[Jerry Kluger]

To pick up on Pat Mucci's thread, last night on the Golf Channel the subject of golf course architecture was brought up with respect to how long will courses have to be in order that the winning scores will be single digits under par.  Phil Mickelson said that courses will have to be 7800 to 8000 yards or the fairways will have to be 15 yards wide with foot and a half rough.  Peter Jacobsen in defending his course said that new courses play much firmer and as the course matures there will not be so much roll.  I don't remember the number but there was a very large percentage of the players who averaged more than 300 yards, which makes a 460 par 4 a birdie hole.  What is disturbing is what happens to the great tournament venues which are not 8000 yards.  You can't make the greens so fast that they can't be putted and soft fairways are nirvana for top golfers.  Today's equipment clearly makes the game more enjoyable for the non-professional, but the golf ball is the only solution which it is uniformly agreed will work.  Scott McCarron and others said that the fans like to see them make birdies and they see no reason to change things but I think golf fans like to see all aspects of the game played well.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jerry,

I related this interview to TEPaul on my other thread.

What wasn't said, but implied is: those courses that can't be stretched to 7,800 to 8,000+ yards won't be suitable for PGA Tour Tournaments.

It would seem to me, that the USGA, which had previously imposed a governor on the balls initial velocity, could merely extend that dictum, thus restricting velocity at all swing speeds.

This would allow some to hit it longer than others, but would effectively reign in the distance race.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[John_Conley]

The segment on TGC was interesting in that each player said something completely different!

[Jerry Kluger]

I think that there is no question that the ball is the answer.  Professional baseball recognized this years ago when they banned metal bats which make the game more enjoyable for amateurs.  Peter Jacobsen did say that he felt that courses need to allow for different approach shots and there should be openings to the greens so a guy can run a 3 iron onto the green.  I question though whether that should be applicable at the tour pro level where it would most likely be a par 5  where needs to be a risk for going for the green in two?

[Jim_H]

I don't understand--or totally agree with--the obsession on this site with the seeming damage done to the game by increased distance.  Aren't all athletes in all sports better than they were before?  Don't high jumpers jump higher--and runners run faster?  Is it really all that bad to have scores of 15-20 under?  Should golfers be penelized and criticized for becoming more fit and better athletes?
I know the arguments about obseleting our classic courses--but fans like to see birdies.  And is that all bad?  I suggest we all need to cool our concerns a bit.

[Jerry Kluger]

Jim: The issue is not necessarily whether the athletes are better rather the equipment is better.  I am willing to bet that if we were to go back to the golf balls of say 10 years ago, or less, or perhaps the persimmon drivers, like wooden baseball bats, the issue would not be nearly as significant.  

[Jim_H]

Jerry--The problem is that the athletes are better, the equipment is better, and the courses are better conditioned--and no one can say definitely what has made the most difference.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

With the back tees of The Ocean Course measuring 7,937 yards, that 8,000 seems just about right to me..

[Steve Hyden]

If average distances (not just drives) are up, say, 10% over when 7,000 was considered long, then 7,700 is where a Tour course should be today.  The math is simple, just research the percentage.  Of course the classic comparison is the Hogan 1 iron at Merion, or Jack's 1 iron at 17 in the '72 Open.  A tour ball is the only possible solution, if any of the powers that be care.  I personally find driver-wedge totally boring and don't watch much men's Tour golf besides the majors and the Players.  Enjoyed the hell out the Chick-Fil-A LPGA event this past weekend, though-seriously.  And last year's Women's Open at Prairie Dunes suggests that tournament will become the showcase for the obsolete courses in coming years.

[Rick Shefchik]

 Aren't all athletes in all sports better than they were before?  Don't high jumpers jump higher--and runners run faster?  Is it really all that bad to have scores of 15-20 under?  Should golfers be penelized and criticized for becoming more fit and better athletes?
I know the arguments about obseleting our classic courses--but fans like to see birdies.  And is that all bad?  I suggest we all need to cool our concerns a bit.

Jim H -- Those of us who have concerns about the way the game is becoming distorted are not likely to cool them because others don't share those concerns.

We don't want to "penalize" anyone; distance in golf has always been relative, so the pros will continue to be way longer than I'll ever be no matter what balls we use -- and Tiger will continue to be longer than most of his fellow pros.

But unless golf course are continually lengthened, distance ceases to become relative to the playing field. I don't care whether Tiger or Ernie goes 30-under at the next tournament, but I do care if it happens because they're driving par 4s and hitting lob wedges to par 5s. That doesn't interest me, and I don't want to become indifferent to the pro tour.

And I will very much care if modern equipment turns my home course into a pitch-and-putt; we don't have any more land to lengthen the course. If I were a member of a course that did have more land available, I wouldn't be happy about paying high assessments every five or ten years to keep lengthening the course to keep up with the equipment.

The reasons for the rapid increase in distance could be all of the factors you mention, but limiting the ball is the easiest way to get some control over the issue.

[Keith Durrant]

Limit the use of tee-pegs, that'll sort them out !!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jim H,

I can say, unequivically, and without fear of contradiction, that I was a better athlete 40 years ago, then I am today.

I had a good shot, could play good defense and dunk a basketball, throw and catch a football well, pitch a baseball well.  I could run and jump.  I boxed and enjoyed Karate.  
I could climb up a 30 foot rope like a spider monkey.
TODAY, I CAN DO NONE OF THE ABOVE.
In fact, I just got tired typing about it.
Although, I might be capable of floating better then when I was lean and fit, but only if the waves are small.  

So why am I hitting a golf ball farther than I ever thought possible when I was 21 ?

It's not the golf courses and it's not me.

It's the ball and the equipment.

And, I'm not the only one who has benefited from technology.

[JohnV]

Look on the bright side.  None of the classic courses have the room to be stretched to 8000 yards.   This means they won't even bother trying to get those big events and will stay the way they are.  If someone told Riviera they would have to be 8000 yards would they have even tried?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Jerry - courses do not need to be changed for 27 million non-pro golfers for the reasons I cite below (a re-posting from an earlier thread).


As the USGA has demonstrated with their test facilities, the physics of golf balls has not changed much in 20-30 years.  The ProV1s respond to a calibrated imparted force (Iron Byron-type machine) a little more robustly than does old Wilson Acuschnets...I believe Iron can get 5 maybe 10 more yards out of the ProV1 for a driver impact of 100mph clubhead speed.

The physics of a club have also not changed much over the years.  (Although the sweet spot is much larger reducing the severity of mis-hits)   The material restitution and elasticity properties of the modern clubhead face (responsible for the transferring of forces) have improved a modest amount over the old persimmons... maybe responsible for a few more driving yards for a comparable 100mph clubhead speed.

What has changed for the pros is clubhead speed.  The kinetic energy imparted to an object is given as 1/2(mass)*(velocity squared).  If I can suddenly increase my clubhead speed from 95mph to 125mph I nearly double the force I impart to the ball!  The ball will respond by going a 60-80yds further.

We morals (the 90-100mph golfers) are living off a modest technologic advantage over years ago.  We're seeing 10-20 more yards in our drives because of equipment.  The pros through physical training are all now able to swing at 120+mph dramatically amplifying the modest material/design improvement in balls and club.

There is a limit and we may have hit it.  Manufacturers will be able to continue to tweek the ball and club to get tiny improvements (transparent to all but the pros).  Unless the pros can figure a way to increase their clubhead speeds to, say 145mph (steriods?  Hulk Hogans?), I believe the distance issue has reached its limit.

JC

[Doug Siebert]

There's a lot of non pros who have clubhead speeds much faster than 100 mph.  Just because you don't connect perfectly on every shot like a pro doesn't mean the required skill to play the game isn't diminished if you are good enough to hit a reasonably good shot 50% of the time.  With that you can beat a 450 yard par 4 by either hitting a good drive and leaving a 9 iron or so (and even a poorly hit shot with a 9 still leaves an easy par) or hitting a poor drive with a big headed driver that still leaves a mid iron into the green for you to use your good stroke on (which the hole was originally supposed to play with after a really good drive)  Used to be that if you missed a drive on a long par 4, you were looking bogey square in the face, and even after a good drive your work was not yet done.

I get tired of this argument that the distance issue is only an issue for the pros but it doesn't matter for amateurs.  I hit a 7 iron into a 545 yard par 5 on Sunday (tee shot to an otherwise flat hole from a big hill, with a 15 mph following wind, but still)   Can I do that every time?  Of course not.  Does it mean I'm shooting 65 for 18 holes?  Of course not.  But I'm either shooting lower scores or needing less skill and strategy to shoot the same scores.  I'm not saying it is an issue for the majority of golfers, but if it matters for say 5-10% of avid golfers that's a big enough percentage I think it is something designers MUST take into account, regardless of whether we think its for the best architecturally.  If we want to avoid that, we have to do something about the ball.

[JohnV]

For all of you who are hitting it so far these days, get your lasers out and check the yardage of the hole.  I was telling our head course rater how I hit an 8-iron into a par 5 the other day and he told me that he actual yardage of the hole I was playing was about 35 yards less than what it said on the card.  Turns out a lot of clubs are measuring from the back of the tee to the back of the green in the search for scorecard yardage.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Doug - of course you are quite right that there are non-pros with clubhead speeds over 100mph.  I don't have the stats but I bet it's just a few percent of non-pro players - something you don't base a golf course design on.  Do you know that of the 27 million US golfers only 1 in 10 can break 90?  JC

[tonyt]

Sorry Jonathan. What you point out about a tiny number of pros versus an army of amateaurs has been said before... and is wrong.

The group of golfers who can bomb it too long, and make a nonsense out of how a hole was designed to be played, and not face any of the challenges designed to make the hole both great and enjoyable? That group includes millions of 15 year olds, millions of 10 handicappers who play once every other week, millions of well built very part time players, and millions of players who make up most of the top 50 low handicappers at most clubs worldwide.

Ray Floyd's Masters victory was hailed a triumph of the 4 wood on 13 and 15. Now, I know two irregular golfers (mid teen handicaps) whom have played from that tee and in soft conditions, hit 5 irons and 6 irons respectively into both. Their peers from the 70s would have hit those same clubs to a 120 yard layup. The same applies at any course.

I want to see pros hit long irons (or fairway woods into the wind) into par 4s. That was a great and extremely interesting challenge to watch in days gone by. Watching a player have to par 18 to win, and needing an accurate 4 iron second shot.

I want club golfers to face a long par 4, and either have to view it as a risk-reward second shot (as intended by the architect), or at least a test of their long iron abilities. Afterall, the hole will be 1 or 2 on the card and so is supposed to be tough. Why let them play a game of golf where they know that a good drive leaves them 8 iron in? Sure, as amateaurs they don't always hit great drives, but they only face the desired tough shot as punishment for a poor drive, heaven forbid not because it is supposed to be played that way.

Jim H, the top players ARE better athletes like you say, but unlike tennis players, are not playing directly against other tennis players. They are playing against a golf course which lies in the same or similar state it was in many years previously. A course DELIBERATELY and sometimes brilliantly designed to play a certain way, and to accommodate and request certain shots or decisions. If those desired shots or decisions no longer exist, so the quality of the hole is also at risk.

[ForkaB]

Jonathan

According to the USGA over 50% of all male golfers with official GHIN handicaps are 15 or below (index).  I assume anybody with a 15 index can break 90 at some point in his life (unless he only plays Shinnecock from the tips on windy days....).  So, what's the disconnect?  Does your 1 in 10 number include ladies?  Is the USGA universe (of people with official handicaps) a small and/or distorted one?  Do people out there sandbag (shock, horror!).

John V

If you needed an 8-iron on a 545 yard hole you must have hit your drive fat.

[ForkaB]

Jonathan

According to the USGA over 50% of all male golfers with official GHIN handicaps are 15 or below (index).  I assume anybody with a 15 index can break 90 at some point in his life (unless he only plays Shinnecock from the tips on windy days....).  So, what's the disconnect?  Does your 1 in 10 number include ladies?  Is the USGA universe (of people with official handicaps) a small and/or distorted one?  Do people out there sandbag (shock, horror!).

John V

If you needed an 8-iron on a 545 yard hole you must have hit your drive fat.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

So why am I hitting a golf ball farther than I ever thought possible when I was 21 ?

It's not the golf courses and it's not me.

It's the ball and the equipment.

And, I'm not the only one who has benefited from technology.

According to the National Golf Foundation, the average handicap remains unchanged through the years even with the better equipment.  All a souped up ball does for the average player is travel further out of bounds...

[Jerry Kluger]

In the May issue of Golf Digest they reported that Ernie Els' driving distance had increased by 48 yards since 1997, Robert Allenby's driving distance increased by 24 yards,  Vijay Singh's driving distance increased by 28 yards, and Peter Lonard's driving distance increased by 34 yards.  These numbers are incredible and are the facts as evidenced by actual play and not by the believed potential as established by a machine.  I would never claim to be an engineer nor do I claim to have a complete understanding of why this has occurred but it is a fact;  they are hitting it longer.  6 years ago the pros were hitting wound balls which clearly did not go as far as the multi piece balls of today. The manufacturers have developed driver technology which allows them to get to the exact limit of COR, and they have created a larger sweet spot.  The issue here is whether the length at the pro level has increased because they are better athletes or because the equipment is better.  Tiger Woods is clearly the best athlete ever to play the game and I think Jack Nicklaus would not dispute this.  His physical build is tremendous and his hand eye coordination is unbelievable.  Phil Mickelson has commented that Tiger could hit it even further, and perhaps straighter, if he used different equipment.  Still, I just don't believe we would see the distances that we are and the scores if the pros were using persimmon drivers and balata balls.  I hate to repeat myself but let the pros use the wooden bats and let the rest of us use aluminum.    

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Vegis,

There are two reasons for this.

courses have been lengthened to offset increased distance.
I don't know of one golf course that is the same yardage today that it was 30-40-50 years ago.

As you get older, you get worse, and your putting gets worse.

Greens have gotten incredibly faster over the last 30-40-50 years, which also affects scoring.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

True.  But I'm not hitting it much further than I did in the past (that might be because I just hit 46... :-/)  I used to hit a 9-iron 150.  Now, I'm hitting an 8-iron when I'm playing well and occasionally sneak down to a 7-iron if my game is struggling.  As for the pros, it may not all be the aspects of the equipment as to the precision that the equipment is tuned to their exact swing.  Throw in optimizing the physics of launch angles, spin rates at various swing speeds and the ball will tend to go further.  As for me, the old computer saying -- garbage in, garbage out...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Vegis,

I saw my father, who was a scratch to plus handicap for most of his life, and his contemporaries, who were excellent golfers as well, guys like Chet Sanok, Billy Dear, Joe McBride and many others lose distance as they aged.

None of them were longer at age 60 then they were at age 50, 40, and 30.

That isn't the case today, most good players that I know who are age 60 today, are longer than they were at 50, 40 and 30.  

What would have been a normal, sliding decrease in ball striking and in scoring has been postponed and even improved upon with high tech.

Even 15 handicaps, 65 years old, are hitting the ball farther, and keeping father time at bay.  

It's not the water, it's the high tech equipment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()