[Ken Moum]

I agree that there is no "distance" problem for recreational players, and you agree that there is a distance problem with respect to elite players on classic championship courses.

So then the question is what do we do about that?  Nothing?

IMHO, there are only two viable solutions. 

My choice is a lighter golf ball, which would help short hitters and make long hitters be a little more precise than the current pro-level balls.

But the most logical and simple is to do away with the Par 5.

There was once a standard for par 6s, and now it's gone. The three-shot hole is effectively gone for all elite players anyway, why maintain the farce?

All of those courses with four par fives would become par 68, and you'd start seeing pros having to play well to shoot even par for 72 holes.

K

[John_Conley]

John, this is good stuff. I admit my data is lacking. I need to some research to see if there is any trend at all. I will let you know if I find something.

You'll find plenty that confirms professional golfers are about the same size as the general population.  This is far different than other sports.  What is interesting to me is that tennis, where there is clearly a serving advantage for tall players, still has lots of little guys that are just really good at tennis.

For a long time the argument was that there wasn't enough money in golf so the "true athletes" (whatever people mean by that) pursued team sports like baseball, basketball, and football.  It has been nearly 15 years since the acceleration in purses.  By any measure there is a lot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you excel at golf.  People will keep repeating that big players are coming, but I'm interested in seeing what the next excuse will be when they don't materialize.  Maybe they peak later in their career and will be dominant in their 40s?
 

[John_Conley]

Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0".  And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list.  And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases.  Those guys are not that tall.  It's hilarious.  Why do they do that?

Chuck, I suspected so but didn't mention it.  The only way to prove otherwise would be to have these guys lined up with a tape measure.  Whether they average 5'11" or 5'10", or whether these heights are with shoes on, I think it is pretty obvious there isn't a wave of guys in the 6'2"-6'9" range or whatever Richard cited.

One friend, a tall golfer that has made a cut on Tour back in the day, says the only advantage to being tall is that he doesn't need the pin tended as often on long putts.  Makes sense to me.  While there is a theoretical advantage with a wider arc, longer lever, and higher clubhead speed, real world application of said advantage is tricky.  It was harder for Gordon Sherry to be consistent compared to someone like David Toms or Mike Weir.  Also, the angle of impact seems to lift the ball higher.  In order to play in wind that is a disadvantage.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

1. I've never known a developer to donate anything

2. Creating more frontage for house lots wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to create great golf architecture or promote the growth of the game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...

...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...

Ally

As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%.  Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that.  I am not in favor of rolling it back.

As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention.  I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design?  Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

John / Chuck:

The funny thing is that all of those heights DO represent that golfers are getting taller, but probably only at the same rate that everyone else is getting taller.

Twenty years ago I took my first wife to the centennial of St. Andrews (NY) Golf Club, where they had a huge gathering of all the most important people in golf over its first 100 years in America.  Everybody was there -- Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Seve, and a lot of the previous generation as well.  My wife's reaction:  "I am bigger than nearly all of them."  (She's 5 foot 10.)

Golfers have always been small, for many of the same reasons they are still smaller than other athletes ... the natural selection of different sports for different physiques.  The gifted 5-9 guys don't play basketball, but they find another sport at which they can excel.

[Chuck Brown]

Jeff,

I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...

...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...

Ally

As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%.  Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that.  I am not in favor of rolling it back.

As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention.  I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design?  Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.

Yes, Jeff, Augusta has had lots of changes.  It is the one course above others where perfection has been a daily goal.  (That might not be so good for all of golf course maintainance, but that's another argument.)  Still, reversing the nines, perfecting the drainage, adjusting some greens, etc., had teh effect of enhancing the architects' vision.  You can't say that about the distance-fighting changes.  Trees on 11.  Longer rough and pinched fairways.  Tees at the far edges of the property.
And yes, Oakland Hills underwent a big change in 1951; it was fortunate in 1951 -- they still had room to move tees then; now they don't.  The tees at 2 and 5 and 15 are next to fence-lines.  Tees at 11, 18, and 12 are crammed into the adjacent holes.  The tee at 8 is a Par-4 walk away from the 7th green. 
Riviera is as cramped as Oakland Hills.  They were lucky in past years that they had a little room to move tees.  No more.

These are big problems -- I'm wondering, Jeff, what's the upside for leaving the status quo ante in golf balls?  If you say it is to preserve the recreational player's enjoyment of the game I call b.s.  Because the average recreational player doesn't ordinarily buy a premium ball like the Pro V, and doesn't derive any incremental benefit from the Pro V. 

I'd be the first to admit that the Pro V has been a terrific invention.  That is, if you are Bubba Watson or JB Holmes.  It's a funny thing -- I saw Steve Stricker listed in Tour stats from the 1990's as a Top-10 driving distance leader.  Where is he now?  He's gained some yardage, but he is losing the comparative battle at least in that one statistical category.

Anyway, Jeff, my question for you is why not investigate changes to the golf ball?  Why leave it as is?  When somebody suggests that people like Mackenzie and Jones, Ross and Max Behr, etc., etc., have been complaining about golf ball distances for decades, does that make them wrong?  Why?  Why should golf equipment rules foster ever-increasing distances?

[Eric_Terhorst]

I've been reading this thread with amusement and just wanted to thank Jeff Brauer for being the voice of reason.

Tom Doak's thread title says it all--so why waste energy teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing about something that's not going to change?

I've been playing and enjoying golf for 40 years.

In my teens, I enjoyed the game....my favorite ball was <no recollection>
In my twenties I enjoyed the game...my favorite ball was Titleist Balata
In my thirties I enjoyed the game...my favorite ball was Titleist Professional
In my forties I enjoyed the game....my favorite ball was  Titleist ProV
In my fifties I enjoy the game...my favorite ball is <who cares, I'm alive and playing golf> 

In every era, the pros hit it alot farther than me.

Still, when I get to play the Old Course, I'll just laugh at the stupidity and vanity that new back tee on 17 represents and...enjoy the game.  Doak's Pacific Dunes and Langford's Lawsonia are going to be just as magnificent next time I get to play them as they were last time, and whether Phil Mickelson could shoot 59 or 79 on those courses won't change my enjoyment of them one little bit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Eric,

I recall two things about my early golf career - Dad was too frugal to join Medinah like our neighbors so I played my first round there, and my next 20 at Rob Roy nine hole adjunct course, quite a comedown.

The other was his frugality that made my first ball of "his" choice for me the Walgreens Po-Do. I couldn't wait to "move up" to something else because for a buck more per sleeve, even Wilson's or some other brand let me pretend I was a real golfer, while everyone knew that Po-Do's were the sign of a beginner.....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Eric,

With all due respect, it's not about whether you enjoy the game... It's about whether there will even be a game if we keep on heading in the same direction...

They are not going to roll back the ball - true...

But it doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our opinion and make absolutely sure that the consequences of future equipment / ball changes are shouted loud and clear...

Ally

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric,

All that's needed for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

Should we just accept increased distance and cease citing how it's harmed classic golf courses ?

With shaft technology, and perhaps friction resistant covers, don't be so sure that increased distance is no longer an issue.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Ally and Patrick,

The thing that strikes me about your posts back-back there is that both cast the argument in apocalyptic terms...the "end of the game as we know it" and the" evil that men do" etc...

Gee, we have come a long way since hickories and featheries to graphite, titanium, and ProVs, and somehow golf survived all that..it seems the game is more vital and elastic than you imagine.

Ally, I certainly hope it's about me and people like me, when Messrs Brauer and Doak and their brethren go into the field to build a course.  Sure, we are stuck with the Donald Trumps and their lust for the attention of a major tournament, and there will always be a market for that.  Fortunately, we are also blessed with Mike Keisers who are building courses for the enjoyment of the rest of us, seemingly unconcerned about whether next year's superstar will "bring the course to its knees."

I would modify your post 119 as follows:

In short, poorly conceived and designed courses are not sustainable because:

- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play, regardless of length
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)

All of these factors make golf more expensive to play, more of an arduous day long task (rather than a quick walk in the morning or evening) and therefore less fun and less attractive to a new generation growing up...

[Garland Bayley]

...
With shaft technology, and perhaps friction resistant covers, don't be so sure that increased distance is no longer an issue.

Actually, that is what the ProV and similar balls have done. The have the same effect as putting Vaseline on the driver. I say that if they allow the new spin less balls, they should allow Vaseline on the driver too. Same effect!

They have allowed the ball manufacturers to circumvent the foreign substance rule!

[Garland Bayley]

...
- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play, regardless of length
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)
...

May I supplement that with
- Any detrimental environmental effects are increased
- They make it more likely golf carts will be used instead of walking like the traditional game

[Tony Ristola]

Predictions for the year the first 8,000 yard tournament course takes place?

As it stands now you need 550 to 550 yards to equal a 450 yard par-4 from 25-years ago.

Tragic.

.

[Matthew Petersen]

Predictions for the year the first 8,000 yard tournament course takes place?

As it stands now you need 550 to 550 yards to equal a 450 yard par-4 from 25-years ago.

Tragic.

.

What is the longest course they have played to date? If i recall, Torrey Pines was 7600 on the card when they played the Open there, though I don't think it ever played that long on any given day.

Dye's new course at French Lick is 8,000+ pn the card, though again that's using all back tees which will never all be in play on the same day. But he did build that with the hope of attracting majors.

[Jud_T]

I think Erin hills plays 8200 if you tip it all out.

[john_stiles]

PGA Club Professional Championship will be at French Lick resort,  and the Dye course will be played.

The Dye course is listed and could be played at over 8000 yards.

[Matthew Mollica]

Really interesting going back and looking at this thread ten years after the opening post.


We've edged closer to the 8000yd mark for a golf course, with Erin Hills (2017 US Open) and Torrey Pines South both playing over 7700yds.  The longest 10% of guys on the professional Tours have gotten longer.  The number consistently driving over 300yds has grown, the average drive length of the pro ranked 100th on the PGA Tour has gotten longer.  The nature of play has changed drastically with continued use of solid core balls, large headed drivers, and the implementation of TrackMan. Courses have been stretched, water and land have become more of a pressing concern, as has cost to play, and the time taken to walk 18 holes for recreational golfers.


There seems to be growing recognition of the possibility of a rollback within the rank and file golf community, or at the very least, some greater concern regarding distance than there was in 2010.  The USGA and R&A have continued to study things.  The gulf between pro golf and recreational golf has grown.  Over the last decade more golf courses have paid considerable sums to address safety issues that were not apparent twenty years ago. Teen handicappers who are strong, young, and boast high swing speeds hit errant and far flying drives, raising safety issues with course boundaries, neighboring roads and adjoining properties.


The next step of the Distance Insights Project is to be taken next March. Who knows if and when regulatory reform will ever occur.

[Thomas Dai]

Nice thread bump Matt.
Interesting to note that in the 10 year period from 2010 when this thread was raised to now, a period during which the golf authorities have continued to dither and procrastinate about the rollback issue, the population of the world has managed to increase by circa 800 million!
Fiddling while Rome burns?
Just saying.
atb

[Sam Andrews]

I half wonder what the game would look like without a professional arm. Rugby seemed just as exciting (if not as fast and skilful) in the amateur era and much more relatable to duffers such as me.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...

...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...

Ally

As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%.  Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that.  I am not in favor of rolling it back.

As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention.  I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design?  Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.

All valid points.
The real problem lies in the fantasy that the "USGA limits flight to what we have now"
We've been hearing that fantasy my entire golf lifetime.
As Erik B. pften points out, there ARE limitations to the ball, clubs etc.
It's just that the manufacturers are far more innovative and smarter than the USGA spec makers.(I would say better funded, but the USGA holds it own there now)
It's not like anybody's broken any rules with equipment, yet it's 10-15% longer than it was 25 years ago.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

This would be a good place to drop this epic. f'ing. rant. by Gary Player regarding Chambers Bay in 2015:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Ha59iKfjTxw&feature=emb_logo

[Kalen Braley]

Holy hell, what a rambling rant, even if I did agree with his point on how far the ball goes for the pros.

They need to get a few drinks in him, give him the mic, and let em really have it!! 

P.S.  I was about a 16 capper when I played it and had an absolute blast!

[Garland Bayley]

The fact GP indicates Bethpage Black is better for the amateur over CB shows he has no idea what he is talking about. He complains about factors in the setup and blames them on RTJ II, when RTJ II didn't have the features he complains about. As around a 20 index, I shot 103 from 7670 yards when they set it up in US Open configuration. Kalen and I both broke 90 when we played there. I with 40 putts. The greens were much slower than what I usually play, and I adjusted poorly leaving lots of putts far short resulting in 3 putt holes. When I played it with Anthony Gray, we played the silver tees, and I made 8 pars and closed him out on the 17th hole while getting 4 fewer strokes from him than the USGA would entitle me two. So he was just spouting nonsense by saying the 16 handicap would shoot 110.

Sure, the course takes up a lot of land, but in doing so it allows wild long balls with much more safety than most courses.

The biggest challenge for the average golfer is the steep green fee since they are used to paying $40 or so for 18 in the area.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()