[Phil Benedict]

I've watched pro golf at Firestone since the 60's, all the way back to the Ameriican Golf Classic.  This was the original 7,000 yard par 70.   The 18th hole at 465 yards was a long hole for most if not all of the pros, requiring a good drive and mid-to-long iron approach. 
Watching Oosty (and others) bomb their drives to within lob wedge distance shows how much the game has changed at the highest levels.

I realize the course was firm but the yardages are a joke.  The only defense these old courses have is thick rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I first played Firestone in the late 60's and as recently as a few weeks ago.

The ball, thanks to the ball and the modern driver, goes straighter and farther, yet, the course remains fairly static, unable to defend itself, without resorting to extremes.  Maintaining the fairways by cross cutting them produces even more roll.

It's apparent to all but the most obtuse that a tournament ball needs to be introduced and that all woods/metals be subject to COR and driver head size be reduced.

I know # 16 plays downhill, but, when guys are hitting medium irons into that green from about 647, there's something really wrong goin on here.

[John Kavanaugh]

Whatever they did to cause Furyk's double on the 72nd hole was perfect.  Don't change a thing.  The only defense any course needs is the golfers themselves.

[Brent Hutto]

So let's say they dial back driver and ball COR by 10% tomorrow.

If 20 years from now the elite athletes have improved enough to be hitting the rolled-back ball and driver farther than we saw this week at Firestone should it be rolled back another 10%?

Are we saying the proper standard for equipment is stated as something like "Whatever it takes to make sure no human being can play #16 at Firestone with driver-lob wedge"?

Seems a pretty bloody-minded concept of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whatever they did to cause Furyk's double on the 72nd hole was perfect.  Don't change a thing.  The only defense any course needs is the golfers themselves.

JakaB,

Only until such time as the PGA Tour bears a resemblance to the WWF.

[John Kavanaugh]

Whatever they did to cause Furyk's double on the 72nd hole was perfect.  Don't change a thing.  The only defense any course needs is the golfers themselves.

JakaB,

Only until such time as the PGA Tour bears a resemblance to the WWF.

Pat, it is the WWE.  So, what do you think about Furyk being sponsored by 5 hour energy?  I am a user but it is a toxic substance much like tobacco and alcohol.   

[Garland Bayley]

So let's say they dial back driver and ball COR by 10% tomorrow.

If 20 years from now the elite athletes have improved enough to be hitting the rolled-back ball and driver farther than we saw this week at Firestone should it be rolled back another 10%?

Are we saying the proper standard for equipment is stated as something like "Whatever it takes to make sure no human being can play #16 at Firestone with driver-lob wedge"?

Seems a pretty bloody-minded concept of the game.

Ball COR is the WRONG thing. That is not how we got here today. Ball COR has been regulated for a long time through the initial velocity test. Ball spin needs to be restored. That is the recipe for preventing strengthened athletes from beating courses to death.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So let's say they dial back driver and ball COR by 10% tomorrow.

Brent,

It involves more than just that.
Spin rates have to be increased.
In fact, that's probably the best place to start.
Increased spin rates have a dramatic effect on ball flight.

It's not unusual for me to not miss a fairway and it isn't my athleticism that's responsible for that, it's the ball and the driver.


If 20 years from now the elite athletes have improved enough to be hitting the rolled-back ball and driver farther than we saw this week at Firestone should it be rolled back another 10%?

Balls can only go farther with increased club head speed.
Increased club head speed, when combined with increased spin rates, promotes "long and wrong"

Are we saying the proper standard for equipment is stated as something like "Whatever it takes to make sure no human being can play #16 at Firestone with driver-lob wedge"?

Will you be satisfied when they drive the green ?
What you and others forget is the INTENT of the ARCHITECTURAL features.
They are MEANT to INTERFACE with the golfer, not be ignored by them.
When fairway bunkers are nothing more than vestigial features, used solely for aiming, why have them ?

If you view architecture as the preparation of the field of play, how do you prepare that field when drives are 400+ yards ?

Do you create 9,000 yard golf courses ?

Or, do you restrict the equipment, like many other sports do ?

Seems a pretty bloody-minded concept of the game.

[Brent Hutto]

So we're really proposing a NASCAR like micromanagement of the game. Put in a three-volume specification for the ball and update it every time someone figures out a way to overpower a golf course.

Is our rubric going to be something along the lines of a table with average driver distance in Column A and number of fairways missed in Column B?

So if you're content to drive it 260 yards then it's acceptable to hit every fairway. If you want to drive it 280 then you ought to be missing two fairways per round. If you want to drive it 300 you have to miss five fairways per round. 320 and you have to miss them all. And nobody is allowed to drive it 340.

And the ball spec can be updated on a week-to-week basis, just like NASCAR, to make sure the players don't get too fast for the track.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's a simpler answer:  Just let a long course be 7000 yards, let guys shoot lower scores, red numbers flow and 66 becomes the new 72.  Honestly, what' s the harm in that? 

The harm is turning the game into the WWF.

[Brent Hutto]

There's a simpler answer:  Just let a long course be 7000 yards, let guys shoot lower scores, red numbers flow and 66 becomes the new 72.  Honestly, what' s the harm in that? 

Exactly. That's the option never discussed.

The problem being, it offends those whose sense of what clubhead speed means and how a golf ball flies through the air is fixated on or about Masters weekend in 1986. It's basically a wish for highly trained, elite athletes to be forced to play the same game that a bunch of schlubby white boys were playing more than two generations ago.

[John Kavanaugh]

There's a simpler answer:  Just let a long course be 7000 yards, let guys shoot lower scores, red numbers flow and 66 becomes the new 72.  Honestly, what' s the harm in that? 

The harm is turning the game into the WWF.

Again, it is the WWE.  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_wwf_turn_into_WWE

[Garland Bayley]

So we're really proposing a NASCAR like micromanagement of the game. Put in a three-volume specification for the ball and update it every time someone figures out a way to overpower a golf course.

Is our rubric going to be something along the lines of a table with average driver distance in Column A and number of fairways missed in Column B?

So if you're content to drive it 260 yards then it's acceptable to hit every fairway. If you want to drive it 280 then you ought to be missing two fairways per round. If you want to drive it 300 you have to miss five fairways per round. 320 and you have to miss them all. And nobody is allowed to drive it 340.

And the ball spec can be updated on a week-to-week basis, just like NASCAR, to make sure the players don't get too fast for the track.

Nice bit of hyperbole. Nice try at obfuscating what has been done traditionally in golf. Until the latest aberration of the ball the USGA stepped in a regulated the ball. When a ball with too high a COR was developed the USGA put in the initial velocity test. When a dimple pattern was invented to straighten out the ball the USGA regulated it out of existence. When a distance ball with otherwise poor performance was created the USGA put in the overall distance standard.

NASCAR could perhaps learn a thing or two from the USGA of old.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So we're really proposing a NASCAR like micromanagement of the game.

Put in a three-volume specification for the ball and update it every time someone figures out a way to overpower a golf course.

Brent, you must be fairly young.

The USGA has been regulating the ball and implements for decades and decades and decades.
It's only relatively recently that they left the barn door open.

Don't you think that the "manufacturers" could come up with a hot baseball, one that single hitters could park on a routine basis ?
Or, hockey sticks that would make the puck fly like a knuckleball ?

Again, you have shown a blatant disregard for the inherent and fundamental purpose of architectural features and how those features are intended to influence play on the course.

You don't want to restrict distance because of how it affects your game.
You have no sense of the "purity" of the game and the desire to protect that purity.
You have no sense of the purpose of architectural features, if you did, you'd see the critical importance of keeping them relevant.

Is our rubric going to be something along the lines of a table with average driver distance in Column A and number of fairways missed in Column B?

So if you're content to drive it 260 yards then it's acceptable to hit every fairway. If you want to drive it 280 then you ought to be missing two fairways per round. If you want to drive it 300 you have to miss five fairways per round. 320 and you have to miss them all. And nobody is allowed to drive it 340.

If you have the athleticism to drive it 340, you should be able to do so, but, without the aid of balls and clubs that won't produce adverse consequences for less than precise contact.

And the ball spec can be updated on a week-to-week basis, just like NASCAR, to make sure the players don't get too fast for the track.

Ball specs have been updated for decades and decades and decades.

You seem to prefer a game where the architectural features are irrelevant.
I prefer a game where the architectural features impact the golfer, mentally and physically.

You have no sense for the consequences of unrestricted distance and how it impacts the play of the game, and, the cost of the game.

[Joe Bausch]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

[Garland Bayley]

There's a simpler answer:  Just let a long course be 7000 yards, let guys shoot lower scores, red numbers flow and 66 becomes the new 72.  Honestly, what' s the harm in that? 

Exactly. That's the option never discussed.

The problem being, it offends those whose sense of what clubhead speed means and how a golf ball flies through the air is fixated on or about Masters weekend in 1986. It's basically a wish for highly trained, elite athletes to be forced to play the same game that a bunch of schlubby white boys were playing more than two generations ago.

More nonsensical hyperbole. Tiger Woods is not nor has ever been a "schlubby white boy". Tiger Woods came to the world of professional tour golf before there was a ball that let low talent smashers become predominate on tour.

If your so called "elite athletes" can't compete with the ball Tiger learned to play and dominate with, then perhaps elite is not the right adjective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's a simpler answer:  Just let a long course be 7000 yards, let guys shoot lower scores, red numbers flow and 66 becomes the new 72.  Honestly, what' s the harm in that? 

The harm is turning the game into the WWF.

Again, it is the WWE.  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_wwf_turn_into_WWE

JakaB,

Before it was the WWE, it was the WWF.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

Bobby the Brain Heenan came to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Heenan

[Patrick_Mucci]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

Joe,

Did you see where George, the animal, Steele recently threw out the first pitch at a baseball game..........and then ate the baseball ?

[Joe Bausch]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

Bobby the Brain Heenan came to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Heenan

Oh, even better!  I can remember Bobby when he was Pretty Boy Bobby Heenan back in the early 70's in the Detroit wrestling area.

[Joe Bausch]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

Joe,

Did you see where George, the animal, Steele recently threw out the first pitch at a baseball game..........and then ate the baseball ?

Now that was an awesome video.  Almost as funny as when he got married in the WWF.

Back in the mid 80's Vince McMahon had his craft perfected.  One of the funniest shows I ever saw was I think called Tuesday Night Titans on USA network, an hour-long show set up like The Tonight Show with Vince being Johnny Carson and Lord Alfred Hayes playing the trusty Ed MacMahon sidekick.

[Tim Martin]

John, if we could channel back to the glory days of the WWF, which manager would Pat Mucci be most like?  Jimmy Hart?  Hmmm, maybe, and instead of the Hart Foundation it could be the M Foundation with David and Tom as a formidable duo.

Or maybe Fred Blassie?

Come on guys. Remember Rowdy Roddy Piper and Piper`s Pit. What about Patrick`s Pit?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

I ran into Vince in a restaurant in Boca Raton a few years ago, he was buffed as can be, well dressed in a suit that fit him like a glove.
And, he was pretty nice.

He parlayed a small family business into big time entertainment with some characters that are impossible to forget..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

What are the purpose/function of fairway bunkers ?

[John Kavanaugh]

This notion of making the ball more fair is seeded in the same furrow as the political correctness that has ruined professional wrestling.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()