John Huggan of Golf Digest notices that there's more rough at TOC

[Jonathan Mallard]

He seems to attribute this phenomenon to the need to combat distance.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whats-going-on-at-the-old-course-at-st-andrews-and-should-we-be-worried

[Cal Seifert]

Fantastic article.  Will the R&A be the one to force this rollback? People have been speculating a Masters ball, maybe it wont come to that.

[Thomas Dai]

Bring back the sheep!
An Old Course spec ball, as has been mentioned herein before, would be a nice move to highlight the technology vrs classic courses issue. Hand a sleeve of them, specially logo’d, out to each player on the 1st tee. Be a nice momento to those who have played the course as well.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Heresy, a rolled back ball wouldn't work for the following reasons...

1)  It makes far too much good sense.
2)  Its way too easy to do!
3)  Its far cheaper than continuing to mangle and disfigure courses
4)  The players would continue to get free balls
5)  The fans would see actual shot making again instead of bomb, wedge, repeat


Horrible, horrible, awful idea!

[Matthew Essig]

Just reading the title of this thread made me sick to my stomach.

[Doug Lionberger]

Interesting read but I don’t see how distance is the problem for 99% of golfers.  I feel like I’m of average length off the tee and probably hit my driver the same distance as good pros from the 20s and 30s (250-275 on a good hit).  I use all the clubs in my bag during a round, love the classic courses for their playability and have the most fun on them.  Everybody gets caught up with what the pros are doing but that should be irrelevant in decisions like this.
[size=78%]  [/size]

[Mike_Clayton]

Doug,


Surely disfiguring The Old Course to satisfy the demands of the modern ball makes it an issue for everybody?
If you don't care about The Old you don't care about golf.

[Doug Lionberger]

Doug,


Surely disfiguring The Old Course to satisfy the demands of the modern ball makes it an issue for everybody?
If you don't care about The Old you don't care about golf.

Mike, I care a great deal about the Old Course, golf and classic golf courses.  What I was trying to say is I don’t agree with this decision or that distance is a problem (for 99% of golfers).  The need to disfigure golf courses to combat distance is completely unnecessary in my opinion.  How many amateurs even play from the tips on most courses to begin with?  I’d say most courses I’ve played our actually the most architecturally interesting from the back tees anyways so the more people who were able to play from those tees the better.  For example, I probably hit my clubs fairly average for an amateur (250 yards drive, 155 yard 8 iron) and I will almost never play a course from the back tees.

[Mike_Clayton]

Doug,


It's not a problem for 99% because they barely hit it further than they used to.Maybe the 8 iron goes further because it's a 38 degree club and not the 41 it used to be.
The problem in the case of The Old Course is it serves two masters - public and championship players -  and the result is the ball has caused the distortions.

[Doug Lionberger]

Doug,


It's not a problem for 99% because they barely hit it further than they used to.Maybe the 8 iron goes further because it's a 38 degree club and not the 41 it used to be.
The problem in the case of The Old Course is it serves two masters - public and championship players -  and the result is the ball has caused the distortions.

The athletes are bigger, stronger and better today than they were in any point in history.  In 30 years the athletes then will be bigger, stronger and more numerous than today.  In 1960 the winning score at St. Andrews was -10 and in 2015 it was -15.  In each case the lowest score won.  All competitors are playing the same course and it is still a championship worthy venue.  The problem is not the ball - it’s simply the golfers are better (and there are more elite golfers today).

[Edward Glidewell]

The athletes are bigger, stronger and better today than they were in any point in history.  In 30 years the athletes then will be bigger, stronger and more numerous than today.  In 1960 the winning score at St. Andrews was -10 and in 2015 it was -15.  In each case the lowest score won.  All competitors are playing the same course and it is still a championship worthy venue.  The problem is not the ball - it’s simply the golfers are better (and there are more elite golfers today).

I'm not sure your last sentence is true. Golf is one of the only two sports (along with tennis) where that's even a legitimate discussion, because the equipment changes have made such a drastic difference. I think there are absolutely more really good professional golfers now than there were in the 1960s for various reasons, but I'm not sure that the top golfers are better than people like Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus (at least when it comes to ball striking). It was harder to make great contact with older clubs than it is today, and poor contact was penalized far more harshly. And that's not even considering the changes in the golf ball.

[Doug Lionberger]

Edward - yes it is a completely subjective statement and while people have strong opinions on either side my opinion is that golfers today are far better and face far stiffer competition than 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc.  Apologies though as I have derailed the thread so hopefully it can get back on track and I’ll be quiet now.

[Daryl David]

The problem is not the ball - it’s simply the golfers are better (and there are more elite golfers today).

You are kidding, right?

[Doug Lionberger]

The problem is not the ball - it’s simply the golfers are better (and there are more elite golfers today).

You are kidding, right?

No - I don’t buy the argument that in every other sport athletes are better than they were in a prior generation (improved training, knowledge, fitness, etc.) but golf is somehow different.  If you want to disagree that is fine and I respect your opinion but please do not act like it is fact.  Nobody is 100% certain otherwise there would be no need to discuss.

[Blake Conant]

Perhaps Clyde Johnson will chime in, as he's more familiar with the course than I, but after having played The Old Course with him a couple weeks ago we both noticed several areas where there should be more fairway.  Here's what I wrote down in my notes:


2 - mow more right and left
4 - more more left (all b/t 4/15 should be short)
6 - mow rough out to the heather on left
7 - big knob left should be mown
9 - mow more left and remove some gorse
10 - mow more left
13 - should a left a pin play over gorse?
14 - area left of hell - the ideal spot to play an approach - should be fwy
15 - mow more right, bit of high ground on 4 should be mown
16 - mow more left
17 - mow more left

[Jon Wiggett]

I am sadden that TOC is having it's character changed in an apparent attempt to combat the few players at the top. TOC's best asset is its playability and challenge to all standards of player through the contours on the ground. By introducing rough it is making the course less challenging not more. I also noticed the last time I played it that because the fairways are now cut much shorter the ball always rolled back to a flat lie which made playing shots much less challenging.


As to the why. It is clear that equipment including the ball has made a significant difference to the distance the top players are hitting the ball and to the consistency of result. It is also clear that the players of today are physically better than their predecessors. There is also the often overlooked fact that courses are mown MUCH shorter today than in the past giving a much cleaner contact and adding roll to the shots. We are not going to see the top golfers become less physically adept nor probably clubs being dialled back which is why the obvious choice is to shorten the distance the ball goes and maybe reduce its height of trajectory. The ball is not singularly the problem but it is the easiest answer on all fronts.


On another point, the stupid race for high stimp readings has made courses easier for top players. The ball is much more likely to drop into the hole on higher stimping greens which because of the need for it to be flatter is also easier to read. By raising the height of cut and increasing the contours on the greens it will make the courses much more challenging for the top players.


TOC needs to have it's width reinstated IMO. They should also increase the height of cut on the fairways and so challenge the golfer with awkward sloping lies.


On a final note. I am always amazed at the distances many people claim to hit the ball. I know I hit my driver on average around the 250 yard mark and despite playing with quite a few people each year I am very rarely outdriven on a regular basis (Long hitting Mr. Muldoon being the exception ) yet I often read posts by people claiming to hit it further than me which just does not match the reality on the ground. I wonder how many of these players have actually properly measured their drives on a flat hole on a regular basis and how many rely/believe the crap that launch monitors etc. are telling them on the range?


Jon

[Jeff Schley]

On a final note. I am always amazed at the distances many people claim to hit the ball. I know I hit my driver on average around the 250 yard mark and despite playing with quite a few people each year I am very rarely outdriven on a regular basis (Long hitting Mr. Muldoon being the exception ) yet I often read posts by people claiming to hit it further than me which just does not match the reality on the ground. I wonder how many of these players have actually properly measured their drives on a flat hole on a regular basis and how many rely/believe the crap that launch monitors etc. are telling them on the range?


Jon

You mean I don't carry my driver 280?   

I want a long drive competition to settle this.)

[jeffwarne]

I am sadden that TOC is having it's character changed in an apparent attempt to combat the few players at the top. TOC's best asset is its playability and challenge to all standards of player through the contours on the ground. By introducing rough it is making the course less challenging not more. I also noticed the last time I played it that because the fairways are now cut much shorter the ball always rolled back to a flat lie which made playing shots much less challenging.


As to the why. It is clear that equipment including the ball has made a significant difference to the distance the top players are hitting the ball and to the consistency of result. It is also clear that the players of today are physically better than their predecessors. There is also the often overlooked fact that courses are mown MUCH shorter today than in the past giving a much cleaner contact and adding roll to the shots. We are not going to see the top golfers become less physically adept nor probably clubs being dialled back which is why the obvious choice is to shorten the distance the ball goes and maybe reduce its height of trajectory. The ball is not singularly the problem but it is the easiest answer on all fronts.


On another point, the stupid race for high stimp readings has made courses easier for top players. The ball is much more likely to drop into the hole on higher stimping greens which because of the need for it to be flatter is also easier to read. By raising the height of cut and increasing the contours on the greens it will make the courses much more challenging for the top players.


TOC needs to have it's width reinstated IMO. They should also increase the height of cut on the fairways and so challenge the golfer with awkward sloping lies.


On a final note. I am always amazed at the distances many people claim to hit the ball. I know I hit my driver on average around the 250 yard mark and despite playing with quite a few people each year I am very rarely outdriven on a regular basis (Long hitting Mr. Muldoon being the exception ) yet I often read posts by people claiming to hit it further than me which just does not match the reality on the ground. I wonder how many of these players have actually properly measured their drives on a flat hole on a regular basis and how many rely/believe the crap that launch monitors etc. are telling them on the range?


Jon

a ton of truth in this post.
most of the changes you cite add cost to the game, and reduce fun.
So true about the supposed distance people hit it and the distance gap between elite and the rest grows yearly-and we all pay the price with fun sucking knee jerk reactions to the course because of distance gap which fail to address the root cause of the gap.
ironically, super short grass does not increase fun-nor does super long grass.
Need more Goldilocks grass.

[Steve Lang]

   May not be better rounded golfers today, perhaps not smarter today even with everything to draw upon from history or modern mind control, but definitely longer... A commentator at TX Open mentioned golfer (sorry I forget who it was, need to check) averaged 309 yds on tour and was 35th in that stat.  How far did Old or Young Tom hit it in their day on their TOCs setup??

[Doug Lionberger]

Great posts by Jon and Jeff.  They communicated much better several of the points I was trying to make.

[Andy Stamm]

The good news is that moving lines are easily changed. It's very debatable that the rough makes the course harder. It often makes it easier unless it's grown higher than is normal. It does however reduce options and make the course play more one dimensionally.


The biggest shame to me are 6 and 16. As late as '95 those bunkers on the right of 6 were in the fairway. In a Shell match Seve hit as good a shot as you'll ever see out of one onto the green. The rough actually stops balls from finding the bunkers and helps keep the ball short of the gorse, the only defense on the tee shot. The rough here is quite thin, so bad lies rarely happen.


As for 16, in '95 the left route had fairway much, much further up. This rough is fairly thick now so while it's still a popular route, you do take a chance with the lie. But the rough keeps your ball closer in. Fairway would allow the ball to go much further left, which makes the approach much more difficult because of the green side bunkering. With short grass it's a perfect example of the safe tee shot making the second much harder than the aggressive tee shot, which yields a very simple approach.


17 is basically the same. The bail out is left. If that's short grass, your ball just keeps going. But left is out of position for the approach. Frankly I'd much rather have a lie in that rough than a fairway lie 20 yards further left. Of course in '95 that grass was knee high, so that's a different story. The rough further up the hole helps keep balls out of the Scholar's and Progressing bunkers, making them fairly pointless.


I have to say I disagree strongly with the author's claim that the best approach on 14 is from the far right. That's a terrible angle into that green. The best angle is from the 5th fairway. The next best (and easier to achieve) is from the left side of the Elysian Fields. I think it's of more concern that rough has crept in on the left of that fairway. It used to be just the bank that was long grass. Now the rough keeps the ball off that slope which is a huge help. Ditto the additional rough on the left of 5 when play the 5th.

[Tim Gavrich]

Few questions:


1. How long is the rough cut at TOC?


2. How long is the semi-rough at TOC?


3. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, before modern maintenance practices, what were the length of cuts?


In other words, how much more does a well-hit tee ball hit in 2018 at TOC roll out than it did 50, 100, 200 years ago?


Which year should TOC be rolled back to?

[jeffwarne]

Let's assume all athletes are better at every elite level pro sport-few dispute this.
If in 20 years the average baseball players is 8 feet tall and benches 800, would they not modify the equipment to accomodate the changes?


The great thing about golf is that in addition these "great athletes" we keep hearing about, there are older others that are becoming "great athletes" right around 2002-2010 and somehow are hitting it farther at age 59 than they ever did at age 29.
I attribute it to Chuck Connors total gym, or in Freddy Couples' case.......perhaps a broken remote...

[Daryl David]

Let's assume all athletes are better at every elite level pro sport-few dispute this.
If in 20 years the average baseball players is 8 feet tall and benches 800, would they not modify the equipment to accomodate the changes?


The great thing about golf is that in addition these "great athletes" we keep hearing about, there are older others that are becoming "great athletes" right around 2002-2010 and somehow are hitting it farther at age 59 than they ever did at age 29.
I attribute it to Chuck Connors total gym, or in Freddy Couples' case.......perhaps a broken remote...

+1000  I remember in 2002 when I got my first box of Pro V1s and raced to the club to hit ten of them off the first tee.  I may also have worked out the same morning.  The 14 yards extra off tee must have been the workout. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

You could take it back to all Gorse and be historically accurate while limiting distance, or at least roll.  What year was it that they actually converted it to real fairway grass?  I think Old Tom did it in the 1860's or so.