Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?

[Padraig Dooley]

A lot of the time this relationship stays the same whether a player hits up or down on the ball, giving the same spin e.g an attack angle of -3 with a dynamic loft of 12 gives a spin loft of 15 and an attack angle of +2 with a dynamic loft of 17 also gives a spin loft of 15. The first shot just launches lower then the second but they both have the same spin.

Padraig,

I think I have a reasonable sense for these factors around spin and while I can understand what you say above..."a lot of the time" seems more like something that could happen in a vacuum as opposed to a real golfer hitting a real golf ball.

If you changed your attack angle by 5*, you're almost certainly  going to affect your spin loft aren't you?

Jim

If you ask a golfer to hit it lower they invariably hit more down on the ball, all that happens is angle of attack is changing and the ball launches lower and flies lower. The relationship between the angle of attack and the dynamic loft stays the same, giving the same spin loft. They don't normally hit more down and add loft to the club to get more spin or hit up and deloft the club to get less spin, if anything it might be the other way.

A good analogy might be the relationship between a tank and it's gun, the angle between the two is similar to spin loft, the tank going uphill could be an upward angle of attack and going downhill is a downward angle of attack, yet the angle between the two would remain the same going up or going down i.e. spin stays the same.

[Padraig Dooley]

I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.

Yes, it does, it's indisputable.
Club "head"speed determines distance

The balatas were stored in a dark drawer and shouldn't have lost too much weight. Even if they did this would mean a lesser differential in distance between the two balls.

What was the brand, year and compression ?
One or multi piece ?

I was also surprised that the balatas didn't balloon more, remembering the initial days of balata and titanium when the balloon ball was prevalent.

Balata balls didn't remain static, hence the outcome could have been influenced by the type of Balata ball used

As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video.
He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!

I would look at look at that claim with enlightened suspicion.

Pat

Are you saying that two clubs swung with the same speed, where one is lighter then the other by 20% will lead to the same distance?

The balls were Titleist Tour Balata 90 from 2000.

Paul Hurrion is a thorough researcher, doesn't make claims without evidence. As a comparison the longest hitter in our club in the 30's, 40's and 50's was a golfer called Jimmy Bruen. He drove the first hole approx 370 yards slightly uphill on quite a number of occasions back then. Now the two longest hitters in the club both who can achieve 128mph clubhead speed each have only driven it once in the past few years. I think it can be reasonable to say that Jimmy Bruen had club head speeds in the 120's range. Why not Nicklaus as well?

 

[Bryan Izatt]

...
..............................................
...

........................................................

...................................................


I admit I'm confused by the numbers being shown for the spin rate of balata on persimmon.  This does not jive with what I observe with my own drives then and now, especially into a strong wind.  Is it possible that balata balls decreased rpms more slowly than modern balls throughout the ball flight, due to ball construction or aerodynamics?  Perhaps the initial rpms were similar but the rpms 100 yards off the clubface diverged?

The spin on the ball creates lift.  Hitting into the wind increases the lift at the same spin rate, while hitting downwind reduces lift even at the same spin rate.

I suppose that the spin rate might decay at different rates for different balls and different initial spin rates but I don't recall seeing any studies of that.

[JESII]

So Padraig,

Would you say that dynamic loft is simply the way the club head comes into the ball when a particular player swings it? The same player swinging at pretty much the same speed will always make the shaft flex the same way resulting in a very similar face position at impact?

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's some testing I did

http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2012/12/titanium-versus-persimmon.html

http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/titleist-tour-balata-90-v-titleist-pro.html

http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/persimmon-balata-v-titanium-pro-v1x.html

Didn't get the same differences as Gary Woodland. The ball made the biggest difference for me.

........................................................

Bryan

I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.


...............................................


As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video. He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!

Mass is a component of momentum but in this context it would be the mass of the clubhead, not the shaft, that would be relevant.  Mass would be a relatively smaller factor compared to swing speed.  The Tutleman article I linked to earlier has some test results for optmal clubhead mass.  It turned out to be 180 - 190 grams.  Anything more lead to slightly worse results.

Do you have alink to Quintic?  I have tried to use a super slo-mo camera I have to measure swing speed a couple of feet back of the ball.  Even at 240 frames a second I couldn't get an accurate enough reading.  I'm curious how Hurrion could do it with a normal speed video.

[Bryan Izatt]

Changes in reducing of spin? Seems unlikely, but may be a function of dimples? One of the spin reports in the tread noted that although the balata spin rates were close to the ProV, it curved sideways in a more pronounced manner. Is perhaps making shallower dimples having a significant effect? This seems unlikely to me, because I doubt TopFlites and Titlesit balatas had significantly different dimples, but they sure moved differently in the air, which I have always attributed to the spin rates.

................................................



So maybe controlling spin via the rules is more subtle.  Rather than dealing solely with initial spin rate, you have to deal with how quickly the ball loses spin.  i.e. a drive hit with an initial spin rate of x can lose a maximum of y rpm per distance or time.  It isn't that you don't want balls spinning at 3000 rpm when hit with the driver, it is that you want it carrying more of that spin throughout the drive, rather than quickly shedding it.

Trying to regulate and control distance in this manner seems impossibly complex to me.  Why not just regulate the COR or weight or size, all much simpler to regulate and control.  Spin really isn't all that important.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, regarding the Nike patent application, a the smash factor was very low at the low end and the high end, but in line at 110 mph swing speed, which is strange.  Do you suppose the Nike driver they used is crap at low speeds and very high speeds, but okay at 110?

If they were using a robot then it likely had to do with the driver or maybe more likely wit the test setup.  Otherwise, I have no idea.  It makes the results questionable in my mind.

As for the mention of the ProV1 in the example, but then the ProV1x in the conclusion, I think both are referring to the same ball as the numbers are the same.   Don't know which ball.


Strange they would make such a fundamental error in a patent application.  I would have thought the lawyers would have caught it.

As for your chart comparing Quintavalla with the Nike experiment, obviously your curve is wrong for the Nike example, as I don't think it was losing distance at the top end.  More importantly,based on Quintavalla I think we have been assuming a straight line slope for balls below 90, but I don't think we should be.  We don't know what happens below 90 mph with those balls.  (If you try to back all the way down to zero mph, you can see that it can't be linear all the way down.)   It could be that there is a big drop from 90 to 80 like in the Nike example, only not as severe.  We just don't know, so I am not sure we should be making assumptions.

No, we don't know what happens down below 90 in the Quintavalla study.  Not sure it's relevant for male golfers.  If you can get a better curve through the Nike data points, feel free.

As for Rice's 46 yards difference, I am not as skeptical as you are.  Rice's numbers for the Balata are somewhat in line with what I'd expect from various old patent applications.  Maybe a bit low, but not crazy low.  And his ProV1x numbers are in line with what I'd expect from someone with a ProV1x at around 110 mph.   So maybe 46 yards is high, but I am not skeptical of the fact that he hit the ProV1 and ProV1x substantially farther than the Balata.

The Balata appears to have fallen out of the sky despite similar launch conditions.  Why would that be?  The V1x you use for the 46 yards was an anecdote at the end with no data to support it.  I remain skeptical.  Certainly nobody on the PGA Tour achieved anything close to that gain on a consistent basis. 

Looking at the chart, you friend hit the Balata somewhere in the high 270's but his ball speed was around 7 mph higher, was it not?  If so, then the two numbers for the Balata are comparable, are they not?

Not sure what you're asking.

[Garland Bayley]

So Padraig,

Would you say that dynamic loft is simply the way the club head comes into the ball when a particular player swings it? The same player swinging at pretty much the same speed will always make the shaft flex the same way resulting in a very similar face position at impact?

Isn't "dynamic loft" just the more common term launch angle? If not, how does it differ?

[Doug Siebert]

I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.

Yes, it does, it's indisputable.
Club "head"speed determines distance

The balatas were stored in a dark drawer and shouldn't have lost too much weight. Even if they did this would mean a lesser differential in distance between the two balls.

What was the brand, year and compression ?
One or multi piece ?

I was also surprised that the balatas didn't balloon more, remembering the initial days of balata and titanium when the balloon ball was prevalent.

Balata balls didn't remain static, hence the outcome could have been influenced by the type of Balata ball used

As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video.
He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!

I would look at look at that claim with enlightened suspicion.

Pat

Are you saying that two clubs swung with the same speed, where one is lighter then the other by 20% will lead to the same distance?

The balls were Titleist Tour Balata 90 from 2000.

Paul Hurrion is a thorough researcher, doesn't make claims without evidence. As a comparison the longest hitter in our club in the 30's, 40's and 50's was a golfer called Jimmy Bruen. He drove the first hole approx 370 yards slightly uphill on quite a number of occasions back then. Now the two longest hitters in the club both who can achieve 128mph clubhead speed each have only driven it once in the past few years. I think it can be reasonable to say that Jimmy Bruen had club head speeds in the 120's range. Why not Nicklaus as well?

 

If Jimmy Bruen drove that hole in the 50s, I think it is safe to assume that he had significantly more clubhead speed than the two others that have done it recently, unless when he did it the fairways were utterly burned out.  Whether one believes the ball or the club is responsible for today's distances, he obviously benefitted from neither and would need more speed or concrete-like fairways to make up the difference.

I don't have any problem believing Nicklaus had a 125 mph swing speed.  I wasn't around then, but from what I understand in his prime he was just about the longest hitter on tour.

[Doug Siebert]

Changes in reducing of spin? Seems unlikely, but may be a function of dimples? One of the spin reports in the tread noted that although the balata spin rates were close to the ProV, it curved sideways in a more pronounced manner. Is perhaps making shallower dimples having a significant effect? This seems unlikely to me, because I doubt TopFlites and Titlesit balatas had significantly different dimples, but they sure moved differently in the air, which I have always attributed to the spin rates.

................................................



So maybe controlling spin via the rules is more subtle.  Rather than dealing solely with initial spin rate, you have to deal with how quickly the ball loses spin.  i.e. a drive hit with an initial spin rate of x can lose a maximum of y rpm per distance or time.  It isn't that you don't want balls spinning at 3000 rpm when hit with the driver, it is that you want it carrying more of that spin throughout the drive, rather than quickly shedding it.

Trying to regulate and control distance in this manner seems impossibly complex to me.  Why not just regulate the COR or weight or size, all much simpler to regulate and control.  Spin really isn't all that important.

Well the goal I'm trying to achieve is to find a way to reign in the longest hitters without unduly hurting the average hitters.  If you wanted to simply knock 10% (or whatever) off every drive I'm sure that would be pretty easy to achieve, but I don't think it is at all desirable.

[Garland Bayley]

Trying to regulate and control distance in this manner seems impossibly complex to me.  Why not just regulate the COR or weight or size, all much simpler to regulate and control.  Spin really isn't all that important.

Bryan,

I think you and Tom Wishon have finally convinced me. My judgement had always been that spin was extremely important, because I used to be able to hit extremely long drives in my youth, and I could observe the very significant difference between the action of the TopFlite and the balata covered balls. It seems that downrange spin may have been the most important thing I was observing. To repeat a portion of Tom Wishon's quote posted earlier with emphasis added.

"In addition to an initial backspin rate off the face, all balls have downrange spin characteristics which are extremely important for determining what really will happen to the flight of the ball through the entire flight."

Of course he went on to say that measuring these spin characteristics is extremely difficult. Therefore, the simple spin tests that Doug and I have been advocating would not seem to do the trick. Doug has offered some alternative suggestions that might be feasible, but I am not inclined to go that way.

I agree. Rollback the COR or something simple. Make golf fun again. Make golf allow you to actually see the flight of your ball and where it ends up. Make golfers of different physical attributes more able to compete against one another without one being shamed completely by his lack of distance. Make placement of bunkers be more meaningful for a full range of players. Get back to a social game where everyone plays from the same tee. Make golf courses require less land and maintenance and be more cost effective.

[DMoriarty]

Regarding feasible regulations, Bryan mentioned weight of the golf ball.  One thing I've come across in a few of the patent applications is the notion that a ball at the weight limit is more beneficial to those with a high swing speed, while those with more marginal swing speeds would actually be better off with a ball that was a few grams lighter.   If I remember correctly, the logic was that the lighter ball was easier to get started off the club face for everyone, but the heavier ball performed better regarding drag at higher velocities.  

I'm not necessarily advocating for regulation mandating a lighter ball, but this seems to be another example of how those at different swing speeds are not equally impacted by changes to the equipment.  

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

I agree that sometimes golf courses are altered as a result of ego, arrogance, power trips, and "just because."  I also agree that equipment regulation will not put a stop to all tinkering with classic courses.  That said, I still see a strong correlation between technological equipment "advancements" and changes and alterations to the prevailing architecture over time.     If you don't think that the adoption of the haskell ball has anything to do with why so many courses were altered in the early part of last century, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.   Likewise regarding many of the alterations we are seeing today.    Golf courses have always been changed with the goal to protect the integrity of the courses and to keep them relevant as the game changes.  You and I may disagree with these goals and see them as shortsighted and unnecessary, but they have long been pursued nonetheless.

You ask whether I think another approach other than advocating for equipment regulation would be more prudent?  I don't know.  Maybe.  Advocating for equipment regulation that actually protects the game certainly hasn't been very effective thus far.   But then I don't think blaming the clubs, developers, owners, greens committees, etc. has been a very effective strategy either.  

I guess I don't see it as a zero sum game where we have to choose one approach or another.  I am all for trying to convince those who control the great courses to leave them alone. Part of this, I would think, would be explaining that their courses are already plenty long enough for the vast majority of golfers.   But it seems to me that the shortcoming of this approach is that you are really trying to buck history here, and I think that relevant equipment limits would go a long ways toward convincing them that there course are not becoming outdated.

In short, Sean, I have no beef with anything you are advocating.  I just don't see it as being all that effective given the history of the evolution of golf course architecture.  Certainly the same thing can be said of advocating for some sort of reasonable equipment limitations.

[JESII]

David,

Nobody has actually taken the position of "blame the clubs...". It's not been a failed strategy, it's simply not been a strategy.

[Doug Siebert]

If driving distance had remained static for the last 30 years, I totally agree with those who say that classic courses would still see a lot of tinkering.  It has always happened in the past, whether or not distance was increasing.  However, without equipment-related distance gains I don't think such tinkering would have included lengthening holes, moving bunkers around to better challenge longer hitters, etc.

Maybe someone like Patrick who is "in the know" about such things can comment on this next question - when classic clubs undertake changes is the initial motivation that begins the process primarily to add length/challenge, or were these projects destined to happen anyway because they started with "let's move this greenside bunker on #14 and move the fairway on #5 10 yards to the left"?  I guess I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this is a "Pandora's Box" sort of situation - once the leadership decides to make changes to increase length/challenge, they open the door to other changes in a quid pro quo horse-trading scenario if the leadership has multiple factions.

As for what type of changes to make.  If it is too difficult for the USGA to measure decay rate of spin that may not be a suitable method.  I was just throwing that out there as something that might directly attack the problem, but it may not be so easy to implement.  There might be other ways to accomplish something somewhat similar.  One of the things I've advocated for some time was that balls could only have a cover and a core, there couldn't be multiple layers that attempt to change the spin characteristics between shorter and longer shots.  I wonder how the spin decay of a ball that's of pretty much uniform density compares to the modern ball?  If the modern ball is heavier on the inside, as I suspect it may be, that simple rule may go a long way towards addressing the issues.  But I have no data to back this up at this time, it is just a "hunch".  I wish I could see some data on the density of the various layers in the Pro V1 and especially V1x (since it has a cover and three inner layers, I suspect it is gaming things more than the V1 and that accounts for its significant distance benefit at very high swing speeds)

I will say that since we've dug into the technical details far more deeply than any such thread in the past (at least that I've been involved in) I wish the USGA would be more forthcoming in what they've learned.  They've clearly studied this, and probably have some incredible data, but they're keeping it to themselves (or maybe sharing it only with equipment makers)  Why is that?  I think they should make their data public and allow more informed debate.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Nobody has actually taken the position of "blame the clubs...". It's not been a failed strategy, it's simply not been a strategy.

Ever hear of Geoff Shackleford?  

There have been those (including Geoff) who have consistently challenged and criticized the clubs for changing their courses to try to remain relevant with the modern equipment. Look at the history of threads regarding Augusta, Merion, Riviera, and The Old Course, for examples.  One of the shortcomings of this approach is that it is immediately and inevitably countered by those who say that these clubs can do whatever they want with their courses. They have a point.  

Also, not many who are involved in the game are willing to stand up and badmouth these prestigious old clubs --with the possible exception of Augusta, where perhaps people feel that no amount of sucking up is going to gain them access.  It is considered bad form. Take a look at how quickly you revised your position on this exact issue as it applies to Merion and Pine Valley.   I don't blame you, but if we constantly find reasons to except the most visible examples from criticism, then I'd say that the "blaming the clubs" doesn't stand much of a chance.  

So, in the end, I do think that the "blaming the clubs" approach has been tried by some, but for the most part it hasn't gotten far because not many feel comfortable throwing stones at these clubs, and not many in a position to do so are willing to so do because they feel it will jeopardize their relationships (or potential relationships) with the clubs. I don't think this will change.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for what type of changes to make.  If it is too difficult for the USGA to measure decay rate of spin that may not be a suitable method.  I was just throwing that out there as something that might directly attack the problem, but it may not be so easy to implement.  There might be other ways to accomplish something somewhat similar.  One of the things I've advocated for some time was that balls could only have a cover and a core, there couldn't be multiple layers that attempt to change the spin characteristics between shorter and longer shots.  I wonder how the spin decay of a ball that's of pretty much uniform density compares to the modern ball?  If the modern ball is heavier on the inside, as I suspect it may be, that simple rule may go a long way towards addressing the issues.  But I have no data to back this up at this time, it is just a "hunch".  I wish I could see some data on the density of the various layers in the Pro V1 and especially V1x (since it has a cover and three inner layers, I suspect it is gaming things more than the V1 and that accounts for its significant distance benefit at very high swing speeds)

I will say that since we've dug into the technical details far more deeply than any such thread in the past (at least that I've been involved in) I wish the USGA would be more forthcoming in what they've learned.  They've clearly studied this, and probably have some incredible data, but they're keeping it to themselves (or maybe sharing it only with equipment makers)  Why is that?  I think they should make their data public and allow more informed debate.

Jim,

You asked for questions for Tom Paul to put the the USGA.
Have they measured downrange spin degradation?
If so, have they determined how much a factor it is in the distance the modern ball flies compared to the balata balls?
For that matter, can they measure spin degradation in a wind tunnel?
Will the two piece balls that Doug proposes make spin degradation fairly constant across all balls.
To return performance to that of the old balata balls would balls have to be required to have a heavier cover than interior?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If driving distance had remained static for the last 30 years, I totally agree with those who say that classic courses would still see a lot of tinkering.  It has always happened in the past, whether or not distance was increasing.  However, without equipment-related distance gains I don't think such tinkering would have included lengthening holes, moving bunkers around to better challenge longer hitters, etc.

Doug,

Agreed, "tinkering" was going on before the quantum leap in distance.

Maybe someone like Patrick who is "in the know" about such things can comment on this next question - when classic clubs undertake changes is the initial motivation that begins the process primarily to add length/challenge, or were these projects destined to happen anyway because they started with "let's move this greenside bunker on #14 and move the fairway on #5 10 yards to the left"?  

There's no one answer.
Different clubs are motivated to make changes for a great variety of reasons.
Many have been a reaction to increased length for decades.
But, others have a very diverse genesis.
It runs the gamut from the wife of a President objecting to a feature to members drafting a petition for an unpopular feature.
Sometimes a PGA/Professional, exceptional golfer or guest architect makes a suggestion and that sets off the quest for change.
Other times it's a "copy cat" issue, where members see what another club has done.
Other than reacting to distance, there's no set pattern that's responsible for "tweaking"

I guess I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this is a "Pandora's Box" sort of situation - once the leadership decides to make changes to increase length/challenge, they open the door to other changes in a quid pro quo horse-trading scenario if the leadership has multiple factions.

My overriding concern has always been the "domino" effect, where one change begets others.
Politics is often responsible.
Faction "A" gets in and makes changes.
Then, ,Faction "B" gets in and either undoes the changes, makes changes of their own, or a combination of both.

I tend to resist change, even if it is for the better, because of the precedent it sets

[JESII]

David,

Nobody has actually taken the position of "blame the clubs...". It's not been a failed strategy, it's simply not been a strategy.

Ever hear of Geoff Shackleford?  

I have. I thought his job was to bash every move the USGA now that he's an industry guy.

Anyway, perhaps you can give specific details on his efforts to convince clubs they don't need to expand their course. Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Re down range spin, it does raise the more general question of how different balls perform aerodynamically after launch and how that affects distance.  I got thinking of this after using the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer.  In that you enter the launch parameters it calculates a trajectory.  There is no consideration of the properties of the ball.  Does that suggest that there is no or minimal distance impact from the construction of the ball - dimples and cover material?

The best I could find in a short search is that dimple design and depth could make up to a 9 yard difference in one test.  Certainlt the ball manufacturers spend a lot of time and money researching dimples - deep dimples, hex dimples, double dimples, oval dimples, different numbers of dimples, different patterns, etc.  From the results marketed I'd draw the conclusion that they have minimal impact (<10 yards) as no ball has be seen to get ahead of the distance field based on it's cover or dimple design as far as I know.

For the mathematically and scientifically inclined here is a link to Science and Golf IV.  Read chapters 29 and 30 or any of the others.  It convinces me that our understanding of how the ball is hit , launched and flies is to those who study these things as our golf games are to the PGA Tour - nowhere close to the same.

I have learned a lot in this thread.  There's much more to go though.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bmVk8BkOLH4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[DMoriarty]

Jim,   Originally, you wrote that no one has tried blaming the clubs. Geoff has written extensively (including a book) on the topic and he hasn't shied from blaming the clubs.  Surely that counts toward trying to convince the clubs, doesn't it?   Others have "blamed the clubs" as well.    

Why don't you lead the contingent that tries to tell these old clubs what they should and should not do with their courses?  Probably best if you start with the highest profile courses in your area, so they can lead by example.  How about Merion and Pine Valley?  Somehow I doubt they would listen to me, but maybe you can convince them that messing with the architecture for the sake of trying to keep up with the top golfers is a fool's game.  

As for others who have tried to convince clubs/owners not to chase the technology, Tom Doak has mentioned a number of times that the client at Streamsong originally wanted those courses to be 7500 yards each, but that the architects talked him down to a bit under 7200 yards.  I guess you could consider that a victory of sorts for your approach, although 7200 yards is a ways off of what Doak has said he prefers.  

__________________________

Thanks for the link, Bryan.

[JESII]

David,

I'm not familiar with Shackelford's book, can you tell us how it specifically points to the clubs making poor decisions regarding their courses? I'm sure there are examples, I just don't know of them.

The Streamsong story is a huge win. That's what needs to be done and spoken about in my opinion. I hadn't heard that before.

Merion hosted the US Open. My whole point is that unless the Tour is coming to your course why would you modify it as though they were? That said, I wouldn't vote to host a US Open or a Tour event if I were a member of a club considering it.

Pine Valley added a handful of back tees about 10 years ago to return drivers to the top player's (that play there) hands. Others may have better intel, but I believe this was the first significant lengthening since the course was built. Maybe they added a few tees for the Walker Cup.

Regardless, in your argument to roll back the ball for architectural preservation, both Merion and Pine Valley have wonderful architecture with very little changed since their design, including Wilson and Flynn's work through the early 20's, other than a handful of US Open tees at Merion hemmed into very tight spots.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I'm not going to get into a discussion of any of Geoff's books or writing, especially given that you obviously (from your post above) have issues with him that would make any such discussion unproductive.  If you are curious go ahead and read it for yourself. 

My point was more general. There has been plenty of discussion about courses making poor decisions aimed at trying to keep up with the pro game. Even leaving Merion out of it, look back at old threads regarding Riviera, Augusta, and TOC for just a few examples.

The practical problem with your approach is that if you keep making excuses and exceptions for courses like Merion then you probably aren't going to have much luck when trying to convince clubs that try and compare themselves to courses like Merion. 

As for Streamsong, I agree that 7200 sounds a lot better than 7500.  But 7200 is still pretty damn long, isn't it? 

[JESII]

David,

Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation is about equipment and equipment regulations. The reason it's a worthwhile discussion is that people think great architecture is being ruined or the game is becoming too big which leads to too expensive and time consuming for people to play. Some people think both are major issues. I agree with both of those concerns but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk, to save the game. You're misguided.

You brought Shackelford into this, I didn't. Happy to let you take him out of it. Which book should I read?

[Garland Bayley]

I believe David is referring to

The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost its Way and How to Get it Back