[Derek_Duncan]

Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world.

I've gotta take issue with that statement.


It took me a couple of projects to understand that once I was finished with a new course, it was no longer mine.  It was owned by the client or by the members, and up to them what happened from then on.  I would only continue to be involved if I kept up the relationship.  It's sort of like being a parent, with a shorter gestation period.


I also learned from speaking out about changes to The Old Course at St. Andrews, that the more you claim some stake in a famous old course, as an outsider, the more determined the owners are to not listen to you.


So, we don't own the golf courses.  You're better off making a case that we all, collectively, own the game itself.

Tom,


You are, of course, right in asserting only owners and clubs own their courses.


I'm more interested in the other thrust of Matthew's assertion, that there are many of us who came of age seeing places like Pebble, St. Andrews, Harbour Town and many of the classic U.S. Open venues on TV and it stimulated our desire to learn more about golf courses.


At the rate things are going kids may not have that exposure for long. Someone even in a recent post above alluded to something that sounds crazy but might not be, that perhaps pro tournaments be held only at courses designed or altered for their extreme games, TPC's on steroids.


Where would golf (or architecture) be in the future if kids only saw on TV these Tour-ready, pimped out 8,000-yard courses? Better yet, where would golf be now if owners and club members had only been exposed to courses like Pinehurst, Aronimink, Bel Air, etc., and not the long, verdant, lush CBS spectacles of the last 40 years?


This is not an argument -- I know you're in favor of some kind of legislative modulation. But I took away something different from Matt's post.

[John Kavanaugh]

Kids do not watch TV. Unless of course it is on the back of a headrest as you drive them either to or from another travel team event.

[BCrosby]

"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones

Matthew


As a matter of interest, what do you think Jones was actually advocating in that quote ? I'm not sure it means what you probably think it does, assuming you think he's referring to a rollback.


Niall

In 1926 or '27 Jones advocated the adoption of a "floater" ball standard. (I don't have the cite at hand.) So I would think he is suggesting a "rollback", at least to that extent. As we all know, the floater was tried for a while later that decade; it proved unpopular and the USGA caved. But any rollback will be unpopular. Those of us advocating such a step should be willing to weather that unpopularity. (Though I think the backlash will be less than feared.)


Bob

[Sean_A]

I must say, the roll back scheme seems to be about a shotgun scatter effect.  Even as someone who has played golf his entire life, the string of arguments rings rather hollow.  There are various ways to approach the issue, pick an argument and present it well...keeping in mind that the specific problem of the ball going too far is only an issue for an extremely small percentage of golfers. It doesn't do any good to suggest we all suffer if one suffers because its simply not true. Notwithstanding Tom's comments about my earlier post, my argument would be to address the issue at hand rather than make rather dubious claims about how we all own a chunk of CPC, scaremongering about lawsuits etc.  I would also say that if the tours aren't onboard, so what.  Urge the ruling bodies to move on with the idea that some scaling back is a start of what could be a long process.   

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A little addition to the pro scoring element of the debate - https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/15/medinah-carved-up-a-par-5-almost-averages-under-4-on-the-pga-tour?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Make of it what you wish.
Atb

[jeffwarne]

There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.

Jeff


Are you suggesting that clubs are struggling because they are now too short for the ball/technology and that suddenly they will be OK if either they are lengthened to "championship" length a la Merion, or alternatively if the ball is rolled back they will suddenly have a queue of new would-be members ?


Either way, I think the suggestion is beyond credible in a UK context. There are many reasons why clubs are struggling just now that are largely down to socio-economic factors, not because courses have become functionally obsolete (which by and large they haven't).


As an aside the term holiday course isn't a derisive description to a lot of golfers over here. It might be to the odd visitor golfer or scratch golfer who is after "championship" golf but the great many fully enjoy there holiday golf.


Niall

Niall,
Of course there are too many golf courses and that is the root cause of why many courses struggle.
You and I know they are not "funtionally obsolete" for anyone but that doesn't matter to the hot shit young exec from Aberdeen or New York who wants credibility. (He ain't joining a "Holiday" course when his buds are all members at an Open Q site or a modern monstrocity.)


That said, I have seen the term "Holiday" course used very often(even here) almost as an apology and interestingly that attracts me and nearly always it's course I love,but they are most decidedly not considered as Open qualifiers etc. which is an oft used marketing strategy by clubs-hurting sales to rank and files golfers.
And they certainly aren't heavily patronized by the travelling golfer-yet nearly always have compelling architecture  albeit on a reduced scale which is totally neutered or at least marginalized(regardless of what they shoot) by good players.
Building new tees(not at all what I suggest as that's a sure recipe for further financial problems) or reducing the ball wouldn't "instantly" do anything, but over time, some of these gems WOULD indeed be used for competitions and taken more seriously by younger decent players looking for a home base.
These courses weren't designed in 1877 to be "Holiday" courses. They just became that as technology improved and new shiny toy courses emerged over the last 100 plus years.


I'd go farther out on a limb and say that we wouldn't have had so much shite designed vapid modern courses if the ball had remained static from say 1900 and we'd be playing in less time on more sustainable 5000 yard courses where strategy not raw distance mattered.




The fact that I can book such courses a week in advance on a Saturday morning is resounding evidence that the rest of the world (including the UK) does not share the view you and I do, yet nearby Castle Stuart or any other "championship" course an American has heard of is 2-5 X the price and unavailable on a weekend morning.
Even Tom Doak dismissed many of these charming shorter well pedigreed courses due to their length in his 1980's version of the CG(which he was afraid they(his intended audience of friends) would dismiss as low hdcpers)


Would a rollback immediately change this?
No, but people would sure wonder why they were playing a 7000 yard crappy parkland when they could have so much more fun on an interesting design that was no longer as obsoleted by tech.(and more importantly being recognized as viable again by local Golf associations)
You think Merion's demand for guest play has risen since 2013?
And for the record IMHO that's not always a good thing to an already successful club.


Imagine all the course in the US that would be considered for majors again if the ball went 15-20% less.
and the world could see a new course considered for majors wouldn't have to be beast walk like Erin Hills, Chambers Bay,etc.(or The Bridge in its original form)
In the UK the rota is set, but certainly other top events could be played on a wider range of courses.
Gailles Links, which you're familiar with, has back tees in the stratosphere, which is the ONLY reason they use it for Final Open Qualifying(no chance without them) so yes other courses could do that-or we could reduce the ball and instantly have hundreds if not thousands of courses available for competition and continued member enjoyment of faster rounds.


Does my argument have holes in it?
Of course.
But what we've doing the last 20 years has far more holes and there is NO end in sight. and it's been Trumpized (normalized).
And recently the rank and file even talk about "something needing to be done"
Cuz guess what-next year's Epic goes 2.6 yards further and new tees are still getting built and more "irons only" driving ranges are being created

[Derek_Duncan]

Kids do not watch TV. Unless of course it is on the back of a headrest as you drive them either to or from another travel team event.

Speak for your own kids.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


Your post about Rory hitting 255-260 is exactly the point.  Restoring 400 yard par 4s to being at least somewhat challenging for the pro instead of driver and flipping a lob wedge. And restoring 450 yard par 4's to being tough holes again instead of "standard length". Think of all the classic venues that would instantly be viable again for top level competitions?  And think of all the different ways players could gain an advantage on thier competitors instead of just who can bomb it furthest.


As for an across the board Rollback, I've been very clear from the start that bifurcation is the best way to go.  We already do it partially, just need to extend the scope.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

As seen on Twitter

Bradley S. Klein

@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder

[Thomas Dai]

As seen on Twitter
@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder

I'm not convinced that taking quotes direct from Twitter is appropriate. Over time such quotes, which are usually just a few unsupported words, can be trashed or agreed with but those herein won't know of the arguments and counter arguments.

Nevertheless, let's break this quote down.

I wonder how many of the 99.92% could tell if they were playing with a rolled-back ball? Not many I suspect, although obviously all of us posting herein would be able too! (sic)

If you top your shot it won't matter if the ball your using is a rolled-back one or not. Same if you hit the shot fat etc etc. Only proper/quality full-shot strikes are likely to be effected by a rolled-back ball and I suggest most amateurs, who are essentially social/hobby/exercise/recreational/occasional golfers, rarely hit proper/quality shots so any rollback effect will be undetectable.

And then there's putting and chipping, which comprise a very significant element of the shots played during a round. I can't imagine a rolled-back ball will effect the act of putting and chipping.

And then, as others have highlighted, there's that proportion of amateur golfers who can hit the ball similar distances to the 0.02% who are pro's* but are nothing like as skilful nor as accurate and thus spray shots way left and right including over the proverbial fences. This is where much of the issue lies.

But then again, even for a descent amateur player, such as those relatively few who inhabit the area between the pro's and average social/hobby/exercise/recreational/occasional golfers, is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest. Lots of benefits for golf and modern society in playing shorter though. Not many, if any, in playing longer.

atb

* 0.02 seems quite a high figure unless all club/range pro's, assistants, senior/mini-tour players etc etc are included.

[jeffwarne]

As seen on Twitter

Bradley S. Klein

@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder

While not disagreeing with the bifurcation thesis...


I do tire of the relentless comments about the "difficulty" of the game.
For multiple reasons-
but mainly because anything worthwhile is usually difficult, and perseverance, self control and patience are three of the main skills in golf.
If it were "easy' everybody would be great and where would the challenge and inevitable addiction be?
My least favorite students are the one's whose expectations are far out of touch with their own ability,and make others miserable around them with their vocal expectations of perfection and impatience.
I've almost never met a person I didn't like who was an avid golfer, and many of the worst people I've ever met tried golf and quit because(in their opinion) of all of golf's perceived failings.
Golf unlike many other things in life is not HARD-just hit it and go hit it again and enjoy the journey with lifelong friends.

[Garland Bayley]

As seen on Twitter

Bradley S. Klein

@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder

Bradley is a member of this site. If he wants to argue his point, he can get on here and do so. Otherwise he just seems to be taking Trumpian pot shots.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

My personal point of view  is that I'm in my 70s and really don't care. I now play the white tees  (about 6000y +or-) at my 3 home courses (senior friendly ratings/slope))  and in a few years, if I'm still able or around, I'll move up to the red tees as many do here and play 9 holes only. I'll stock up on current balls and not play in handicap events. Maybe I'll get a non-comforming driver too.


However, I do agree with Brad Klein that bifurcation is easier to implement. 


I'd like to see a PGA Tour Player hit my 7i 200y. 


How long will it take for this " Rollback"  to take effect?

[Kalen Braley]

Steve,

I think that's where some are getting hung up, a timeline for a rollback.  Of course it won't happen overnight, but given changing the ball is the primary thing they need to address first, I would think a reasonable timeline of a few years would be very doable.  And then a phased approach where they look at playing equipment after that.

But doing nothing because it seems like "too big of a task" or "we don't know enough" ensures nothing will be done...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Well... that solves my problem but I'd still like to see a PGA Tour Player hit my 7i 200+y using a  Srixon Soft Feel ball. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You make up a doozy, and then you challenge shorter courses taking less time to play?
 

I didn't "make" anything up. I said it could happen, I didn't say it would. Old guys losing 20% of their distance? Many of them might just say screw it and keep playing their old now illegal stuff, but others will just quit. They hate that they're shorter every year already, to take off 20%? Ha.

And shorter courses in no way guarantee less time to play, not with a shorter ball, let alone 30 minutes! Hell, at Lake View - the course I grew up playing - you walk or ride past the back tees to get to the front tees. Moving up would just increase the green-to-tee walk time.

The longest players in every generation from Ray to Jones to Snead to Jack to Norman to Daly to Tiger to Champ have always been the norm in the next. Why wouldn't that continue?

Because of physics, and your own bit about running 100m in 7 seconds.

I've been on record as saying I don't care that much that ALL of the old courses are playable by the game's top 0.001%. 6500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual golfers.

Amateurs have lowered their scores?

About three shots in the last 30 years, yeah, according to GHIN.

Also, though you like to say often that the golf world already "gave up 25 yards when they abandoned the small ball" (paraphrased of course), I don't think it's 25 yards at all. I've not seen anything which says it's 25 yards for even the best players (of which you were at the time, of course), and even if it was 25 yards for the best players, it would have been less (like 15 or something) for amateur golfers, and even then, only with drivers: their 7-irons might have gotten only 5 or 6 yards shorter.

Your post about Rory hitting 255-260 is exactly the point.

If you think a 20% roll-back is needed, you're freaking nuts. Courses would have to redesign their entire golf course to build SHORTER tees. There'd be fields between greens and the next tee. Rory hitting it 254 is a freaking joke. 111th in 1980 on the PGA Tour… with steel, persimmon, balata…

Think of all the classic venues that would instantly be viable again for top level competitions?

You know, months ago, I asked for a list of all these courses that the PGA Tour can no longer visit, or those that can no longer host majors, solely for the reason of length (not infrastructure, not because they don't want to host, etc.). Crickets. A few courses were named, like Cypress Point.

But so what? Cyrpess Point is still playable by 95% of people (if they could actually get on to play it).

The list is small. They're still playing Oakmont, Pebble, The Old Course, etc. Yes, they're scoring well, but your complaint isn't about that: it's about whether they're even playing them, whether they're on TV.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I stated this in another thread after the low scores at The Open.  I specifically addressed restoring shot values that would bring scores under control, especially in light of what we're seeing at Medinah...

"I understand what VK is saying with defenseless courses as they relate to equipment related distance gains, so I'll try to elaborate:In a previous post he talked about a 15-25% distance rollback.

So all numbers I use assume an average of 20%.For example on 17, a 415 yard par 4:-  Instead of players bombing it 320 off the tee and catching the speed slot to get 25-30 more.  Now they hit it 256 (80% of 320) and are on top of the hill with 415-256 = 159 remaining.- And now instead hitting that 160 yard PW, which is only 128, now its a 7 iron, (which used to be 200, but is now 160)

.And then on say 18, a 460 yard par 4:- Instead of playing it safe with a 260 yard 3 iron, which now only goes 208, they are forced to use a 3W or Driver to leave a reasonable approach of 200.- And instead of hitting a 200 yard 7 iron, (which now only goes 160), they now must use the 4 iron which now only goes 195ish.

These are only two specific examples, but you can do this on every hole to get the gist of VKs message... which is you wouldn't need the weather to protect the course's shot values because these players would have to use longer less accurate clubs on shot after shot, hole after hole... ergo built in protection.  It restores the value of shot making as opposed to Bomb and chip on 400+ yard holes, and Bomb and mid iron on par 5s. And it also completely ends the course lengthening arms race...."

[Thomas Dai]

6500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual golfers.

6500 5,500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual MALE golfers.
And for 95% of women it's a lot less.
atb

[Bryan Izatt]

Kalen,


When you're doing your distance change examples you might want to use the real PGA Tour averages as provided by Trackman.  The average for a 7 iron is 172 yards of carry.  How much roll out, of course, depends on the topography and condition of the landing area.


https://dk-9a31.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pgatourstats.png




For those considering rolling back the driver in some way, what would you do with 3 woods which are still mostly small heads, lower COR, and shorter shafts but which most pros can still hit almost as far as their drivers.

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


We can argue the distance difference - but what ever it was and it was very noticeable especially into the wind (and easier to hit straight too) the point is the evidence was no one - or very few - gave up golf because they lost distance.


Nor has my timeline (Ray - Champ) anything to do with physics - not yet anyway. No one yet can run 7 seconds but Champ can drive it further than almost all his contemporaries and history tells us that will be the norm in a decade. At what point is something too far?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I stated this in another thread after the low scores at The Open.

20% is absolutely nuts.

We can argue the distance difference - but what ever it was and it was very noticeable especially into the wind (and easier to hit straight too) the point is the evidence was no one - or very few - gave up golf because they lost distance.

No, Mike, because there's a BIG difference between giving up 5 or 6 yards and giving up 20%. Y'all hurt yourselves by making such bad arguments. You hurt your cause, your case.

No one yet can run 7 seconds but Champ can drive it further than almost all his contemporaries and history tells us that will be the norm in a decade. At what point is something too far?

History doesn't tell us that, because again, we're running up to the limits of how far a legal ball and club can go and still be accurate enough to play the PGA Tour.

What's Champ done since winning? Missed a ton of cuts. Cameron Champ may not even be sustainable.

[jeffwarne]

Zinger just said
"I thought the 63 would never be touched"
The 63 was shot YESTERDAY-breaking Thursday's CR.
Zinger also said "with US Open width fairways and 4 1/2 inch rough"


as I type JT is putting for ...60...with a bogie-AND a ball in the water on the 338 yard par 3 15th (err par 4).



Keep hearing the round is historic
Can't wait til tomorrow......for more "history"


for those saying "the weather is dictating scores"
it's rained a few times in Medinah in the last 40 years,don't remember any 63's (edit: 61's)


carry on


Wrong thread?
Not really-might as well start one for East Lake now

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


With all credit to your Sirius XM cohorts we need to rollback the course maintenance. Members rarely see their course in the same optimum scoring conditions as the pros. It’s not that hard to start sinking birdies when every putt goes exactly where you aim.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


With all credit to your Sirius XM cohorts we need to rollback the course maintenance. Members rarely see their course in the same optimum scoring conditions as the pros. It’s not that hard to start sinking birdies when every putt goes exactly where you aim.

In
Goat Hill budgets(sub 50k)
Though for whatever reason I putt better there than anywhere I play with greens running 6ish(at most) and 4-8 degree slopes

[Garland Bayley]

...
For those considering rolling back the driver in some way, what would you do with 3 woods which are still mostly small heads, lower COR, and shorter shafts but which most pros can still hit almost as far as their drivers.

i doubt very much that a significant number of pros are using 3 woods that are not at maximum COR.
Maxed out COR fairway woods have been around for quite some time now.
I built maxed out COR irons for a friend over five years ago.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()