[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

just look at the match held at Pine Valley between Nelson and Littler.

Examine where they hit their drives and the clubs they played into those greens.

Today, golfers without one tenth their ability, and golfers many years older, are hitting the ball so much farther than two of the best golfers in the world, that it's ridiculous.

The architecture intended to interface with the golfer is no longer relevant in many cases.

Like ANGC and many others PV has resorted to lengthening the golf course in order to retain it's relevance in testing championship caliber play amongst amateurs, whereas, ANGC has an even more difficult task in dealing with the PGA Tour pros.

ANGC should pursue a "tournament" ball.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick

Excellent points.

And I agree with your assessment:
>ANGC should pursue a "tournament" ball.

[paul cowley]

I agree Patrick.

An across the board rollback that would allow for the ball to go less distance would solve much as far as preserving architectural intent.....but still not take away the positive effects of the new equipment technology [forgiving clubs, straighter ball flight etc],
nor would it diminish the difference in the skill set between golfers of various abilities.

It also would give ball manufacturers a brand new area to create and compete in.

Seems like a win/win /win to me.

[Jason Connor]

ANGC is the one place with the autonomy and the guts to do it -- one ball that is.

I'd love to see it, love to see the tournament it created, and love to see the media, fans and players reactions after the event as a test of whether it's worth pursuing.

Of course the manufacturers would go crazy, so it may never be implemented on the PGA Tour, but it would be very interesting to watch.

[PThomas]

i'd like to see it too, but it won't happen...the club discussed doing this years ago, but did nothing

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

Great Post

Technology should be a friend, but we are allowing it to run wild and again
our Governing Bodies are reluctant to take control and resolve this problem once and for all.

The answer is not longer courses. That’s the typical ‘head in the sand approach’.

Knowing that my game had improved not because of my ability but due
to technical improvements in my equipment would not sit well on my shoulders. I have my own code of honour which I know is shared by
many out there, but regrettably not all.

[Ken Moum]

I have a tape of that show, did anyone notice how long the grass was in the fairways?

I think most Munis have tighter fairways than that these days.

Ken

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Re Technology

So what? Let's all give up our clubs and go back to hickories and gutta percha balls. We should all wear ties and jackets to play as well. On the club issue, aren't today's irons really stronger than the ones Nelson and Littler used on the PV event? Yesterday's 6 iron is probably an 8 or 9 iron today. Driver and shaft technology is a different story- for the better IMHO.

Now that ANGC has expanded the course to the extreme, do you really think that the Green Jackets will institute a "toonamint ball?"

The average recreational player still plays to a 17 or 18 handicap with all the technological advances in balls and equipment.

[Jeff Spittel]

If Augusta wants to remove the second cut, get rid of the saplings, and let the pros play from 6900 yards, then by all means go with the designated ball.

[Rick_Noyes]

I really can't figure out the problem here.  Why can't the USGA and R&A define the "golf ball" with all it's specifications rolling it back.  Why would the equipment companies complain?  They would still get to make and sell those golf balls.  Am I missing something?  Over simplifying?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

Your comments are what I expect from someone who does not appear to care about the game. But you have the right to your opinion, so do I.

I have not tried to mock your argument, no mention of ties or jackets, old clubs, gutta etc so why do you feel it necessary to belittle mine. Clearly you are happy to delude yourself that if your game improves it’s all down to your ability – when in real terms it’s all about being able to purchase the latest tools.

You have an old bankrupt argument that is just plain ridicules. Did I not say ‘Technology should be a friend’?

Hope it makes you feel proud. 

[Andy Hughes]

Yeah, Patrick is right of course--I don't imagine anyone seriously disputes today's equipment is longer. And he or someone else will also mention that the game is so much more fun with the older equipment, having to work the ball, having to 'interface' with the architecture as originally intended by the architect, having to think and plan and plot our ways around. And there is probably something to that, as well.

And then you look at the clubs everyone uses and it's the latest and greatest stuff. Even those who wax poetically about the joys and charms of the old stuff. They don't want to play the newer stuff you see, but the guys they are playing with are so they have to, dontcha see?

PS Melvyn, don't take it so personally, Steve said nothing directly to you. What clubs and ball are in your bag?

[John Kavanaugh]

When I look back to 1976, when I hit the ball further and the pace of play was quicker, I see two things that have changed the game more than club technology.  The first is the obvious improved fitness and introduction of top athletes into the game.  The second is the advancement of medical technology that has clogged our courses with old men still alive and fit enough for golf.  I will always believe that golfers evolve to the change in courses before courses evolve to meet the skills of golfers.  If Pine Valley and ANGC were longer back in the day we still would have had champions, just different ones.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JakaB,

You're missing the point.

The point is that the architecture intended to interface with the golfer is no longer functional in that respect due to hi-tech equipment and balls.

It's not about one individual winning a tournament.

It's about the thousands who play golf on a specially constructed field of play where the architect created features meant to interface with the golfer's eye, mind and game.

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB,

You're missing the point.

The point is that the architecture intended to interface with the golfer is no longer functional in that respect due to hi-tech equipment and balls.

It's not about one individual winning a tournament.

It's about the thousands who play golf on a specially constructed field of play where the architect created features meant to interface with the golfer's eye, mind and game.

If that is what you really believe than every club needs a customized set of sticks and balls specified out according to the year the course was built.

[tlavin]

Sure it has dramatically affected the pro game, and as it relates to the purity of the classic architecture of some of the great courses, technology has spoiled a lot of the enjoyment of watching PROFESSIONAL GOLF.  As it relates to amateur golf, however, there can be little argument that technology has been a tremendous boon to the enjoyment of the game.  From the big metal headed drivers and the forgiving irons with the right kind of shafts to putters with great MOI, to the amazing golf balls, technology has indeed been our friend as we everyday golfers hit the links.  It's a different story on the pro circuit as we see players of ordinary ability hit driver/nine-iron into 480 yard par 4's and players on the senior circuit routinely hit par 5's in two.

Why won't it change?  The simple explanation:  Our fascination with the ability of the professionals and what they can do with the equipment they're playing spurs much of the sales of the equipment that we are buying.  You can try to be a personal Luddite and avoid technology in your bag (though there are precious few who do), but you cannot expect the companies that make the equipment to stand still and you cannot expect the players to acquiesce to limits on the equipment which would in turn trim their incomes.

It's called capitalism.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I was one of the first on this site, if not the first, to recommend ANGC adopting a "tournament ball" for the good of the game.  I continue to believe that IF rolling back the ball is desirable, getting ANGC to lead the way gives the most likely chance of having something done.  However.....

As I age (hopefuly gracefully and with a concomitant increase in accumulated wisdom), I become less and less enamored of the concept for the following reasons:

1.  Practicality.  We have in front of us daily examples of what lawyers and even more clever people can do to thwart dialogue and pursue their own selfish agendas.  I think that the "debate" over "rolling back" would be won by the good guys, but the bad guys would make us suffer for it, big time, and it just is not worth that pain, at least for me.  Call me a wimp--please!

2.  Reality Checks.  IMO the primary reason that people want the ball rolled back is that they want to continue with the fantasy that they play the same game and on the same venues as the "Pros."  This might have been somewhat true 50 years ago, but even then it masked the fact that "scratch" players were at least 5 strokes/round less competent than the average Pro and good club players (~5HCP) would be lucky to halve a match getting a stroke a hole from a Major champion.  What hurts some of us (I think) is how the new technology makes us come to understand that we CAN'T hit the ball anywhere near as well as what the elite players can.  It was far easier to relate differerences in distance and accuracy between us and the pros when they could be measured in 15-30 yard increments.  Now when the increments are 50-80 yards we know we are playing a very different game.

3.  What important architecture is being screwed up by "technology"?  If you understand 2. above, you cannot help but agree that the answer is "virtually none."  Yes, ANGC looks goofy with it's plant-pot trees and plays more boring (to us) when the pros are there, but is it any worse for the members or the rest of us (particularly you, Pat, since you've been there often)?  Who really cares if anybody isn't good enough any more to play off the back tees as long as there are players who can (i.e. all the pros) and there are forward tees for the rest of us?

Peace

Rich

[Sean_A]

Patrick

You have raised this interfacing argument quite a bit.  I would ask for who?  For instance, back in the day, if a pro stepped back to 6700 yards to make bunkers at 230-250 in range and the average club member played to 6200 yards to accomplish the same thing except the bunker was 190-210 - wouldn't the clubs used for the second/third shots be drastically different for the pro and member?  If this is the case, how were the greens designed - to accomodate member play or pro play?  Something has to give (and this has always been the case) if pros and members are gonna play the same courses.  I think its always been a bit of a myth that guys like me can experience a championship course in a manner close to how pros do.  Shifting tees about just doesn't do the job unless by interfacing you are only concerned with tee shots. 

You know my take.  We all have choices to make.  I believe its a bit of a cop out to blame anybody but ourselves for the state of the game.  We are members of clubs overseeing changes.  We are the consumers who purchase the latest and greatest.  We are the punters who pay the pros to play.  A more genuine act would be to step out of line when you are next purchasing your ultra-competitive ball or whatever you think gives you an unfair advantage against archies' intentions. The sooner golfers realize and accept this the better off golf will be.

Going back and reading Rihc's post I agree with him.  Has the run of the mill club player really ever experienced the game like the pros do?  I don't buy it.  Furthermore, I am not sold on the idea of making decisions about the game based on elite players.  Of course, this cuts both ways.  I think its silly of clubs to alter their courses for the pros, but I think its also silly of 18 cappers to want to play 6800 yard courses.  I would even go further and say there aren't many single figure cappers that should be playing courses that long regardless of how far they can hit the ball.   

Ciao

[tlavin]

  Who really cares if anybody isn't good enough any more to play off the back tees as long as there are players who can (i.e. all the pros) and there are forward tees for the rest of us?

Peace

Rich

I second that emotion.

[Steve Kline]

Pat

I was one of the first on this site, if not the first, to recommend ANGC adopting a "tournament ball" for the good of the game.  I continue to believe that IF rolling back the ball is desirable, getting ANGC to lead the way gives the most likely chance of having something done.  However.....

As I age (hopefuly gracefully and with a concomitant increase in accumulated wisdom), I become less and less enamored of the concept for the following reasons:

1.  Practicality.  We have in front of us daily examples of what lawyers and even more clever people can do to thwart dialogue and pursue their own selfish agendas.  I think that the "debate" over "rolling back" would be won by the good guys, but the bad guys would make us suffer for it, big time, and it just is not worth that pain, at least for me.  Call me a wimp--please!

2.  Reality Checks.  IMO the primary reason that people want the ball rolled back is that they want to continue with the fantasy that they play the same game and on the same venues as the "Pros."  This might have been somewhat true 50 years ago, but even then it masked the fact that "scratch" players were at least 5 strokes/round less competent than the average Pro and good club players (~5HCP) would be lucky to halve a match getting a stroke a hole from a Major champion.  What hurts some of us (I think) is how the new technology makes us come to understand that we CAN'T hit the ball anywhere near as well as what the elite players can.  It was far easier to relate differerences in distance and accuracy between us and the pros when they could be measured in 15-30 yard increments.  Now when the increments are 50-80 yards we know we are playing a very different game.

3.  What important architecture is being screwed up by "technology"?  If you understand 2. above, you cannot help but agree that the answer is "virtually none."  Yes, ANGC looks goofy with it's plant-pot trees and plays more boring (to us) when the pros are there, but is it any worse for the members or the rest of us (particularly you, Pat, since you've been there often)?  Who really cares if anybody isn't good enough any more to play off the back tees as long as there are players who can (i.e. all the pros) and there are forward tees for the rest of us?

Peace

Rich

Rich: I generally agree with your points here. But there is a slight problem regarding #3. I am plus handicap but only hit the ball about 265-270 off the tee. I find it more and mroe common for their to be tees at 7,200 yards or so and then at set at 6,700 (which is a little short for me). Augusta is a good example of this (not that I have played there). The tournament tees would kill me but the member tees would be way too short. At Pinehurst #2, when there 3 sets of tees, I played the tips, which were around 7,000 yards. That was a good course for me. But, now the tips are 7,300 and the next set of tees is maybe 6,700 to 6,800 yards. I've the Open tees a few times but there are at least three par 4s where I'm hitting 3-wood to the green. But, if I play the next set up it feels like cheating. The other problem with the courses that are 7,200 yards or more for the pros is they are played extremely fast. At the last U.S. Open at Pinehurst, which I attended, drives were easily running 50 yards. Having played #2 over 200 times I've never encountered those conditions. In fact, when I played the tips there was no roll so a 7,300 yard course was playing almost 7,600 yards. I don't know what can be done about any of this but perhaps we would all be better if there PGA Tour/Major championship courses (like Augusta) that the rest of rarely played and weren't designed for us mere mortals. Then we could keep our beloved architecture more intact.

[Jerry Kluger]

No offense to anyone however, the top players are in a league of their own and guys like Steve, who is a plus handicap (I am around a 10 and jealous) just cannot compare what they are facing to what a Tour player faces.  Playing ANGC from the tips with the greens speeds as high as they were, is just not playable by anyone but the very top players.

A simple experiment would make a very dramatic point:  Get a Tour player to go around ANGC using a persimmon driver with a steel shaft, and all his other clubs would also be required to have steel shafts and small heads on 3 woods, etc.  I would be willing to bet that not only would his drives be significantly shorter, they would have a much wider shot pattern.

Trying to get ANGC to develop their own ball is not realistic and is just an exercise in futility.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Melvyn,

I care about the game but the game is really two games- golf at the upper levels and recreational golf. If the USGA and R&A want to roll back the ball and equipment for the less than 1 or 2% of players at the upper levels, that's fine with me. If golf courses want to lengthen their courses to 7500y for the upper echelon, that's fine with me. Equipment alone means nothing to game improvement unless one works hard at their game. Why have handicaps remained stagnant for the recreational golfer? Easy, they're not serious about improvement. They play for enjoyment. If they want to spend $300-500 for a high tech driver that they think by itself will help their game, so what?

I relish my role as an agent provacateur.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, Conceding the point, what do you say to those who embrace the drastic changes?

When the mannies start advertising this embrace, you know we're all being hoodwinked.

[Mike Benham]

Today, golfers without one tenth their ability, and golfers many years older, are hitting the ball so much farther than two of the best golfers in the world, that it's ridiculous.

Patrick -

Are you saying that golfers, non-competitive amateurs, are able to score as well as Nelson and Littler?

Do you believe that a 20 hdcp golfer of that era is a better player then a 20 hdcp player of the modern era?

I believe it is you that has mentioned many times that even with the improved technology, that the average hdcp has not improved radically like the gains in distance provided by technology.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Steve

I've played with many players of your caliber, still hit the ball nearly as long as you do (but probably not as consistenly) and I would be surprised if you did not find ~6,700 yard courses such as Dornoch, Pacific Dunes and Prestwick "a little short" for you.

Rich

Form and funtuion are a both, and not an either/or.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()