[Richard Choi]

I just read this suggestion in the PNGA magazine and I thought it was pretty brilliant. I wonder what the clubhouse thinks of the idea.

Instead of making some dramatic changes to clubs, ball, or the course, to limit the impact of ever growing distance off the tee, just eliminate one thing - the tee.

All players drop a ball at the tee box and the ball is in play. I am guessing this one change would roll back the driver distance by 10% to 20%. It even has the added benefit of truly playing the ball as it lies.

If people really object to it, you can just make this rule apply only to the pros, since they are highly skilled players and they should be able to hit drivers off the deck.

What do you think?

[Alex Miller]

I think there is way more logic that goes against this than is behind this.

Why take away something / change something that has been in the game for the last 80 years (the wood tee) as opposed to changing and limiting club technology or golf ball technology which have made a definite impact in recent years.

It's an original idea, but I don't see how it's brilliant in any way.

The great thing about golf is that any of us can play the game in the same set up with the same rules as the pros. If I go out and have an awesome day and shoot 66, no one can take that away from me. If I do it and a pro shoots a 67 say, I can't really compare my play to there's. 

[jeffwarne]

Why not just require it to dropped in a divot?

another answer that doesn't address the problem.

and creates a greenkeeping nightmare.......
just triple the size of teeing areas on par 4's and 5's

[Richard Choi]

Well, what is worse? Tripling the tee box area or maintainig an 8000 yard course?

[Jud_T]

I think I'd rather play from 7000+ than have to hit my 3-wood off every tee.

[Dan Herrmann]

Richard, How about making the ball spin more?  It's just a change in the dimple pattern and it'd solve the problem tomorrow.

[Ronald Montesano]

Richard, you are brave, indeed.  I don't believe that elimination of something (teeing the ball) that has been with us for hundreds of years is the answer.  I don't like the idea, I guess, is what I'm getting around to.  I would like to know more about Dan's idea of altering the dimple pattern, as it would make every current ball obsolete/illegal.

[Bob_Huntley]

Laura Davies has done this her whole career.

Bob

[Chris Cupit]

I don't think it's such a crazy idea.  Clearly the manufacturers of balls and clubs really dictate how the game is played and no governing body seems willing to address that issue.  How about going back to using moistened sand to lift the ball off the ground.  I'd assume the weight of the ball prevents the height from getting too out of hand and the return to the tee would save the tee boxes and mowers

[noonan]

I don't think it's such a crazy idea.  Clearly the manufacturers of balls and clubs really dictate how the game is played and no governing body seems willing to address that issue.  How about going back to using moistened sand to lift the ball off the ground.  I'd assume the weight of the ball prevents the height from getting too out of hand and the return to the tee would save the tee boxes and mowers

Hmmmmmm....I bet the sand tee construction will not slow down play

[Brent Hutto]

The USGA has been granted, for longer than I've been alive, absolute control over the distance any legal golf ball is allowed to fly. It can only go as far as they say it can, under whatever test conditions they deem appropriate.

So there is a 100% certain, guaranteed, simple and direct way to control the distance that the golf ball fllies. It's sitting right there in the equipment rules where it has been for generations. Why the heck would we want to screw around with clubs or eliminate tees or any of the other straw-man ideas you guys keep floating. If the ball is going too far Just Say That It Can't Go As Far.

So-called "problem" solved.

It's like stabbing yourself in the eyeball with a sharp stick repeatedly and someone suggesting you try stabbing it with your left hand for a while to see if it hurts any less. You could just stop doing it.

[Tom_Doak]

I actually heard Peter Dawson from the R & A mention this as a possibility at a dinner three years ago, so, it's not as far out there as some think.

I don't know if it would work as well as everyone assumes.  If the turf on the tee was really torn up, chances are you could place your ball at the end of a divot, and smash a driver from that lie.  Maybe you'd have to drop before you teed off, instead.

Can't see it happening, though.

[Mike_Young]

I still say if you limit the clubface size of the driver....the shaft becomes shorter and the clubhead speed drops.....and then the distance drops

[Bob_Huntley]

I actually heard Peter Dawson from the R & A mention this as a possibility at a dinner three years ago, so, it's not as far out there as some think.

I don't know if it would work as well as everyone assumes.  If the turf on the tee was really torn up, chances are you could place your ball at the end of a divot, and smash a driver from that lie.  Maybe you'd have to drop before you teed off, instead.

Can't see it happening, though.

Tom,

Christy O'Connor would thwack his driver into the turf and tee the ball on the raised side of the indentation. Laura Davies used that trick as well but most times just whacked the crap out of it from the deck.


Bob

[Chris Cupit]

OK maybe the sand idea isn't going anywhere but it could work.  You have moist sand on each tee and a shot glass type device (each player has their own maybe) and they pack the "shot glass" of sand into the device.  Pretend you polished off a tequila shot and "slam" the sand filled shot glass upside down and form the tee--that really shouldn't take to long.

Or................

How about a tee limited to 2" to 2 1/2" in height?  

The USGA took the step of limiting tees to 4" in height and disallowed devices like pencils and the like several years ago so maybe they could "roll back" the tee!

[jeffwarne]

I still say if you limit the clubface size of the driver....the shaft becomes shorter and the clubhead speed drops.....and then the distance drops

i would disagree.
I'd say the longer shafts became more popular as graphite became more consistent allowing its' use to be prevelant-which allowed longer drivers to not weigh a ton .
Touring pros don't have a problem hitting the middle of the face.
and those who think tht the big heads are the reason pros swing hard need to watch a few Shell's world of golf matches and see a few of the old boys take a lash at it

I think Bob Huntley summed it up well.

Tom D- Was alcohol served at that dinner?
Manufactures would find a way to weight a club so it went just as far and the rest of the world would duff it off the tee.
The same fools that play the back tees would play it "off the deck" like the pros, and soon discover that hitting the large ball before the small ball (or the dead top of the small ball)severely limits distance

[Mark Molyneux]

The USGA has been granted, for longer than I've been alive, absolute control over the distance any legal golf ball is allowed to fly. It can only go as far as they say it can, under whatever test conditions they deem appropriate.

It would be nice if the USGA and the PGA would approach this problem with some sense of cooperation and common interest. Brent hit the ball squarely on the grooves when he offered that the flight of the ball can be controlled. That's the parsimonious solution! If the maximum drive flies 275 and rolls out to 290 under typical conditions then the 520 yard par 5 makes sense again for the touring pros.

The big concerns for me are two: 1. When Phil and Sergio need 8000 yards and regular clubs decide they need 8000 yard tees too for the members who "... want to see what the tour guys are looking at.", they buy up acreage and build the course out and a round of golf costs me substantially more while they pay off the real estate, the designer's fee, and the extra maintenance. AND 2. The magnificent, classic designs are rendered "obsolete" whatever that means.

We're at a point where courses stretch to unheard of lengths and rough grows 5 inches deep to "protect par". I don't want to pay more to play and I'd like to see Padgraig play the same links (more or less) that challenged the best golfers in the world for decades.

Limit the flight of the ball!! Since I haven't shot par at Winged Foot in quite a while, maybe I should still play the new "Hot Z, flame broiled, Top Rock with a 115 compression and speed stripes" but the pros ought to all play the same ball and it ought to be the sort of ball that doesn't leave a wedge into #1 at Baltusrol Lower. It's golf after all. I don't want to see how far the pros can hit a Pro V-1, even if that's my ball. It's like I don't want to see how far Barry Bonds can hit a baseball on 3 quarts of The Clear. I don't even want to see how far Ryan Howard can hit a baseball with an aluminum bat. I know they're better than me. I know the Tour guys can outhit me by 20 yards or more per club. I do want to see the best of the best "golf the ball". That means I want to see them hit a long iron. I want to see them work the ball. I want to see a deft touch around the green. You want raw power? Go watch a weight lifter.

Someone needs to draw the line. For me, the line is 7000 yards and that's partly because we already have 7000 yard courses. Don't give me some BS about the inexorable advances of science. The bases are still 90 feet and the mound is 60'6" and the best players in the world use WOODEN bats. There's nothing says that titanium is sacred or that balls should fly 380. If you were propped up with a beer in hand, cheering the National Long Drive Champs, you need to reexamine your priorities. Ask yourself when's the last time you played a course at over 7000.

[Chuck Brown]

This is not the first time I have heard of something along these lines.  But the suggestion that I heard was a compromise suggestion that, to this day, I find irresistable.

The suggestion was to limit the length of tees, to about 2.25" or less.  (As short, or shoter, than current standard "short" tees.
The thinking is, that latest and greatest of the 460cc drivers have very deep faces, which require long tees in order to hit the ball high up on the tall driver faces.  Take away those long tees, and you will force players to hit higher lofted drivers, perhaps with smaller heads or shallower faces, and you will also likely force a higher-spin hit off the tee.

But in watching the WGC Match Play today, I think I witnessed Paul Casey hitting a forged-blade Nike 7-iron, with a Dynamic Gold Tour X100 shaft, from 205 yards.  I don't know what a tee-length restriction does about that.

[Charlie Goerges]

The clubmakers would love the sand tees. With sand, you'd go through drivers twice as fast and they'd double their revenue. Unless they totally drove you from the game in the process.

[Mike_Young]

I still say if you limit the clubface size of the driver....the shaft becomes shorter and the clubhead speed drops.....and then the distance drops

i would disagree.
I'd say the longer shafts became more popular as graphite became more consistent allowing its' use to be prevelant-which allowed longer drivers to not weigh a ton .
Touring pros don't have a problem hitting the middle of the face.
and those who think tht the big heads are the reason pros swing hard need to watch a few Shell's world of golf matches and see a few of the old boys take a lash at it

I think Bob Huntley summed it up well.

Tom D- Was alcohol served at that dinner?
Manufactures would find a way to weight a club so it went just as far and the rest of the world would duff it off the tee.
The same fools that play the back tees would play it "off the deck" like the pros, and soon discover that hitting the large ball before the small ball (or the dead top of the small ball)severely limits distance

Jeff,
I agree that graphite offered more stabilization but I still think the average pro will drop down a few inches if the club head is the aize of the old drivers.....myabe not but would be worth a try....

[Matthew Petersen]

Length isn't the answer to challenging the best players anyway. It's the challenge around the greens. This actually becomes more and more of a problem for a player who can hit a PW 150 yards. What do you then hit from 70 yards? And can you control the spin?

That's why courses as long as Torrey Pines South and others still don't intimidate. There are some incredibly long holes at Ritz Carlton, where they had the match play this week. But as someone said above, no hole is really that long when you can hit a 200-yard 7-iron. Meanwhile, it's the short game where the real challenge still lies.

[Garland Bayley]

As soon as I read the first post, I had visions of Richard in his back yard practicing dropping his ball to see if he could get it to land on a brush tee and stay there.

[Michael Taylor]

Laura Davies has done this her whole career.

Bob

Except she would ruin the tee box. She'd get out her sand wedge, smash it into the ground, and then push the ground up to form a tee, placing it on top.

And the tee wouldn't look good after..

Pup

[Mike_Clayton]

As well as golfers constantly complaining about 'unfair' and 'inconsistent' bunkers they would be able to complain about 'unfair' and 'inconsistent' tees.
It would make tees as expensive to maintain as greens. Horrible idea.Fix the ball.

[Jamie Barber]

I read something some years back where Faldo suggested limiting the length of the tee, the idea being it's difficult to hit deep faced drivers off low tees.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()