[Brent Hutto]

Brent and Sean, what difference does it make whether those ruining the courses are doing so in vane?   If we could disincentivize such actions by a simple rules change, why shouldn't we?  

The rules are to provide an interesting way to have a game of golf. And look how complicated the Rules and Decisions and I&B technical minutiae have gotten just trying to accomplish that.

So now you want the rules to also "incentivize" clubs to build and maintain their courses at a certain length you deem acceptable? My god, that's a heavy load for a simple set of rules don't you think?

Garland,

It's fine for you and Dave to assert that changing the ball or some other rule will result in courses being unchanged for decades at a stretch instead of lengthened. But I don't buy that assertion for a minute and suspect friend Sean does not, either. Are you also going to "incentivize" players not to get stronger and have better technique? Are you going to somehow use a magical golf-ball specification to make club members who can't carry their driver shots as far as Rory McIlory hits his 6-iron no longer butcher their course in case Rory happens to come to town one day and play it?

[Jud_T]

So the good news is that GCA guys will be able to play all the golden age gems with hickories as they slowly become the Oakhurst Links of the 22nd century?    I'll have a double of whatever you guys are drinking...

[Brent Hutto]

Jud,

If there is ever a golf club and ball ruled legal for play that lets me play an uphill 400-yard hole with a driver and wedge I'll find you and buy you as many drinks as you care to imbibe. I can probably hit a hickory driver and mid-iron, using a balata ball, about 300 yards under normal conditions. Same shots with my Titanium driver, cavity-back 5-iron and DT Solo ball goes 360 yards on a good day. Add that same amount to my best shots and I can still have a heck of a good time on a 5,800 yard course. Add 40 yards per club for Sean Arble and he can still have a good time on a 5,800 yard course.

Now if my clubhead speed were 25% higher? I'd probably not be playing many 5,800 yard courses. But it wouldn't take 7,800 yards either.

[Garland Bayley]

So the good news is that GCA guys will be able to play all the golden age gems with hickories as they slowly become the Oakhurst Links of the 22nd century?    I'll have a double of whatever you guys are drinking...

It think what they are drinking is their own kool-aid. No need to read and comprehend when you have such a stimulant at hand.

[DMoriarty]

Sorry Sean, but it is you who has missed the point.

Our great courses are being changed, and new courses are being built to absurd standards.  The reason is that the people who are making the changes and having these monstrosities built have seen that the ball flies a hell of a lot farther than it did a relatively short time ago, at least for one group of golfers.   This is not a part of a gradual, evolutionary process, but rather a huge jump dwarfing all that have come before.  

Of course pushing back the equipment is no absolute guarantee that the courses will not continue to be ruined.  So what?  Since when do we need an absolute guarantee of success to try and curb the trend?  

And yes, courses have have always been altered, but it has not been "regardless of tech advances."   Oftentimes it has been because of them, and those changes have ramped up correspondingly with unprecedented jump in distance.  And again, so what?  Failing to try stop the changes in the past is a poor excuse for failing to try now.

Do I have any direct evidence that a rollback would work?   A transparent deflection on your part.  How could I have direct evidence of future events?  

As for your denial of the impact the perception of top players has had on architecture, it is really not worth discussing.  

No USGA rule ever has or ever will alter that.

Do you have any proof of that?  If the USGA rules were such that huge drives generally stopped short of 280, do you suppose people would still be trying to come up with 500+ yard par fours?  

_______________________________

Brent,  

Your response seem equally a deflection. Golf is a game defined by rules, and the ruling bodies already restrict equipment. All I am asking for are more effective rules that rebalance the game.  

[Brent Hutto]

Dave,

You want the rules to make the ball go less far than it does now. Fine. I'm not even against it. It's ridiculous that the USGA sat on its hands and claimed they were enforcing an overall distance standard when the de facto distance the ball flies was increasing markedly. They screwed up and will never admit it. If they wanted to go back and retroactively take that 10-15% off the flight of the ball I would not complain at all.

But it would have at most a minor and temporary effect on the desire of clubs and other course owners to have longer, tougher courses. I'm not disagreeing with your wish, just pointing out that your argument is entirely wishful thinking. You are conflating two things that you hate, which happened over a similar time frame and declaring if one thing you hate were eliminated that the other thing you hate would disappear. Your logic is faulty.

And no deflection here...what do you propose to do to "roll back" the fact that Gary Woodland generates, I dunno, maybe 20-30% more clubhead speed than Jack Nicklaus ever did? I suspect your answer is the golf ball again. Which would mean you're not objecting to the fact that a ProV1 flies farther than the USGA anticipated it would when they ruled it legal. Instead, you are asking the golf ball to be changed so that it will make Everything Go Back To How The Game Ought To Be Played. You're wanting the golf ball to be the holy frickin' grail that punishes the long-hitters and the course-lengtheners for their sins.

[Andy Hughes]

I am still quite unclear on who it is that is hitting the ball so far that the game is uninteresting and without challenge. Is it you Garland? David? Jud?  I really do get that there are guys on tour who can just massacre Merion, but set them aside as, frankly, who cares what they can do?

I just don't sense that the percent of people who have made massive gains with the Pro-V1 is more than a tiny number.  Is that wrong?  I am fine with the ball being rolled back or drivers being dialed back in some way but I just wonder if everyone is running around in a frenzy for a miniscule minority of players.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think allot of you on this thread understand how anti-architect your attitude is.  No one is playing less golf because people are hitting the ball farther.  No club today is going to call for design changes that result in people dropping their memberships.  No design job is wanting for hungry architects looking for work.

[Jud_T]

Andy,

Personally I'd be happy if more scratchers overlooked places like Shoreacres as it'd be easier for me to join and less crowded when I did.  And yes I hit it farther at 50 than I ever did, albeit not mighty distances.  But it's not just about me...

Brent,

Your argument makes no sense.  If there was a firm limit on distance gains from technology courses would still want added length ad infinitum to be the toughest track in town?  Well maybe I suppose, but there'd certainly be less pressure to do so if there weren't new longer "championship" courses down the road driven by longer distances.

John,

Interesting.  It probably is a somewhat anti-archie view, but I suppose there'd be plenty of renovation work that didn't simply involve toughening, and perhaps a bunch of new 6500 yard courses as all those boring overpriced 7200 yarders got sold to developers or were renovated to be shorter!  

[Brent Hutto]

Brent,

Your argument makes no sense.  If there was a firm limit on distance gains from technology courses would still want added length ad infinitum to be the toughest track in town?  Well maybe I suppose, but there'd certainly be less pressure to do so if there weren't new longer "championship" courses down the road driven by longer distances.

Once again, let me ask this. Do you want the ball legislated to fly less far? Or do you want it to fly less far and also make it impossible for someone to gain distance by the simple expedient of hitting the ball harder?

Because there's a certain amount of extra distance inherent in 30mph extra clubhead speed. I have a sense that you and David would love to see that distance gain somehow erased as well. Along with the 10, 20 30mph more that may welll come over the next few decades as golfers become stronger and better. The game is different today than in 1960 in ways beyond the construction of 3-piece urethane golf balls.

[DMoriarty]

Brent,  If the equipment were such that a killed drive from a big hitter would generally not break 280 yards, do you really suppose there would still be a perceived need for 500+ yard par fours?
_________________________________________________

JK,

I am not here to keep architects working.  Their bests interests don't always line up with what is good for the game or its courses.
__________________________________

Andy, the jump in distance has come for those with higher swing speeds.  Not necessarily just tour players or even good players, but ones that can generate enough club head speed to take advantage of the new equipment relative to the old.    
I don't know what that swing speed is, but I'd guess it is somewhere in the mid to high 90s.  I once tested a Pro V1x vs. a Balata hit by a low handicap golfer with a swing speed in the mid to low 90s (25 drives with each on launch monitor, threw out worst five for each) and he hit the Balata a few yards longer on average.  Don't know if this would have been the same with Pro V1 or not, but if he could hit the ProV1 longer I doubt it would be by much.

Other than with these golfers, I would tend to agree with you that most golfers have not gained much distance.  In fact I think that is a large part of the problem architecture-wise.

Unless you want to ignore this group of golfers, it has become a real problem to fit  everyone on the same course.   It is no longer just a matter of having a couple of tees.   A course can easily be way to long for most is still way to short for some.  (When I say way to short I am thinking of maintaining the architectural relevance of features, strategies, green sizes, angles, etc.)  So it makes quality architecture that much more difficult.   We don't all fit on the same courses.  

Sean seems to think we should just not worry about the longer hitters, and keep the courses as they are for the rest of us.  I nice idea, but it ain't going to happen, and even if it could happen, I am not sure it is the best approach.   One of the beauties of the game and the marks of great design is that golf courses could be enjoyed by a variety of skill levels.  Do we really want to do away with that?  Why would we if we could fix the problem by fixing the ball?  

[Jud_T]

Was Barry Bonds' bat speed more than Babe Ruth's or Harmon Killebrew's?  I'm comfortable that the average male will be 1 inch taller and hit the ball 10 yards further in 100 years.  And yes, now we have computers in addition to medicine balls.

[Garland Bayley]

I just don't sense that the percent of people who have made massive gains with the Pro-V1 is more than a tiny number.  Is that wrong? ...

Yep, it's wrong.
What percent used the soft covered balls, vs. the two piece such as the "RockFlite" style balls before? Maybe 50%? What percent of those were capable of driver swing speeds of 105 mph and more? Maybe 50%? That is suggesting that perhaps 1/4 off all golfers got a very significant boost in distance. Heck, even Sean admits his distance went up noticeably, even though he seems to claim he practically can't hit it out of his shadow.

[Brent Hutto]

So it sounds like you're back to your customary idea that "roll back" of the ball should somehow remove 50-75 yards of driver distance from the guys who drive it 300+ from the longest hitters while only affecting the 200-250 yards guys by maybe five or ten yards. You want the ball to minimize the additional distance that 130mph of clubhead speed produces over a 95mph swing. Instead of 70 yards extra you feel that ought to produce at most 20 or 30 yards difference.

Does that come close to a paraphrase of your requirements for the "roll back"? You want a ball that, if hit too hard (i.e. harder than some guy could swing 100 years ago) it will just spin or explode or fall out of the sky and make sure all that extra power doesn't mean hitting the ball such a long way. That's just plain old Grandpa Simpson talk

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too."

[Jud_T]

I wasn't aware Ted Ray was ever on a launch monitor...

[Garland Bayley]

...It's ridiculous that the USGA sat on its hands and claimed they were enforcing an overall distance standard when the de facto distance the ball flies was increasing markedly. ...

What is this about? "the USGA sat on its hands and claimed they were enforcing an overall distance standard"? They enforced the standards in the rules! The way you state that implies you think they were lying about it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Was Barry Bonds' bat speed more than Babe Ruth's or Harmon Killebrew's?  I'm comfortable that the average male will be 1 inch taller and hit the ball 10 yards further in 100 years.  And yes, now we have computers in addition to medicine balls.

Jud,

Sorry but male evolution based on female mating preferences for hunters and gatherers is past history.  Even my grandchildren appear to be growing out of an oceanic influence.  6 foot will be the new tall.

[Brent Hutto]

No, they weren't lying any more than David Moriarty is lying when he says sincerely that a change in the ball spec would put an end to the lengthening of classic courses. They claimed that their distance standard adequately proscribed an increase in distance that was quite obvious to everyone else in the world for nearly a decade before the USGA finally said "OK, now there seems to be some remote chance that distance might just increase in spite of our standard so we'll start fixing to get ready to maybe update the standard somehow or another real soon now". It's not a lie, just a delusion born of arrogance and laziness.

[Jud_T]

Was Barry Bonds' bat speed more than Babe Ruth's or Harmon Killebrew's?  I'm comfortable that the average male will be 1 inch taller and hit the ball 10 yards further in 100 years.  And yes, now we have computers in addition to medicine balls.

Jud,

Sorry but male evolution based on female mating preferences for hunters and gatherers is past history.  Even my grandchildren appear to be growing out of an oceanic influence.  6 foot will be the new tall.

Perhaps.   Fortunately male mating patterns based on waist to hip ratio are still very much with us.

[Andy Hughes]

I just don't sense that the percent of people who have made massive gains with the Pro-V1 is more than a tiny number.  Is that wrong? ...

Yep, it's wrong.
What percent used the soft covered balls, vs. the two piece such as the "RockFlite" style balls before? Maybe 50%? What percent of those were capable of driver swing speeds of 105 mph and more? Maybe 50%? That is suggesting that perhaps 1/4 off all golfers got a very significant boost in distance. Heck, even Sean admits his distance went up noticeably, even though he seems to claim he practically can't hit it out of his shadow.

No Garland, that can't be right at all I wouldn't think. There's no way half of golfers back in the day were playing balata and the other half were playing Top-Flite types.  I have no data but from my experience very few guys were using balata. Anecdote, data, etc.  

Also, I strongly doubt the 1/4 of guys back then were swinging the driver in excess of 105 MPH---if I had to wager your mortgage payment I would bet the percentage was closer to 5 than 50.  105 MPH is getting up there. Having said all that, I guess we would need to agree on what 'massive' actually means, and then what percentage of golfers gained that 'massive' increase.

[Andy Hughes]

And yes I hit it farther at 50 than I ever did, albeit not mighty distances.  But it's not just about me...

Jud, agreed, its not about you or me--but we keep talking about all these people who are hitting it massively further--who are they and how many people are hitting it massively further than they used to?

PS I am the same as you by the way--I am 46 and I hit the ball just as far as I ever did. I'm OK with that 

[Andy Hughes]

Unless you want to ignore this group of golfers, it has become a real problem to fit  everyone on the same course.   It is no longer just a matter of having a couple of tees.   A course can easily be way to long for most is still way to short for some.  (When I say way to short I am thinking of maintaining the architectural relevance of features, strategies, green sizes, angles, etc.)  So it makes quality architecture that much more difficult.   We don't all fit on the same courses. 

David, how many people hit the ball massively further than they used to?  I guess what I would like to know is who are the people you are calling 'this group of golfers'?  As far as I can tell, we all agree it includes the Tour players, and apparently none of us on GCA.

[Jud_T]

Andy,

Perhaps from playing for business, or from slumming here, I routinely play with guys who hit it 270+ and we're either playing courses that are too long/hard for me or too short/easy for them, or we're playing dramatically different tees.  I'm guessing this wasn't always the case...

[Garland Bayley]

So it sounds like you're back to your customary idea that "roll back" of the ball should somehow remove 50-75 yards of driver distance from the guys who drive it 300+ from the longest hitters while only affecting the 200-250 yards guys by maybe five or ten yards. You want the ball to minimize the additional distance that 130mph of clubhead speed produces over a 95mph swing. Instead of 70 yards extra you feel that ought to produce at most 20 or 30 yards difference.

Does that come close to a paraphrase of your requirements for the "roll back"? You want a ball that, if hit too hard (i.e. harder than some guy could swing 100 years ago) it will just spin or explode or fall out of the sky and make sure all that extra power doesn't mean hitting the ball such a long way. That's just plain old Grandpa Simpson talk

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too."

I don't know who this was addressed to, but I have repeatedly specified what I believe the distance explosion was due to, and what rule would be necessary to roll it back. Anyone paying attention would understand that all the talk about strength and hitting it hard has little meaning in that context.

[Brent Hutto]

Perhaps from playing for business, or from slumming here, I routinely play with guys who hit it 270+ and we're either playing courses that are too long/hard for me or too short/easy for them, or we're playing dramatically different tees.  I'm guessing this wasn't always the case...

Can you not handicap a fair match? Or is the requirement that he be able to shoot a certain score on his scorecard while you're able to shoot a certain score on yours?

In a lot of cases, the perception of "too hard" or "too easy" is relative to fairly specific stroke-play score expectations. Surely there's a course you find where he gets to hit 6-iron into a couple of Par 4's from the way-back tees while you can still handle any forced carries from the way-up tees.

But I suspect the requirement is more along the lines that there be two tees on every Par 4, one of which enables you to reach the green in two shots and another of which requires him to hit something longer than a pitching wedge. That is perhaps as much a "modern" expectation as a fact of the "modern" golf ball and driver.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()