[JESII]

Really?


What would be more interesting Craig?

[Garland Bayley]

I can't think of too many things worse than week in and week out tournaments with winning scores of -15 to -25.  That is a big turn off.  BORING!!!!

I could care less what the scores are. Tournaments are dramas. If the drama ends at +5 or -20, it doesn't matter. It still has subplots, high points, and a climax. Even has heroes and villains.

[George Pazin]

As always, an interesting take by Barney.


What other sports are playing defense by altering the playing fields?


Off the top of my head, not football (either kind, American or international aka soccer), not baseball, not basketball. Hockey? Haven't actually looked into it, but the Olympic rink looks bigger than the NHL rink.


Tennis? Polo? Swimming pools? Archery ranges? Polo? Cricket? Rugby? Squash? Field hockey?


Anything?

[JMEvensky]

I agree that if sufficiently lengthened, the classics can restore the need to hit long irons.  But they do so at significant expense and often lose some of the strategic values inherent in the old design.  What is gained?  I suppose some increase in distance for the recreational player.  But in what other sport do we think it makes sense to alter the fields of play at great expense simply to accommodate changes in equipment technology that do little to make the game more interesting or enjoyable.  I understand the appeal of the change from the guttie to the Haskell which also led to changes.  I don't now.  But again, I don't expect any significant changes.

I agree with your point that technology has done little to make the game more interesting or enjoyable. I'd bet a majority of those posting in this thread agree. But how do we make the argument that golf was "better" without sounding like old farts reminiscing about the halcyon days? That seems to be an almost insurmountable hurdle.


The PGAT and PGA are opposed to any change as are the manufacturers (probably not a coincidence). The USGA and R&A have historically been paper tigers--they don't seem to want a fight, legal or otherwise. And younger players have been led to believe that length is the most important skill.


Who has the standing to lead the revolt? Like you, I'm betting the under on any change.

[John Kavanaugh]

Do you think Riviera is set up well for the 99.9% that play the course? The fairways are really narrow (look at the 1st fairway) and the greens are too fast for the slopes on them. Do you think the superintendent at Riviera can tell members and guests, the greens run at 13 for the tournament but they are going to be 9 for the club championship and member guest?

I have played Riviera from both the tournament tees and the members tees. From the members tees Riviera is one of the great joys in golf. The fairways are perfectly fair and the rough never all so long. The Superintendent not only can have the greens at proper speeds for the members and their guests, he can put them on temporary greens if he feels fit.


I would love for you to say how the PGA Tour has been bad for Riviera and its membership. There is a reason it is different than LACC.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


I believe it was George Mikan that caused the "paint" in basketball to be greatly widened. It's a trend that continues in the international game. As basketball players have gotten larger and more athletic many changes have been made to open up the court. Not all so different than moving a golf tee back a few yards.

[Kalen Braley]

George,


There are examples of "defensive" changes in other sports.


Various basketball groups, NCAA, NBA, FIBA have constantly tinkered with the 3 point line distance, mostly moving it further out.
Swimming banned new full body suits that were causing records to fall left and right.
Baseball tinkered with the ball and got serious about drug testing which reduced home runs.
NASCAR is constantly tweaking its rules to keep speeds at bay.
MMA continues to add new rules disallowing certain types of strikes making the game less offensive.


All this off the top of my head.    


Golf would certainly not be alone in implementing defensive type changes.


P.S.  Football is the only sport I can think of that has actively changed its rules in the last few years to make it a more offensive and high scoring game, which in my opinion is a mistake in how they've done it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That's where we disagree. Courses are being changed, because they need players to stay solvent. If you cannot attract the long hitters to play your course, you are giving up a part of the market that you used to have.

A tiny part of the market. 6500 yards is probably good for 95% of the world's golfers. Do you disagree? You can make plenty of money by catering to 95% of a huge market of people who spend a good amount of money.

Streamsong and Bandon Dunes don't cater to the super long hitters. Last I checked they're doing okay, no?

Now, a full everything on 91 acres, well, that's a different thing altogether. It's also pretty darn unique, too, and I suspect you'd admit that as well.

I agree with your point that technology has done little to make the game more interesting or enjoyable. I'd bet a majority of those posting in this thread agree.

I don't agree. For the vast majority of golfers who don't break 85, I think they find it much more fun to hit a huge headed driver or a hybrid instead of a tiny persimmon driver or a 2-iron.

Golf is still hard. The hole is still only 4.25" wide and it's still 300+ yards away with all sorts of interesting stuff in between… but technology has made golf a little bit easier and a little more enjoyable.

I also think they enjoy playing the same stuff (generally speaking) as the pros. A lot of people who shouldn't have played balata still played them back in the 90s, and those who didn't often wished they could except for the fact that their balatas would only last a hole or two before it had a huge smiley in it.

[Eric LeFante]

Do you think Riviera is set up well for the 99.9% that play the course? The fairways are really narrow (look at the 1st fairway) and the greens are too fast for the slopes on them. Do you think the superintendent at Riviera can tell members and guests, the greens run at 13 for the tournament but they are going to be 9 for the club championship and member guest?

I have played Riviera from both the tournament tees and the members tees. From the members tees Riviera is one of the great joys in golf. The fairways are perfectly fair and the rough never all so long. The Superintendent not only can have the greens at proper speeds for the members and their guests, he can put them on temporary greens if he feels fit.


I would love for you to say how the PGA Tour has been bad for Riviera and its membership. There is a reason it is different than LACC.

Thanks for the insight John

[JMEvensky]

Erik B., I said "a majority of those posting in this thread" would agree. You are undoubtedly correct that most high handicaps prefer to play with all the technology they can buy.


I agree that technology has most likely made the game more enjoyable for them. I disagree it has made the game easier. Ultimately, golf is a game of scoring. My experience has been those guys who shot 85 with persimmon and balata are still shooting 85 with all the new technology.

[Garland Bayley]

... For the vast majority of golfers who don't break 85, I think they find it much more fun to hit a huge headed driver or a hybrid instead of a tiny persimmon driver or a 2-iron.
...

You can think all you want. It won't make it so. You opinion is certainly not verified by the drop in play since the advent of the huge headed driver.

Golf is a game where you try to get the ball in the hole in fewer strokes that your opponent does. That is where the fun comes from. It was fun in the 1600s when it began. It is still fun today. It would seem fun is not derived from equipment, but perhaps pocketbook pain is derived from equipment.

Do pickup basketball players have more fun playing in the driveway or in the Los Angeles Forum? I doubt it makes any difference to true basketball players.

[Garland Bayley]

That's where we disagree. Courses are being changed, because they need players to stay solvent. If you cannot attract the long hitters to play your course, you are giving up a part of the market that you used to have.

A tiny part of the market. 6500 yards is probably good for 95% of the world's golfers. Do you disagree? You can make plenty of money by catering to 95% of a huge market of people who spend a good amount of money.

Streamsong and Bandon Dunes don't cater to the super long hitters. Last I checked they're doing okay, no?

Now, a full everything on 91 acres, well, that's a different thing altogether. It's also pretty darn unique, too, and I suspect you'd admit that as well.

Guess you didn't get the significance of "to stay solvent".

Bandon funded by a rich person, and Streamsong funded by a big company are not pertinent to the discussion.

There are lots of good courses out there that have been let down by the failure to keep equipment under control.
They search for additional yards wherever they can. They create crossover holes, they plant tree obstacles, etc.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You can think all you want. It won't make it so. You opinion is certainly not verified by the drop in play since the advent of the huge headed driver.

Hitting a bigger headed driver or a hybrid in the air is more fun than struggling to get a tiny persimmon driver or a 2-iron airborne or anywhere near your target. I don't think that's a stretch.

You're being at least a little bit ridiculous if you think that equipment can't help make the game more fun for a large chunk of golfers, and that there are other reasons why participation declined slightly.

Golf is a game where you try to get the ball in the hole in fewer strokes that your opponent does. That is where the fun comes from. It was fun in the 1600s when it began. It is still fun today. It would seem fun is not derived from equipment, but perhaps pocketbook pain is derived from equipment.

Hitting the ball in the air is more fun than not, and modern equipment helps golfers succeed at getting the ball in the air and forward better than equipment from even the early 90s.

Do pickup basketball players have more fun playing in the driveway or in the Los Angeles Forum? I doubt it makes any difference to true basketball players.

I'd bet it does. I play rec league hockey, and we have more fun playing at the Civic Arena than we do at one of the other local rinks. The ice is better. The benches are better. The lighting is better. And it feels more "big time."

Guess you didn't get the significance of "to stay solvent".

I didn't miss it. There are plenty of courses that are "solvent" while catering to 95% of the golf market.

[Garland Bayley]

You can think all you want. It won't make it so. You opinion is certainly not verified by the drop in play since the advent of the huge headed driver.

Hitting a bigger headed driver or a hybrid in the air is more fun than struggling to get a tiny persimmon driver or a 2-iron airborne or anywhere near your target. I don't think that's a stretch.

You're being at least a little bit ridiculous if you think that equipment can't help make the game more fun for a large chunk of golfers, and that there are other reasons why participation declined slightly.

Golf is a game where you try to get the ball in the hole in fewer strokes that your opponent does. That is where the fun comes from. It was fun in the 1600s when it began. It is still fun today. It would seem fun is not derived from equipment, but perhaps pocketbook pain is derived from equipment.

Hitting the ball in the air is more fun than not, and modern equipment helps golfers succeed at getting the ball in the air and forward better than equipment from even the early 90s.

...

The "least a little bit ridiculous" is your brainwashing by the equipment companies. Players that couldn't hit the 2 iron left it at home or in the bag and didn't worry about it, they were having fun playing golf. Doesn't matter what the size of the driver is, you still get to set the ball on the tee and get it airborne. The fact that the driver head was smaller probably improved your swing as you weren't so emboldened to go all out at the ball. Last I played with my persimmon driver, I hit it more consistently than I did my VW bug on a stick.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Do pickup basketball players have more fun playing in the driveway or in the Los Angeles Forum? I doubt it makes any difference to true basketball players.

I'd bet it does. I play rec league hockey, and we have more fun playing at the Civic Arena than we do at one of the other local rinks. The ice is better. The benches are better. The lighting is better. And it feels more "big time."

...

I get it. If you can't do, you teach.

You dwell on experience, not competition. Get the ball in the air. Nicer benches. Need a "big time" feel.

IMO golf needs more competitors and fewer experiencers.

You need to sell clubs less, and golf more.

[jeffwarne]

IMO golf needs more competitors and fewer experiencers.

Bravo.


The "benches are better"
That would most definitely one in the latter and not the former category....

[Tim Martin]

IMO golf needs more competitors and fewer experiencers.

Bravo.

+1

[Craig Sweet]

Yeah...lots of drama in watching a skinny guy knock it 340 yards, hit a 160 yard wedge to within 10 feet and make a birdie...The ONLY drama is the sudden death playoff.  Maybe that's the answer? Make the tournament like a local club derby.  Everyone drives off on tee #1 at the same time and plays the hole.. the low scores keep going...high scores are done...play until there is only one golfer left.


 The PGA tour is losing people because there are very view tournaments/courses that challenge these guys.  And, seriously Garland, I can't believe you enjoy this crap kind of golf that totally over rides any design concepts and turns a golf course into a pitch and putt contest.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't watch much golf other than The Open Championship.

[Sean_A]

  As I said earlier, Turnberry and Portrush were recently altered and yardage was not the primary reason for the work.  The folks in power thought better courses could be created...and a great many people think this was achieved.   

Ciao

Sean,
courses will always be altered-for better or worse.

Unfortunately the new target is greens.
heard a former Tour player talking today on Siriusxm about how they "had to change the greens at Innsbruch because they would be unfair at 12 and they had to run them at 12 so they were tough enough"
huh?

I think your response is exactly what I am talking about...memberships and owners are going to what they want.  To me, flattening greens or creating flatter greens due to tech advances is far more worrying than how far pros hit the ball.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Jeff

  ...As I said earlier, Turnberry and Portrush were recently altered and yardage was not the primary reason for the work.  The folks in power thought better courses could be created...and a great many people think this was achieved.   

Ciao

SA,

With regards to "better" and it's "achievement"...is that better IN LIGHT of the new conditions?

...better than "how it played" in some former year or better than it "has been playing" in the last 15-20?

In either case, I think the manner in which you cast the statement supports the alarums being sounded here, and the calls for a rollback/bifurcation of (or between) tournament/championship/professional golf and commoners who the manufacturers can peddle the hottest stuff.

Unless you are saying there was some non-distance defect(s) in Turnberry and Portrush that have long existed and is now being solved... but I don't think that is what has happened...I think the distance the ball travels was thought to minimize the challenge that such courses presents to championship golf...a challenge/stimulant that most thought was well intact for all the decades before the millennium...but now is not good enough because the ball flies farther...

cheers   vk

VK

I said earlier, I don't believe distance was the primary reason for changes at either course and at least in the case of Portrush the two new holes was a net loss of yards.  I haven't looked at the Turnberry case in depth because regardless of yardage I think the changes make absolute sense.  One can always argue there are non-distance defects in golf courses.  For sure...I never believed Turnberry was a good as it could be and on paper at least...the Trumped up version looks to be an improvement. I am more skeptical about Portrush.  Yes, I do think the two new holes are likely better than the old 17 & 18 (even though I thought 18 was solid), however, I am not convinced it was worth the loss of two wonderful original Colt holes on the Valley Links. 

Ciao

[Sean_A]

I agree that if sufficiently lengthened, the classics can restore the need to hit long irons.  But they do so at significant expense and often lose some of the strategic values inherent in the old design.  What is gained?  I suppose some increase in distance for the recreational player.  But in what other sport do we think it makes sense to alter the fields of play at great expense simply to accommodate changes in equipment technology that do little to make the game more interesting or enjoyable.  I understand the appeal of the change from the guttie to the Haskell which also led to changes.  I don't now.  But again, I don't expect any significant changes.

I agree with your point that technology has done little to make the game more interesting or enjoyable. I'd bet a majority of those posting in this thread agree. But how do we make the argument that golf was "better" without sounding like old farts reminiscing about the halcyon days? That seems to be an almost insurmountable hurdle.

I wouldn't get behind you.  I find the game more fun being able to hit drives 230ish rather than not.  I could see not caring about the extra yards if there were more thoughful forward tees that didn't involve walking well forward from the previous green.  Sometimes this is possible and sometimes it isn't.  People toss around 6500 yards as if this is a comfortable distance for most golfers...that would be a serious mistaken assumption.  The yardage should be more like 6000 for the vast majority of male golfers. 

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Garland,

I carved out this paragraph because it gets right to my point...and we agree. Courses are being changed for the guys that hit the ball a mile AND shoot really low scores....

That's where we disagree. Courses are being changed, because they need players to stay solvent. If you cannot attract the long hitters to play your course, you are giving up a part of the market that you used to have.

Garland

I have sympathy for clubs in this position because it is true that attracting lower handicap, longer hitting folks (especially young adults) to a course like this is an uphill battle.  Part of the problem is their ball is too long and too out of control for these smaller courses...which leads to another problem...handicaps.  Because of low course ratings for many of these small footprint courses good players need to sometimes shoot lower than par just to maintain their handicap.  It is actually easier for them to maintain that low cap by playing much longer courses (because length is no issue for these guys) with higher ratings.  I have seen clubs do stupid things to their courses to increase the rating in the hopes of placating low cappers.  I think this is gnerally a stupid thing to do, but committees will be pressured to do something..so they do.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A different take on this issue.


There is often talk of growing the game, although some may term it ‘preserving’ or even ‘saving’ the game.


When golf started to spread in the late 1800’s there were approx 1.5 billion people in the world. There are now around 7.5 billion. People need fresh water and food (amongst other things) to live.


What is more important golf courses or fresh water and land for growing foodstuffs, housing etc?


The rollback debate surely shouldn’t just be centred on how far the TV pros etc hit the ball, there’s imo more to it than that.....like the relationship between the worlds resources and the worlds population......about fresh water and land utilisation as the worlds population rises.


As I’ve mentioned in other threads, rollback the ball (equipment generally), and not by a little bit either, but by 20%-30% and as a consequence use less land and less fresh water etc.


Furthermore, time constraints are frequently mentioned as a reason why golf is declining in popularity or make it less desirable for some age groups to participate as often as they’d like.


Which is quicker to play, a 7,000 yd 18-hole course or a 5,000yd 18-course?


Just saying


Atb

[jeffwarne]

Garland,

I carved out this paragraph because it gets right to my point...and we agree. Courses are being changed for the guys that hit the ball a mile AND shoot really low scores....

That's where we disagree. Courses are being changed, because they need players to stay solvent. If you cannot attract the long hitters to play your course, you are giving up a part of the market that you used to have.

Garland

I have sympathy for clubs in this position because it is true that attracting lower handicap, longer hitting folks (especially young adults) to a course like this is an uphill battle.  Part of the problem is their ball is too long and too out of control for these smaller courses...which leads to another problem...handicaps.  Because of low course ratings for many of these small footprint courses good players need to sometimes shoot lower than par just to maintain their handicap.  It is actually easier for them to maintain that low cap by playing much longer courses (because length is no issue for these guys) with higher ratings.  I have seen clubs do stupid things to their courses to increase the rating in the hopes of placating low cappers.  I think this is gnerally a stupid thing to do, but committees will be pressured to do something..so they do.

Ciao

Spot on Sean,
Rightly or wrongly there are many people who won't visit, much less join a club under 6400 scorecard yards.
Laughably, they often then play the forward tees at 5600 yards.
Erik says that the majority are happy at 6500 yards or less-he's right, that's very true, but it's very difficult to attract the players (movers and shakers) that determine a club's reputation-at 5600 yards.
We may embrace it but sadly the tour player through the 7 handicap establish most of the reputation of a course as a test.(even if they are the minority)
After all it is generally the minority who are altering courses...


The male ego is in play here, and Wally Uehlein and Titleist understands how to play it and the PGA of America via their perceived pocketbooks as the USGA via their generational inaction has become an unwitting accomplice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()