[Paul Gray]

Duncan,

Henry Cotton has gone down as a famous name in history. With the greatest of respect to the +4 guy at your club, I doubt he will be so widely known after death.

But the point isn't that he can shoot 63, it's that he can do so without having to interact with many of the design features which are supposedly there to make him think. So the longest hitters, rather than the most skilful, immediately have an advantage over those with a deft touch. Do we really want the game to look like that? If we do, let's forget about courses as having any role in competitive sport and just hold a four day long driving contest every week.

[Duncan Cheslett]

But the percentage of golfers who are hitting the ball these prodigious distances is tiny. Most players, even with the advantages of modern ball and club technology, are not hitting the ball much further or better than their predecessors were 40 or 50 years ago. This leads me to suspect that the difference at the top level is actually largely one of better technique, training, and a fundementally superior understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing.

The likes of Messrs Palmer and Nicklaus are unlikely ever to admit that though; it's much easier to call for the ball to be pegged back...


And anyway, what difference does actually make to the average club golfer if a couple of guys can hit the ball 350 yards? The advantage it gives them will be reflected in their handicap, and so therefore it is no advantage.

[Paul Gray]

Duncan,

I do agree regarding physical training, better understand of swing dynamics etc, no question about that. I've made this point before but people aren't too happy to accept that their heroes from a former era weren't necessarily very healthy on a diet of steak and marlboro. 

My point remains however that we have to fundamentally question what we regard as the best. Tennis is often used as an example and fairly so because we have to ask whether we really want the golf equivalent to the guy that serves at incredible speed to be able to blow away the guy with the skilful touch.

It's true that the handicap system equalises scoring but it doesn't make qualitative adjustments. If you end up with a situation whereby the guys wit the lowest handicaps aren't necessarily the best golfers you have a fundamental problem in the game, regardless of whether it's hackers at club level or the very best in the world.

[Brent Hutto]

But the point isn't that he can shoot 63, it's that he can do so without having to interact with many of the design features which are supposedly there to make him think.

The phrase "make him think" is the key. Golfers don't "think" in the sense you're talking about. Period. It's not how the game is played.

If there's a "feature" (which usually means a bunker in conversations on this forum) that a player has to play away from they will. If they can comfortably carry it, they will. The number of people I've met OUTSIDE OF THIS FORUM who have the least interest in tacking their to and fro around a golf course "interacting" with supposed strategic "features" approaches zero.

When clubs lengthen their courses because elite players hit it longer nowadays the "thinking" goes no farther than a) make them hit long clubs into greens, b) move tall grass or bunkers into the potential landing zone of their tee shots and c) make the course harder so scores will be higher. That's as strategic as any non-beard-puller is "thinking" when they rejigger their course. And that matches the way golfer "think" about playing the course.

You're pursuing an obsession in this roll-back blather with no constituency among everyday golfers and with the aim of forcing elite players to "think" in a way they're not going to no matter how long or short the course or how much you shorten the flight of their golf ball. If you make Phil Mickelson play a ball with with he absolutely can not carry a certain "feature" then he aim away from it or he'll hit an iron off the tee to stay short of it. There's no subtlety to it, it's not a "thinking" exercise for anyone but cranks.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,

Can you expand on this pressure you feel your club is under to lengthen its course?

THis is the area I don't quite understand in this. Are there member candidates that have actually chosen another club because yours was not challenging enough? Or is it internal pressure from members wanting to have the toughest course around?

It is internal.

[Garland Bayley]

490 yard par 4  reduced to driver and wedge. Time to bring golf ball back to reality.

Sam Snead was doing this 60 + years ago. The difference being that par fours were 350 yards long and he was putting for eagle.

[jeffwarne]

But the point isn't that he can shoot 63, it's that he can do so without having to interact with many of the design features which are supposedly there to make him think.

 "think" in a way they're not going to no matter how long or short the course or how much you shorten the flight of their golf ball. If you make Phil Mickelson play a ball with with he absolutely can not carry a certain "feature" then he aim away from it or he'll hit an iron off the tee to stay short of it. There's no subtlety to it, it's not a "thinking" exercise for anyone but cranks.

Why would this not be thinking?

[archie_struthers]

 


It's a little strange when you can hit it further at 58 and chubby than when you were 24 and fit. . The ball should be reined in for sure . However , the governing bodies no,doubt remember the Ping lawsuit quite vividly !

[Brent Hutto]

But the point isn't that he can shoot 63, it's that he can do so without having to interact with many of the design features which are supposedly there to make him think.

 "think" in a way they're not going to no matter how long or short the course or how much you shorten the flight of their golf ball. If you make Phil Mickelson play a ball with with he absolutely can not carry a certain "feature" then he aim away from it or he'll hit an iron off the tee to stay short of it. There's no subtlety to it, it's not a "thinking" exercise for anyone but cranks.

Why would this not be thinking?

It's "thinking" in the same sense as arriving at a Par 3 and saying "It's 183 to the hole, I think I'll hit a 6-iron". Making them use a shorter ball so they can't carry fairway bunkers with their driver is no more strategic, insightful or clever than the standard expedient of moving the fairway bunkers into their landing zone or building longer tees. It's still a simplistic approach of making them play short or away from hazards.

Treating that as some sort of subtle strategic "thinking" is giving it way too much credit. You're just moving stuff around to put it in the way of the players. Giving them a shorter ball is no more subtle than building newer or deeper bunkers or growing thicker rough. There's nothing in the world wrong with a course full of "features" that the strongest players need not "interface" with.

In 1980 Jack Nicklaus didn't need to "interface" with lots of stuff that weaker players found difficult to deal with. Now elite players are not needing to "interface" with stuff that affected Nicklaus. So what.

[jeffwarne]

It's a little strange when you can hit it further at 58 and chubby than when you were 24 and fit. . The ball should be reined in for sure . However , the governing bodies no,doubt remember the Ping lawsuit quite vividly !

wait till the naysaters tell you how "athletic" the younger players are though.
I'm hitting it farther than ever at 51-guess Budweiser, GCA posting, and couchtime is healthy and fitness inducing.
always cracks me up when the players who would lose 2 yards in a rollback end up walking an extra 50 due to course adjustments, but then declare that it's the reaction to the ball that is the problem.
Well no shit Sherlock, but look around at every event and every course that hosts any event and tell me it hasn't gotten longer.
There'd be no "reaction" if the ball and clubs weren't out of control.
really enjoying changing my 30 year old wedges because of illegal grooves though, and watching friends abandon the long putter-but wait, have you tried the newest Taylormade Slider because that's A-OK with the USGA and it goes 5 yards farther than the model you bought last month

[BCowan]

 ''rollback end up walking an extra 50 due to course adjustments''

I need that extra exercise.  I don't need that extra 50 yards watered and applicated either 

[archie_struthers]

 


Jeff , that was really good !   Keep the rolling rocks flowing here !

Reminds me of the  Olympic bit on SNL when a fat John Belushi won multiple events . Attributed his success to "little chocolate doughnuts"

[Patrick_Mucci]

But the percentage of golfers who are hitting the ball these prodigious distances is tiny.

Duncan,

That's just not true.
More and more golfers are hitting the ball incredible distances.
From 14 year olds to 60 year olds

Most players, even with the advantages of modern ball and club technology, are not hitting the ball much further or better than their predecessors were 40 or 50 years ago.

That's absurd.
Most players are hitting the ball significantly longer than they were 40 and 50 years ago, and I'm qualified to make that statement as I was playing competitive golf 40 and 50 years ago.

There were no 17/18 year old high school kids carrying their drives 274+ uphill, 40 and 50 years ago.
No 60 year olds hitting it 300 like my friend LJ, and that's after a Sextuple bypass

This leads me to suspect that the difference at the top level is actually largely one of better technique, training, and a fundementally superior understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing.

Baloney

The likes of Messrs Palmer and Nicklaus are unlikely ever to admit that though; it's much easier to call for the ball to be pegged back...

It's called "common sense"

And anyway, what difference does actually make to the average club golfer if a couple of guys can hit the ball 350 yards?
The advantage it gives them will be reflected in their handicap, and so therefore it is no advantage.

You just "don't get it"

[Duncan Cheslett]

OK Pat, so you're right and I'm wrong.

Every golfer is benifiting from the extra distance available to him (or her) from the advances in club and ball technology. They are hitting the ball better and further than they ever have done, and that feels great. More importantly, they've got used to it.

So the suggestion is, because the tour pros and some elite amateurs are hitting it too far, that everyone should have their distance reduced via a wind-back in the ball.

Do you honestly think that club golfers are willingly going to sacrifice the benefits technology has brought them just because of the performance of some guys they never play with?

I agree with the sentiments, but it just ain't going to happen.

[Jon Wiggett]

Instead of shortening the ball maybe the answer should be to penalise the long drive through things such as fairways being cut a little higher after 270 yards making it harder to spin the ball and so also harder to control. Or rumpled fairways creating uneven lies, etc.....

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK Pat, so you're right and I'm wrong.

Every golfer is benifiting from the extra distance available to him (or her) from the advances in club and ball technology. They are hitting the ball better and further than they ever have done, and that feels great. More importantly, they've got used to it.

So the suggestion is, because the tour pros and some elite amateurs are hitting it too far, that everyone should have their distance reduced via a wind-back in the ball.

It's not confined to those two groups.
I play at a fairly long Ross course and I'm amazed at how far the cross section of members hit the ball.
So much so that some of the features, the bunkers in particular, are vestigial in terms of their ability to interface with the golfer.

Last night I played nine holes with my 15 year old son.
On the first hole the flag was back left.
The only way you can get to that location easily is from the right side of the fairway.
But, there's a nasty bunker on the right flank (the old risk/reward)
My son flew that bunker by a good 30 yards, making it irrelevant, obsolete.
My son is not as long as his upperclass teammate.
That bunker is irrelevant to everyone on his team unless they go back to the new championship tee.
Ergo lengthening the course.
Ergo more maintenance.
Ergo more cost
Ergo higher dues
Ergo less attractive, less popular.
Surely you see the connections

Do you honestly think that club golfers are willingly going to sacrifice the benefits technology has brought them just because of the performance of some guys they never play with?

No, I agree that they wouldn't greet the change with open arms

I agree with the sentiments, but it just ain't going to happen.

It won't happen unless there's more understanding of cause and effect and support from architects, superintendents and the ruling bodies at every level.

[jeffwarne]

OK Pat, so you're right and I'm wrong.

Every golfer is benifiting from the extra distance available to him (or her) from the advances in club and ball technology. They are hitting the ball better and further than they ever have done, and that feels great. More importantly, they've got used to it.

So the suggestion is, because the tour pros and some elite amateurs are hitting it too far, that everyone should have their distance reduced via a wind-back in the ball.

It's not confined to those two groups.
I play at a fairly long Ross course and I'm amazed at how far the cross section of members hit the ball.
So much so that some of the features, the bunkers in particular, are vestigial in terms of their ability to interface with the golfer.

Last night I played nine holes with my 15 year old son.
On the first hole the flag was back left.
The only way you can get to that location easily is from the right side of the fairway.
But, there's a nasty bunker on the right flank (the old risk/reward)
My son flew that bunker by a good 30 yards, making it irrelevant, obsolete.
My son is not as long as his upperclass teammate.
That bunker is irrelevant to everyone on his team unless they go back to the new championship tee.
Ergo lengthening the course.
Ergo more maintenance.
Ergo more cost
Ergo higher dues
Ergo less attractive, less popular.
Surely you see the connections

Do you honestly think that club golfers are willingly going to sacrifice the benefits technology has brought them just because of the performance of some guys they never play with?

No, I agree that they wouldn't greet the change with open arms

I agree with the sentiments, but it just ain't going to happen.

It won't happen unless there's more understanding of cause and effect and support from architects, superintendents and the ruling bodies at every level.

Spot on Pat,
and as long as we have otherwise educated and informed GCA posters who seemingly understand architecture and it's role in making golf more enjoyable naysaying a rollback, they are right, it isn't going to happen.

Well shame on them for clinging to their 3 precious yards while the game, the cameraderie, and the enjoyment of it suffers.
See tennis.

It amazes me how many solutions (length and its affect on the freaking walk, new bunkers,narrow fairways,high rough) are proposed and unfortunately implemented as a "reaction", then people say there'd be no problem if there were no "reaction"
Well if i get bullied at school. I guess there's no problem if I don't "react"

Why not just fix the problem since there IS always going to be a reaction.

Or go back to sticking your heads in the sand and worry about how a player uses his putter because it "just doesn't look right".

I'm not talking my own book as I don't use a long putter and God knows I'm at the age where I need every yard I can get and that will only get worse in a few short years. I'd like to think I care about growing enjoyment and participation in the game, not growing the SIZE of the playing field, the exact OPPOSITE of sustainability.

[BCowan]

Your over exaggerating the costs of maintaining a course at 7200 yards or whatever arbitrary number.  you are assuming the grass is watered/applicated from the 6500 yd tee to the 7200 yd tee.  building new tees in house is a drop in the bucket compared to the waste most private clubhouses have.  Pat, why isn't your son's teammates playing the tips? 

[JESII]

Jeff,

In all the tens of thousands of rounds played on courses you've worked at, how many people come off complaining about lost camraderie because of how far the ball flies?

Also, how many people have seen a legitimate 350 yard (unassisted) drive? I'll take the under on 10.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Warne:

It is surprising that so many on this Board, supposedly knowledgeable people about golf architecture, support the golf technology arms race.

I guess we need an 8,000 yard US Open course for people to finally get it.

[BCowan]

''support the golf technology arms race''
+1  

''Green Speeds Arms Race''
-1   (not through coercion)

Does MLB play ball with metal bats? 

[BHoover]

Jeff Warne:

It is surprising that so many on this Board, supposedly knowledgeable people about golf architecture, support the golf technology arms race.

I'll be hoping to break the 300-yard mark with my SLDR tomorrow.

[Brent Hutto]

Tim,

I neither support the "arms race" nor worry about it at all. There is a near-zero chance of any significant rollback in USGA golf ball specifications and if such a rollback were to take place (either by USGA or by some entity adopting a "tournament ball") there is an absolutely zero chance that it will lead to shorter golf courses being built or existing courses ceasing to be lengthened/toughened.

You guys choose to believe in a magic bullet that will undo the past 20 years of changes in the game at the stroke of a pen. Pure Utopian wishful thinking. Any club that lengthens their classic course by 250 yards next year will do so whether Tour players are hitting a Pro V1 or some rolled back ball that flies 20% shorter. To believe otherwise is ludicrous.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

In all the tens of thousands of rounds played on courses you've worked at, how many people come off complaining about lost camraderie because of how far the ball flies?

Also, how many people have seen a legitimate 350 yard (unassisted) drive? I'll take the under on 10.

Jim,
I am a member at Southampton Golf Club built in 1925 when a good drive went 225 yards.
Almost all play the back tees at 6300, and playing a tournament is no problem there as it's quite easy to play the same tees for everyone.

At the Bridge circa 2001, there are the usual #'s of tees you see at a modern course.
the biggest complaint/challenge is what tees to play for a Member-Guest.
Everybody has a handicap based of a different set of tees and if I use a common tee, no one is happy.
If I separate them and let them play their own tees with the bullshit handicap adjustments that often amount to nothing on paper, no one is happy because they are either walking to different tees,  or don't like the adjustments and simply play the shorter tees etc....

So I guess the logical extension of those two examples is that all new courses should be built at 6300, but they're not, hence the spread out cameraderie dilemna

people playing different tees can be ego deflating or worse, a player may play them to fit in or maintain cameraderie-but ruin his own game.
There's no doubt in my mind different tees by players in the same group can create cameraderie issues-so to answer your question-quite frequently

So I see it quite frequently at Modern courses I"ve worked at The Bridge, Atlantic, and at Long Cove-and I'm told it's even worse at long Cove now as they've added another set of Tiger tees.

I will say in our renovation work at the Bridge the total yardage has actually gone down slightly , and the walking yardage has gone down by 700 vertical feet and overall walk by roughly 1000 yards.

If I'm in the minority on this site, no doubt golf WRX and mainstream golf disagrees with me.
no worries
 

[Bill Brightly]

OK Pat, so you're right and I'm wrong.

Every golfer is benifiting from the extra distance available to him (or her) from the advances in club and ball technology. They are hitting the ball better and further than they ever have done, and that feels great. More importantly, they've got used to it.

So the suggestion is, because the tour pros and some elite amateurs are hitting it too far, that everyone should have their distance reduced via a wind-back in the ball.

It's not confined to those two groups.
I play at a fairly long Ross course and I'm amazed at how far the cross section of members hit the ball.
So much so that some of the features, the bunkers in particular, are vestigial in terms of their ability to interface with the golfer.

Last night I played nine holes with my 15 year old son.
On the first hole the flag was back left.
The only way you can get to that location easily is from the right side of the fairway.
But, there's a nasty bunker on the right flank (the old risk/reward)
My son flew that bunker by a good 30 yards, making it irrelevant, obsolete.
My son is not as long as his upperclass teammate.
That bunker is irrelevant to everyone on his team unless they go back to the new championship tee.
Ergo lengthening the course.
Ergo more maintenance.
Ergo more cost
Ergo higher dues
Ergo less attractive, less popular.
Surely you see the connections

Do you honestly think that club golfers are willingly going to sacrifice the benefits technology has brought them just because of the performance of some guys they never play with?

No, I agree that they wouldn't greet the change with open arms

I agree with the sentiments, but it just ain't going to happen.

It won't happen unless there's more understanding of cause and effect and support from architects, superintendents and the ruling bodies at every level.

Here is the hole that Pat is describing. It happens to be one of the best opening holes I have ever played, requiring great strategy and accuracy. But if you can fly the right bunker, the hole is not that special, just another driver-wedge hole to an interesting green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()