[Joe Hancock]

If there were more people who wanted to “grow the game” because of the inherent great qualities associated with the game in its’ simplest form rather than for monetary gain, we wouldn’t need movements and organizations to “protect the game”.


*insert image of 20 guys on a green before a tournament, with one guy pointing to a spot on the green with the antennae of his walkie-talkie to indicate the”perfect” hole location for the day...right before the green gets mowed twice and rolled 4 times....*

[Adam Clayman]

Bravo Joe. You nail it with the renumeration angle along with how we've been failed by the protectors.


Nialls, If there was a time to pick, I'd suggest 1930. The year Bobby won the Grand Slam. His ethos is the one that should've been lighting the path.


 That, or the year before they started to allow Pros into the clubhouse.

[Kalen Braley]

And to those Rollbackers that took the time to respond to my questions, thank you. Interesting responses and I think the main thing I took out of the responses was that there is no uniform idea as to what you want to roll back to. I've got to think that will not help your cause. I suggest you need a clear idea of what standard you are wanting and how to achieve it if you are to gather popular support. Just my opinion.

Niall

Niall,

I don't think one uniform distance exists because there is so much variability in the game, even between top notch pros who can be 40-50 yards from each other off the tee.  I've always thought 20% is about right.

As for how to achieve it, its crystal clear what the answer is... the ball.  I can 100% guarantee you the ball can be dialed back.  Players can keep their current equipment, swing coaches, launch monitors, shrinks, and work out 10 hours per day in the gym if they like, but none of that will change the physics of when a modified ball with specific dimpling and core properties is struck, it will only go X amount of distance.

Change the Ball...Change the World!

[James Reader]

James


Can you provide a link to the John Low essay ? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it.
....

Niall

Niall


It’s taken from an article written by Tom Simpson, which I read in Fred Hawtree’s book “Simpson & Co”, but I’ve found an online copy here....


http://www.kellyblakemoran.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Articles-of-the-Faith-According-to-John-Low-by-Tom-Simpson.pdf

[Tom_Doak]

James Reader:


Thank you for posting the link above.


There has been so much b.s. in this thread already that I don't know if anyone is thinking anymore, or just reacting, but I would like to direct the conversation toward one of John Low's points that seems to have been abandoned by good players today:


 "The good architect will see to it that the hole proclaims that the powerful player who wishes to register the par figure, must keep well to the right or well to the left with tee shot at two-shot and three-shot holes, and so in each stroke there shall be some special interest for him, some special manœuvre as that practiced by the skillful billiard player who always has in mind the next stroke or strokes ahead . . ."

When I was starting our project in Houston, I read a couple of books about the way Tour players strategize around the course today - if you can call it that.  It no longer has anything to do with trying to position themselves for the next strokes ahead; it's all about taking a penalty out of play 99% of the time.  And the best players in the world today apparently need a 65-yard-wide target to do just that . . . because modern equipment has them swinging so hard and then hitting wedges into par-4 greens.


Does anyone think that Jones or Hogan or Nicklaus didn't concern themselves with angle of approach?  We have lost the strategic element of the game, because modern players are LESS ACCURATE, because the equipment and set-up of courses no longer makes accuracy important to them.  But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee. 


They really think they should only worry about trouble 1% of the time . . . the very statistical point at which they shouldn't worry about it anymore.


If you read those last two sentences aloud to John Low in his grave, he might come out and do something about it.  And, sadly, that seems to be the best chance we've got of anybody doing anything about it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sometimes it seems to me that ‘doing nothing’ is a reasonable and plausible stance. After all, there are several decent mid 70s courses within a 20 minute drive (and at least a dozen more within 45 minutes) that are still more than long enough for me, and that younger/longer hitters enjoy too — as they bomb away on the now-short-for-them Par 4s and happily hit wedges in on all the rest. In other words: it sometimes seems that the game is doing just fine, and that golf (and golf course architecture) is just where it needs to be — and that it currently serves me and every other golfer I know very well, and will continue to serve us well for many years to come.
And yet:
I can’t shake seem to shake the feeling (and, after reading posts like Ian A’s, the near certainty) that ‘doing nothing’ is, for anyone who cares about the game of golf, a very selfish and short-sighted stance indeed.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Are we going to discount the idea that strategy was built on width? I dare say the same sort of width you are claiming the pros demand. Granted, the pros, if it matters at all what they do, and I strongly believe it shouldn't, play whack and find golf. Much more importantly, a huge percentage of golfers, when we get right down to it, play whack and find golf. That is the reason why Ian states courses need to be wider, although, I am usually skeptical about decision making when H & S is the first reason for proposed changes.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Are we going to discount the idea that strategy was built on width? I dare say the same sort of with you are claiming the pros demand. Granted, the pros, if it matters at all what they do, and I strongly believe it shouldn't, play whack and find golf. Much more importantly, a huge percentage of golfers, when we get right down to it, play whack and find golf. That is the reason why Ian states courses need to be wider, although, I am usually skeptical about decision making when H & S is the first reason for proposed changes.

Ciao

Sean:


Nothing of the sort.  What I'm saying is that pros have rationalized that they NEED that much width BECAUSE they swing for the fences.  And once you grant them the ability to swing for the fences with modern equipment, then the angle of approach doesn't matter anymore, because they are hitting wedge from wherever they are.


P.S.  I agree with you that safety is a bad reason for width, but professional architects have a duty to think about it.  Safety is also one argument by which architects can stop clients from squeezing corridors and selling even more housing, the way modern businessmen do.  [Sadly, some use it the other way, to require changes to existing golf courses that will create work for themselves.  All you have to do is mention "safety" to a client, and you've handed them a liability problem they are almost required to address.]

[Garland Bayley]

...


Does anyone think that Jones or Hogan or Nicklaus didn't concern themselves with angle of approach?  We have lost the strategic element of the game, because modern players are LESS ACCURATE, because the equipment and set-up of courses no longer makes accuracy important to them.  But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee. 


They really think they should only worry about trouble 1% of the time . . . the very statistical point at which they shouldn't worry about it anymore.


If you read those last two sentences aloud to John Low in his grave, he might come out and do something about it.  And, sadly, that seems to be the best chance we've got of anybody doing anything about it.

Hogan was one of the longest drivers in his day. When they held specific long drive competitions, he was always near the top. However, if you take plots of his positions during play, he was often well back of his rivals, because he played for position. Not just angle of attack, but also stance.

[Thomas Dai]

Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.
atb

[Sean_A]

Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.
atb

Is there an incidence of this happening or is this another example of H&S scaremongering? 

Tom

All I am saying is that regardless of your professional obligations, I am not buying into H&S as a good reason for a roll back.  That said, I can fully understand that clubs will feel it necessary to make changes due to safety reasons, but in the cases I can think of, the danger existed long before an sort of 330 yard driving frenzy.  Its just that these days, H&S often gets cited (blamed) for decisions because its an easy cop out explanation. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.

Like Sean, I'm curious whether you know of examples of courses that have been shut down over health & safety issues.


I know of several good courses [including Royal Melbourne East, Moortown, and Mar del Plata in Argentina] where major changes to golf holes have been required, not for the better as far as golfers are concerned; but I don't know of any worthwhile course that's been shut down.

[Ryan Coles]

Was Woods at Hoylake the last time a pro implemented a strategy other than bomb & gauge?


Don’t we despise courses that are narrow and punitive that won’t let a player hit it anywhere with little thought to the consequence? Ie The set up at Paris National?

[Jim Hoak]

Some valid arguments on both side of this question, as usual.
Niall C at  Post # 174 make a very good point that the argument of the Rollbackers is weakened by there not being a clear standard being proposed to roll back to.
I think it is also weakened by the lack of a proposed procedure to effect a rollback.  There are many organizations that have a say, but the issue can't be dumped entirely in the lap of the USGA/R&A, with the Pro Tours on record as being opposed to any action.  And the equipment manufacturers, of course, opposing.  It’s not enough to say that these strong opposers need to be convinced it’s in their best interests.  Really?  How can this be done?
Is a rollback just wishful thinking?  If not, what is the procedure for success?  Who is really going to make it happen?  Difficulty is not a reason to give up on a good idea, but is a rollback really going to ever get done?  If so, how?

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,


The same way it happened in the early 80s when they rolled the ball back for all golfers outside of North America.
The two groups charged with running the game - USGA and R&A - do their job to protect the courses and the skills it takes to play the game and make the decision.
It's not that hard - the manufacturers don't run the game. It's like giving cigarette companies a place at the public health table. They don't care about the health of the public and manufacturers don't care about golf course architecture and how the game is played. All they care about is making the ball go further.

[Jim Hoak]

And, Mike, you don’t worry if the PGA Tour doesn’t go along?  If they stay as is, and the change only applies to we recreational players, isn’t that reverse bifurcation?

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,


I thought the PGA Tour wanted to stay out of rules? Only when it suits them?
And the PGA Tour isn't the only tour in the world. What would happen is all the others - LPGA,Japan,Europe,Asia,Australia - all went with those charged with running the game?
It's a pity Deane Beman isn't in charge. He must be awfully disappointed, on this issue, with those who followed.

[Niall C]

.........and once again we come back to using the pro's as the yardstick and gauge for deciding how the game should be run. Why ? Honestly, let these guys shoot low 60's all the time, they are very good after all.


The bulk of courses over here are probably less than 6,000 yards off the daily tees and yet they probably get as much traffic as they used to so clearly bigger club-heads and "better" balls aren't making them obsolete. Yes they will never hold an Open Qualifier but then they never would before.


Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

This weekend I turned to my playing partners who all belong to multiple clubs and play over 100 rounds per year and asked what they would think of rolling the ball back 20%. It may have been the dumbest thing they ever heard come out of my mouth.

[Pete Lavallee]

I did the same thing this weekend at our monthly tournament, but phrased it as: would you support a ball that went 40 yards less for elite players but only 4 yards less for you and everyone unanimously agreed that would be a great solution.

[John Kavanaugh]

I did the same thing this weekend at our monthly tournament, but phrased it as: would you support a ball that went 40 yards less for elite players but only 4 yards less for you and everyone unanimously agreed that would be a great solution.

Pete,


I currently hit a 7 iron in ideal conditions 155 yds. How far would I hit it with your new ball?

[Jim Hoak]

Pete, why do you think that's possible technically--40 yards less for the Pros, 4 yards less for us?  Of course, everyone would support that!  But no one has ever shown that that is possible.
The only new ball that I have seen tested was by the R&A a few years ago--that went 8% less for everyone.  So that would bring a pro down from 300 to 275 and us down from 220 to 205.  That is a more appropriate question.
Tell me if you know differently.

[Pete Lavallee]

John,


Off a tee I can hit it 145, 130-140 pff the deck. No big deal if it’s now my 125 Club. Better yet Mike G. won’t hit his 180 yards anymore!


Jim,


We can put a man on the moon but can’t design a new ball that plays like a Titleist balata used too? My impression, along with apparently many others on this thread, is that elite players have disproportionately benefitted from the current 3 piece ball. I doubt the benefits or roll back can be expressed in a true linear relationship.

[Mike_Clayton]

This weekend I turned to my playing partners who all belong to multiple clubs and play over 100 rounds per year and asked what they would think of rolling the ball back 20%. It may have been the dumbest thing they ever heard come out of my mouth.

If you'd said 10% would their bemusement have been on the same level?
The problem with this argument is the game outside of Nth America went through this in the early 80s - we all gave up 25 yards - and no one gave up golf. They hardly complained.
The problem is the USA isn't the only dog in this fight.

[John Kavanaugh]

Because of multiple sets of tees the distance I hit my drive is immaterial. The distance I have to carry hazards is not. Currently my maximum carry off a tight level lie in ideal conditions is 195 yds with a 5 wood. Cut that by 10 yds and my strategic options will be greatly limited. Throw in some wind and you have to ask yourself the sustainability of courses built after 1960. We made our bed now we've got to sleep in it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()