what might you differently?  Aside from making it long.

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

I haven't changed my designs much to date because I am not working for people who care how Phil Mickelson will play the hole, and I'm praying to God we never get to the point where the average guy hits it like Phil.

But, when I do design a course for Tour players someday, you can expect that it will have four or five holes in the 490 to 580-yard range where players will have to hit medium- to long-iron approach shots to get home in two ... and the same holes will have tilted greens to reward the player who can hit a fade or draw when he needs to.  If they call those holes par-5's then the winning score may be WAY under par, but it'll be interesting to watch, anyway.

I want to build a couple of cool short par-4's as well, but it will be difficult, because they can so easily smash driver up near the green on most holes now.  What I'd really like to build is a driveable par-4 where you have to feed it into the green, because if you fly it there it'll bounce away into trouble.  But, trouble like that for the Tour players will be severely penal the ohter 51 weeks of the year.

[PThomas]

But, when I do design a course for Tour players someday,

maybe a bit of a news flash there!

I can see it now:

"Vijay, you were right in the thick of things til you three-putted the short par 4 16th..."

"Yea, I nailed my tee shot, but instead of making eagle or at least two-putting for birdie I three-putted cause of the %&@# green that that guy Doak built, yada yada..."

[CHrisB]

But, when I do design a course for Tour players someday,

maybe a bit of a news flash there!

I can see it now:

"Vijay, you were right in the thick of things til you three-putted the short par 4 16th..."

"Yea, I nailed my tee shot, but instead of making eagle or at least two-putting for birdie I three-putted cause of the %&@# green that that guy Doak built, yada yada..."

Since there seems to be a fresh new anti-ass-kissing wave emerging here on GCA I thought I'd try to pick apart this one.

Let's see...
(1) By the time a Doak course hosts a Tour event, Vijay Singh will be at least 55 years old,
(2) Tour guys usually have no idea or no care about who designed the golf course,
(3) No one falls out of contention with a three-putt par, and
(4) Fijians don't say "yada, yada"

There, everyone happy? (Just kidding, Paul--all in good fun and I wish you and everyone on GCA <<insert the appropriate holiday greeting for whoever is reading this>> and Happy New Year!)