[Andrew Summerell]

Does it not seem that he is saying that equipment is not his concern, so he will build to what the equipment is? That in itself is a pretty amazing statement given that Mr. Tepper has pointed out (by his link) that he is a consultant to the people making the rules with respect to equipment. Does it not seem logical that the ever lengthening equipment will lead to ever lengthening and widening golf courses? How then are you working "affordable" into the situation?

"Does it not seem that he is saying that equipment is not his concern, so he will build to what the equipment is?"

No, it doesn't say that. He says it's not his job to say whether it's good or bad & that he has to deal with it. If the interview had asked more delving questions, we may know what his concerns are.

We know that he has been a consulting member of the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee since 1999. Does anybody know what his job or brief is on this committee?

[Sean_A]

Well, sitting here in the cheap seats, I think a good argument CAN BE MADE that the lawnmower and continued "progress" with agronomy has been at least as game changing as clubs and balls.  To me it doesn't really matter.  We all have our own perspective on what the most important elements are of architecture, maintenance and playing.  It doesn't make much sense to take a guy to task for his opinion in theses areas because they are all important and have a place in how golf has changed.  From my point of view, I have longed believed that the distance issue has been blown way out proportion to the actual problem at hand because teh real problem lies with decision-making at club level or ownership level because most courses don't need to be lengthened because some flat belly hit a drive 330 yards.  Its a knee jerk reaction in many instances and its that reaction we need to be cautious of at least as much as the actual length issue itself.

I haven't read the interview, but I often skip Shack's stuff when he feels inclined to interject stupid beat the dead horse comments between paragraphs and bits etc.  The guy needs to change his tact once in a while as it gets old seeing it in print over and over again. 

Ciao  

Sean,

So you are saying that Augusta National made a big mistake by lengthening the course in response to the ball? All they needed to do was grow older strains of grass longer?

It would seem to me that holding the above stated position that you might be skipping Shack's comments, because you disagree with them. Could you clarify? Shack is clearly against the vastly expanded length of the current ball. But you apparently are not so it would seem his comments bother you on that level.

Garland

No, I said we need to be as cautious about the knee jerk reactions to the long ball as well as the long ball.  It many cases, member ego and marketing make courses longer, not an actual need for length itself.  I would also add that far too much decision-making is based on the pro or top level am game and that this is nearly always not the sort of data we should use in making decisions of this sort.  I know many still blame length because if it didn't exist as it does today than clubs wouldn't be lengthened - its a copout argument and not necessarily accurate.  Courses have been changed by memberships since day one and this will remain the case even if we have seen the longest shots in history already hit.  However, that doesn't mean distance can't or shouldn't be curbed, only we shouldn't expect to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if distance is ever put in check.  To me, the bigger problem by far so far as distance is concerned is down to owners and memberships not acting as proper stewards for their courses.  

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

"Does it not seem that he is saying that equipment is not his concern, so he will build to what the equipment is?"

No, it doesn't say that. He says it's not his job to say whether it's good or bad & that he has to deal with it. ...

Since he is a golf course architect building courses, having to deal with the equipment seems to me that he will either "build to what the equipment is" or perhaps quit building. What else could dealing with the equipment and not taking a stand on it mean to a golf course architect?

[Pat Burke]

A couple of things that are basically unscientific, personal observations.
As an assistant super. at a southern CA private club.
1982   Mowing fairways with a Jacobsen 7 gang F-10    Big ass machine.   Fairways watered with inefficient system, inconsistent
1985  Irrigation upgraded, now mowing with Jake  HF-5   5 gang intermediate size mower with hydraulic reels.  Very consistent fairways.
1987  Started mowing with Jake greensmowers   Striping and mowing below 1/2 inch.  Fairways were perfect, course played
           about 8-10 yards shorter due to roll mostly for me
1990   PGA Tour  All of 5'5", but the locker room was full of guys my size.  Pavin, Funk, Sluman, Lanny.  I was shocked at how much
            smaller Norman was than I thought, and NOBODY seemed to use the same measuring device that I used  It was worse than
            the internet, everybody listed themselves a couple inches taller (larger ) than they were!
1992    Started using a Big Bertha Driver, it was stupid straight compared to me Cleveland TC 15  
1996    Titanium, but loft too low.  Guys were just starting to learn to hit it higher with less spin and trust it
2000    Off for 3 years, post surgery, playing Buy.com, and I felt like Papa Smurf in the locker room, and I was now short
            Kids were bigger, and everybody was playing solid core balls and hitting it unbelievably high.  It was a whole new game

So?  Well, you are all correct!.  The ball changed, players learned to optimize launch and spin, workouts became standard, and pretty intense for about everybody. (in a 4 month window with a trainer, I increased my yardage by 1 full club, and 12 yards with driver, same equipment!).  Shafts were more consistent, lofts went up, spin came down, grooves got nasty, and more athletes chose golf over other big sports.  Maintenance quality allows for more roll consistency.
Can we at least recognize that not one thing has changed this?  There are way more good athletes playing golf, and way better engineers doing R&D.  Funny thing is, avg golfers are still bad, and the game is still not growing.  There are very well meaning people I disagree with, but c'mon, it's not as black and white as some of the arguments

[Garland Bayley]

... It many cases, member ego and marketing make courses longer, not an actual need for length itself.  

But in many cases courses now need more length and more width, so you can't say the length of the ball is not a detriment just because sometimes member ego and marketing get their way.

I would also add that far too much decision-making is based on the pro or top level am game and that this is nearly always not the sort of data we should use in making decisions of this sort.  I know many still blame length because if it didn't exist as it does today than clubs wouldn't be lengthened - its a copout argument and not necessarily accurate.  

Since many clubs do actually need to change, because of the length issue, isn't it a copout argument to say they don't because some have changed when they didn't have to.

Courses have been changed by memberships since day one and this will remain the case even if we have seen the longest shots in history already hit.  However, that doesn't mean distance can't or shouldn't be curbed, only we shouldn't expect to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if distance is ever put in check.  

But we need to find a pot of gold if distance is never put in check.

To me, the bigger problem by far so far as distance is concerned is down to owners and memberships not acting as proper stewards for their courses.  

Ciao

[Andrew Summerell]

Since he is a golf course architect building courses, having to deal with the equipment seems to me that he will either "build to what the equipment is" or perhaps quit building. What else could dealing with the equipment and not taking a stand on it mean to a golf course architect?

What stand is he going to take? What stand have other architects taken?

Do you know what his job or brief is on the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee?

Do you know whether he has brought up any of these issue at the committee?

It's hard to draw any conclusions from the interview. His answers aren't questioned with any depth, so who knows what he really thinks or what stands he has taken. These interviews are mostly the same. The golf industry, especially the architectural side, is a 'pat on the back' industry and this site is no different.

Like I said before, I would like to see the ball rolled back as well, but I know it is a more complex issue.

[Garland Bayley]

Since he is a golf course architect building courses, having to deal with the equipment seems to me that he will either "build to what the equipment is" or perhaps quit building. What else could dealing with the equipment and not taking a stand on it mean to a golf course architect?

What stand is he going to take? What stand have other architects taken?

I thought he was quite clear about what stand he was going to take about equipment. He says he can't complain. He says it is not his business to say whether technology is good or bad.

Do you know what his job or brief is on the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee?

No matter what his "job or brief", it doesn't seem he can do us much good by making it "not his business".

Do you know whether he has brought up any of these issue at the committee?

Nope, I don't know that. However, someone that says it is not his business would generally be thought as someone not inclined to bring things up

It's hard to draw any conclusions from the interview. His answers aren't questioned with any depth, so who knows what he really thinks or what stands he has taken. These interviews are mostly the same. The golf industry, especially the architectural side, is a 'pat on the back' industry and this site is no different.

Like I said before, I would like to see the ball rolled back as well, but I know it is a more complex issue.

[Chuck Brown]

Let's, for the sake of argument, give Steve Smyers his due and say, "The playing of golf at all levels, particularly the elite levels, has changed dramatically due to massively improved argonomy and mowing techniques and equipment."  Let's assume that to be true, for the heck of it.

So let's work with that presumption; "...By virtue of improved agronomy and maintenance, golf courses now play better in terms of consistency, enjoyability, usability, fun and excitement, but they do tend to play shorter and easier, given fast fairways and short grasses, and smooth, receptive greens..."

I say, it doesn't matter what you think the "cause" or "culprit" is behind increased driver distance that obsoletes golf courses; it's all the same.  Whether it is "fitness" or "agronomy" or "launch monitoring" or 460cc drivers, or composite shafts, or better teaching, or prenatal vitamins taken by the mothers of players who are now 17, 18 or 19 years old... I really don't care.  The important thing is to scale the cheapest and most inconsequential part of the game (golf balls) to the great and historic courses, which are the truly consequential and irreplaceable part of the game.  

[Andrew Summerell]

What stand is he going to take? What stand have other architects taken?

I thought he was quite clear about what stand he was going to take about equipment. He says he can't complain. He says it is not his business to say whether technology is good or bad.

So, you are making an assumption from an interview that didn't have the guts to ask the hard questions.

Do you know what his job or brief is on the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee?

No matter what his "job or brief", it doesn't seem he can do us much good by making it "not his business".

You don't know his brief, but you are happy to assume that the term "not his business" is a deep thoughtful response & not just the throwawy term it is mostly used as. If I was doing the interview, I would have asked him about that comment.

Do you know whether he has brought up any of these issue at the committee?

Nope, I don't know that. However, someone that says it is not his business would generally be thought as someone not inclined to bring things up

Again, you have made an assumption based on a soft interview.
 

I am concerned that we are vilifying someone based on a lot of assumptions.

Quite seriously, why don't we ask him to be a part of an interview in here regarding this subject? I’m sure it sounds naïve & he may say no, but it doesn’t hurt ask. If he does say yes, we can set topic boundaries & explain to him that some questions may require a depth of answer that normal interviews don’t require. Then we submit the questions & he can reply at an agreed time.

Like I said, it’s naïve; but hey, why not ask. I would be happy to email him, but I have not contact with him. I’m sure someone on here knows him or someone who knows him.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim N - that's spot on, I think.  A while back, Nick Price said that if he was teaching a youngster to play golf today, he'd get him to swing as hard as he could on every shot with every club. Nick felt that having learned the game using persimmon, he could never get himself to take advantage (distance wise) of the new equipment.

Michael B - yup, I think that's the question, and I think it's foolish and presumptuous for any of us not making our livings as gcas to answer that fundamental question for those who are.

Pat B - thanks much for that history lesson. Always neat to get the true insider's perspective.

Peter

[Ben Voelker]

"There is a pretty consensus of opinion among first-class players that the time has come when something should be done to check the excessive length to which the golf-ball can be driven.  Ballmakers are vieing with each other in producing balls of ever-increasing driving capacity, and as most of the best courses have now been stretched to their utmost limits, it is obvious that holes and courses are speedily being ruined as tests of the game.  Green committees and golf architects have been struggling for some time to maintain the normal rate of scoring by multiplying hazards, by rendering the approaches to holes more difficult, and even by increasing the difficulties to putting, but it is clear that a point has been reached at which such devices are destroying the balance and character of the game which make it enjoyable and worth playing.  Moreover, expert opinion is practically unanimous that the long-driving balls are in themselves not sufficiently reliable for the finer strokes to afford a proper test of play, or to provide a sufficiently constant standard by which the merits of players can be measured".

A letter issued to the leading golf people in the UK lobbying for outlawing the rubber cored ball in 1912! (via Scotland's Gift)

This is far from a new issue and really only effects less than the top 1% of golfers significantly.  Even if I started playing the Pro V1 regularly, at a ~12 handicap, I doubt I would see notable gains in distance.  Golf is far more than just the elitist of elite competition.

By the way, as I'm sure many of you know (far better than I do ), CBM was opposed to limitations in ball manufacturing, other than to require balls to "float".

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have grown weary of people doing exactly what Garland has done.  Rather than trying to understand what someone, who obviously has some good credentials, says, belittles his argument. 

I belong to a Steve Smyers/Nick Price course.  It is a par 71 and 7100 yards long.  It is designed to be played both in the air and along the ground.  Most of the greens complexes are shaped in such a way as to allow players to run the ball on to the green.  The course playes well for all handicaps.  It is designed to play fast and firm.  The course must be played between the ears.  It is really important to place the ball well off the tee and hit precise shot to the greens.  Some holes have bunkers twenty yards short of the green to allow a shot to kick on to the green if the bunker is carried.  If not the long bunker shot is very difficult.  One of the more difficult holes for me is #3.   From the back tees it is 470 yards.  When I play back there I usually have to hit a three wood second shot.  If I hit my second shot up the ride side of fairway the contour of the fairway and collar will move the ball on to the green.  Pull it a little and you are in a bunker twenty yards short of the green.  If I do hit a very good drive I might be able to carry the bunkers.  Hit it short and the you have the same twenty to thirty yard bunker shot.  Whenever I bring a guest they fall in love with the course.  He could have made the course 8000 yards if he wanted, there is that much room out there.  If you have every played one of his courses you will be able to see that he gets it.

By the way, having grown up in the fifties and early sixties it was pretty common knowledge that most of the great golfers were not very tall.  That's why George Archer was referred to as an exception to the rule.

[Chuck Brown]

Tommy, I began this thread by proclaiming my erstwhile admiration for Steve Smyers, architect.  Later, when someone posted his USGA bio-page, I called his resume "dazzlilng."

Still, I'm not sure how it is that reciting the fine qualities of Steve Smyers' golf course designs, or recalling Steve Smyers' exquisite amateur golf game, answers the basic concerns about golf equipment technology and golf ball distance.

Ben Crenshaw and Jack Nicklaus have played some pretty good golf, and have designed some pretty good courses, and they've both spoken out on the regrettable inaction of the USGA on golf ball regulations. 

My question might be, what does Steve Smyers know, that Crenshaw and Nicklaus don't know?

[Garland Bayley]

Tommy,

If he has a good argument, then let him put it forth. So far as I have seen, he hasn't. And, neither have you. As Chuck wrote, what does him creating your home course have to do with it?

So some golfers were shorter back in the day? Well that's news! How about the population at large?

You don't have stats that can definitively say golfers were shorter than the population at large then or now. You don't have stats to say that equipment in Ben Hogan's era was more suited to short golfers like Ben Hogan. And guess what neither does Mr. Smyers. Instead, he implies that Ben was a short hitter, which most will recognize (including Geoff Shackelford who outed him on that mistake too) as not being true. He implies that equipment was better suited to short golfers like Ben. A simple reading of Ben's authorized biography would show that Ben had a hugely difficult time finding and recognizing equipment that suited him. And, it would show that the much taller Byron Nelson not only found equipment that worked for him, but put it to extremely effective use to earn an early retirement and give others a chance. Come to think of it Sam Snead was 5' 11" and did pretty well for being handicapped (according to Mr. Smyers hypothesis) by being taller than the average male.

For those of you who don't recognize it, like apparently Mr. Warren, this is called disproof by counter-example. If disproof is belittling, then so be it.

As you may have guessed, I for one have grown weary by those willing to accept someones faulty statements, because of their resume'.

I am interested in the truth. Perhaps that is something you too should pursue Tommy.


 

[Scott Warren]

Garland,

The fact of the matter is that he was asked a set of questions and he answered them. You then chose to give him a spray and question his understanding.

You haven't disproved a single thing. You've made clear that you have different opinions, but that's it.

Andrew Summerell has it right: crazy idea but let's actually assemble a full set of facts. Who knows, we might even learn something!

No one has said they "accept faulty statements because of Steve's resume". The first challenge is yours: to show that they are "faulty". So far you haven't done that and even if you had, the disparaging remarks you made early on (I notice you have given that opening missive an edit...) are just as unnecessary.

[PThomas]

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but are we supposed to recall a 1-iron that Jack Nicklaus hit "At the Masters"?  
Was that the Masters that they played at Pebble Beach in 1972?

When I first got involved, I was so traditional and very enamored of all the great long iron shots I’d seen in major championships over the years. The 1-iron Nicklaus hit at the Masters.

 

1975 Masters, final round, 15th hole...believe Jack had 242 to the green...his 1-iron almost went in, he 2 putted for birdie from about 15 feet...putt was similar line to the eagle putt he made there in 1986, Chuck

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

The fact of the matter is that he was asked a set of questions and he answered them. You then chose to give him a spray and question his understanding.

You haven't disproved a single thing. You've made clear that you have different opinions, but that's it.

... (I notice you have given that opening missive an edit...) ....

Well Scott, you are certainly welcome to take it on faith that as Mr. Smyers wrote, "The equipment then kind of dictated that smaller guys excelled."

Also, glad you found I edited the opening post for my mixed idioms smell roses, and smell coffee. Does that prove anything?

[Sean_A]

... It many cases, member ego and marketing make courses longer, not an actual need for length itself.  

But in many cases courses now need more length and more width, so you can't say the length of the ball is not a detriment just because sometimes member ego and marketing get their way.

I would also add that far too much decision-making is based on the pro or top level am game and that this is nearly always not the sort of data we should use in making decisions of this sort.  I know many still blame length because if it didn't exist as it does today than clubs wouldn't be lengthened - its a copout argument and not necessarily accurate.  

Since many clubs do actually need to change, because of the length issue, isn't it a copout argument to say they don't because some have changed when they didn't have to.

Courses have been changed by memberships since day one and this will remain the case even if we have seen the longest shots in history already hit.  However, that doesn't mean distance can't or shouldn't be curbed, only we shouldn't expect to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if distance is ever put in check.  

But we need to find a pot of gold if distance is never put in check.

To me, the bigger problem by far so far as distance is concerned is down to owners and memberships not acting as proper stewards for their courses.  

Ciao

Garland

Define "need".

Ciao

[Neil Regan]

Pat,

  Before your post gets lost in the noise, I second your thoughts:

Can we at least recognize that not one thing has changed this?  There are way more good athletes playing golf, and way better engineers doing R&D.  Funny thing is, avg golfers are still bad, and the game is still not growing.  There are very well meaning people I disagree with, but c'mon, it's not as black and white as some of the arguments




http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45630.msg1001290.html#msg1001290

A couple of things that are basically unscientific, personal observations.
As an assistant super. at a southern CA private club.
1982   Mowing fairways with a Jacobsen 7 gang F-10    Big ass machine.   Fairways watered with inefficient system, inconsistent
1985  Irrigation upgraded, now mowing with Jake  HF-5   5 gang intermediate size mower with hydraulic reels.  Very consistent fairways.
1987  Started mowing with Jake greensmowers   Striping and mowing below 1/2 inch.  Fairways were perfect, course played
           about 8-10 yards shorter due to roll mostly for me
1990   PGA Tour  All of 5'5", but the locker room was full of guys my size.  Pavin, Funk, Sluman, Lanny.  I was shocked at how much
            smaller Norman was than I thought, and NOBODY seemed to use the same measuring device that I used  It was worse than
            the internet, everybody listed themselves a couple inches taller (larger ) than they were!
1992    Started using a Big Bertha Driver, it was stupid straight compared to me Cleveland TC 15  
1996    Titanium, but loft too low.  Guys were just starting to learn to hit it higher with less spin and trust it
2000    Off for 3 years, post surgery, playing Buy.com, and I felt like Papa Smurf in the locker room, and I was now short
            Kids were bigger, and everybody was playing solid core balls and hitting it unbelievably high.  It was a whole new game

So?  Well, you are all correct!.  The ball changed, players learned to optimize launch and spin, workouts became standard, and pretty intense for about everybody. (in a 4 month window with a trainer, I increased my yardage by 1 full club, and 12 yards with driver, same equipment!).  Shafts were more consistent, lofts went up, spin came down, grooves got nasty, and more athletes chose golf over other big sports.  Maintenance quality allows for more roll consistency.
Can we at least recognize that not one thing has changed this?  There are way more good athletes playing golf, and way better engineers doing R&D.  Funny thing is, avg golfers are still bad, and the game is still not growing.  There are very well meaning people I disagree with, but c'mon, it's not as black and white as some of the arguments

[Gary Slatter]

Steve Smyers has likely forgotten more about golf than most of us will ever know:

http://www.usga.org/about_usga/leadership/Steve-Smyers,-USGA-Executive-Committee/

David I agree; Steve Smyers has a dazzling resume.

Now, I'd like Steve Smyers to explain how "Maintenance technology and science has had a vastly bigger impact on the game and on courses than equipment."Because I think that statement, which is made in the context of what everybody knows to have been a heated debate, is baloney.  And I really don't care how many courses Mr. Smyers has designed, or how many national championships the Florida Gators have won in golf.  Steve Smyers knows and respects Jack Nicklaus.  Steve Smyers knows and respects Ben Crenshaw.  But both Jack and Ben have some very different ideas about golf ball technology and USGA inaction, with some apparently severe disagreements with Steve Smyers.  So this is hardly a fall-down win for Steve Smyers, based on his superior knowledge and experience.  He ought to know better.  I think that on technology, Mr. Smyers isn't meeting the real arguments at all.  I think he's wrong.  He's certainly not explaining himself very well, and this isn't the first time that Steve Smyers has been challenged, on this subject, on this discussion board.

I agree with Steve about maintenance technology and science:  we have stuff to make the grass grow thicker and shorter and faster, our mowers are like razors, fairways are faster than greens in Hogans time, bunkers are maintained, etc..  From what I've heard about Steve Smyers from a member at Memorial, he's a brilliant guy.
Why do we have to bash brilliant people?

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm no expert, but I know that I lose a ton of distance early in the morning after a heavy dew.  Taken further, wouldn't different grasses or mowing techniques reduce run-out distance?

Look at film from the 50's.  The courses were not maintained as they are today.

--------------
And anybody that knows football (soccer or American) can tell you that the home team can affect the game by the way they prepare the pitch/field.

[Chuck Brown]

I agree with Steve about maintenance technology and science:  we have stuff to make the grass grow thicker and shorter and faster, our mowers are like razors, fairways are faster than greens in Hogans time, bunkers are maintained, etc..  From what I've heard about Steve Smyers from a member at Memorial, he's a brilliant guy.
Why do we have to bash brilliant people?

I'm not going to agree with everything somebody says, just because they have a glorious resume.  This is the third time I've had to say it;  Nicklaus and Crenshaw have remarkable resumes too.  But their views don't get automatic respect.  At least not from the USGA and the golf equipment culture.  So that's a two-way street.

And Steve Smyers has a particular role in all of this, that I alluded to when I started this thread; he has a role with the USGA.  That insight, into the USGA through Steve Smyers, is what caught Geoff Shackelford's eye more than anything, and it is what caught my eye as well.

[Chuck Brown]

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but are we supposed to recall a 1-iron that Jack Nicklaus hit "At the Masters"?  
Was that the Masters that they played at Pebble Beach in 1972?

When I first got involved, I was so traditional and very enamored of all the great long iron shots I’d seen in major championships over the years. The 1-iron Nicklaus hit at the Masters.

 

1975 Masters, final round, 15th hole...believe Jack had 242 to the green...his 1-iron almost went in, he 2 putted for birdie from about 15 feet...putt was similar line to the eagle putt he made there in 1986, Chuck

You are correct.  My bad.  My apologies to Steve Smyers and all.

[BCrosby]

I say, it doesn't matter what you think the "cause" or "culprit" is behind increased driver distance that obsoletes golf courses; it's all the same.  Whether it is "fitness" or "agronomy" or "launch monitoring" or 460cc drivers, or composite shafts, or better teaching, or prenatal vitamins taken by the mothers of players who are now 17, 18 or 19 years old... I really don't care.  The important thing is to scale the cheapest and most inconsequential part of the game (golf balls) to the great and historic courses, which are the truly consequential and irreplaceable part of the game.
  

Bingo.

[Garland Bayley]

I say, it doesn't matter what you think the "cause" or "culprit" is behind increased driver distance that obsoletes golf courses; it's all the same.  Whether it is "fitness" or "agronomy" or "launch monitoring" or 460cc drivers, or composite shafts, or better teaching, or prenatal vitamins taken by the mothers of players who are now 17, 18 or 19 years old... I really don't care.  The important thing is to scale the cheapest and most inconsequential part of the game (golf balls) to the great and historic courses, which are the truly consequential and irreplaceable part of the game.
  

Bingo.

Double Bingo

Unfortunately that cheapest, most inconsequential part of the game bolsters that very important part of the human psyche, the ego. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()