Rollback alliance

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure Gil Hanse is getting calls from Merion right now asking what can we do to provide a challenge to the best in 2030? Buy more land or make it a par 68?

Don’t you think they talked about this before they spent $15m rebuilding the course two years ago?


Presumably, they also would have asked the USGA if they had plans to make more equipment rules than limiting the length of the driver, under some sort of NDA.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

1983 isn't that long ago and it proved the game moved on just fine even after the ball was rolled back.

1983 was an incredibly long time ago — it predates the Internet as we know it today by quite a bit — and it affected a minority number of golfers… none of whom could go on the Internet to complain, band together, etc. 

You don't think a ball flying 140 yards instead of 120 would make the game more enjoyable for the many who fly it that far - but you think a ball that flies 310 but rolled back to 290 would make it worse?

It's not about that. If you wanted the game to be more fun for 50%, there are likely better ways to do it than just making the ball go farther.

I don't either, but my club and others are continually tinkering with their courses to attract and retain majors. Or even the prospect of hosting them. That is the issue, that without expansion of the holes, it will get torn up by the elite golfers today. If you need XYZ footprint to attract them, here comes the assessments to get there.

Nobody has ever provided any actual numbers here. How many courses are trying to get to 7500 yards? How many even bother? I would venture to say that it's fewer than many seem to think. And like JK has said many times, if a club wants to spend its own money… But, again, what % of courses have added 10%+ to their length in the last 20 years? The last 10?

6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."

The problem is that you can't even discern possible problems with your arguments. A scientist writing a scientific paper must anticipate what criticisms might be made and try to address them. Otherwise, his paper is going to go down in flames when it gets sent for review. If you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion, you have to have an intellect.

No, Garland, the problem is you can't actually put together an argument or refute anything, so you go ad hominem at every chance. Plug the numbers into a launch/flight simulator.

If doubling the spin from 2000 RPM to 4000 isn’t making much of a difference then it seems like getting fit is a waste of time.

I said it doesn't make as much of a difference as many seem to think. If you can gain 5 yards and an extra half degree of accuracy, that's great for a fitting. Not so much for a "rollback alliance's" hopes and dreams. Plug in the numbers and see for yourself what doubling the spin rate does.

[Tom_Doak]

6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."

It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above.  Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.

It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back.  I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.

The fact that golf manufacturers can rally people to complain about regulating equipment may make it hard to change things, but we have plenty of recent evidence that you can get a lot of people to resist something that would benefit the community as a whole.

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik


It's true it was before the Internet - before golfers could have banded together and stopped something that was clearly good for the game.

[Rob Marshall]

Funny, trying to reverse the aging process I was working with my fitter to find irons I could hit father. Best I could pick up was 5 yards with no loss in accuracy. He told me not worth making the change. I guess the 5 yards was a success because it saved me $1400.

[Rob Marshall]

This is interesting…


https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1

[Peter Flory]

He went through all that trouble and only hit 3 balls with each driver? 

[Rob Marshall]

He went through all that trouble and only hit 3 balls with each driver?

He hit balls with a driver and recorded three “solid” hits.

[Pat Burke]

This is interesting…

I enjoy these tests but there are so many things that it doesn’t cover IMO
1) I don’t remember a good player using the “Original One” as a driver. I’m sure some did, but most used them as strong fairway woods.


2) the evolution of what we looked for in spin/launch angle/weighting kept changing as well


3) obviously as we learned more about optimums, the biggest change to me was looking for much higher launch and less spin than I liked for my old swing.  I had to make a significant change to my swing to hit it higher with a bit more spin to be able to use the equipment I started using when I returned to competitive golf in 2014







https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1

[Thomas Dai]

6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."

It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above.  Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.
It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back.  I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.
The fact that golf manufacturers can rally people to complain about regulating equipment may make it hard to change things, but we have plenty of recent evidence that you can get a lot of people to resist something that would benefit the community as a whole.

Nicely said.
‘Shifty’ and ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’ go together nicely.
How much information do those in charge of the game need before they’ll make a decision?
Or is it just that they’re chicken?
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above.  Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.

Nothing shifty there. I've said the same few things for awhile now. For the 10%, there are many courses they can play that are over 6500 yards.

Both can exist:

• We shouldn't make decisions based on a tiny %, and that tiny % aren't "the game."
• 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.

It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back.  I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.

You are an expert on building a golf course, on "golf architecture." Of course. But that's just one piece of this "rollback" stuff.

Like I said, we've been over this a bunch, so… no need to re-hash it again. Nobody's changed their opinions, and until that happens… what's new to discuss?

[Tim Gavrich]

• 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.

It's become increasingly clear that, left unchecked, club + ball will make it so something more like 8,000 yards is sufficient for that remaining 10%. So that's 10% of golfers who demand 23% more golf course in order to play the game. All that extra golf course acreage costs a bit more money and time to maintain, doesn't it?


I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?

[Rob Marshall]

It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above.  Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.

Nothing shifty there. I've said the same few things for awhile now. For the 10%, there are many courses they can play that are over 6500 yards.

Both can exist:

• We shouldn't make decisions based on a tiny %, and that tiny % aren't "the game."
• 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.

It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back.  I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.

You are an expert on building a golf course, on "golf architecture." Of course. But that's just one piece of this "rollback" stuff.

Like I said, we've been over this a bunch, so… no need to re-hash it again. Nobody's changed their opinions, and until that happens… what's new to discuss?

I thought he was being polite with “shifty”.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's become increasingly clear that, left unchecked, club + ball will make it so something more like 8,000 yards is sufficient for that remaining 10%.

No. And saying it a bunch of times doesn't make it true.

All that extra golf course acreage costs a bit more money and time to maintain, doesn't it?

So does all the width that's en vogue. And a "back tee" often doesn't need more maintained fairway. Just the tee box. If you're on those back tees, you can reach the fairway that starts 30 yards in front of the forward tees.

I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?

So don't. Don't cater to them. Just say "go somewhere else, we'll let the 95% play." I feel like you argued against yourself there.

[Tim Gavrich]

Erik,



The most startling aspect of your position is how it seeks to absolve itself of all accountability and responsibility for caring for a game that, as is the case with every golfer, has given a whole lot more back to you than you can ever hope to contribute to it.

I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?

So don't. Don't cater to them. Just say "go somewhere else, we'll let the 95% play." I feel like you argued against yourself there.

"Sorry folks, I know your golf course has made golfers of all abilities happy for a century, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce your client base because some of them hit it farther than you knew to be possible when your course opened. Hope you planted enough trees between the fairways so that golfers don't get hit by tee shots sprayed farther than you ever expected!"


It is a demonstrable fact that golfers - especially the ones who drive perceptions of what a golf course should be like for the rest of us - hit the ball farther than ever before. This has fundamentally altered the way thousands of golf courses play, relative to the intent of the people who designed them.


Rather than the integrity of these courses - and the small businesses that many of them represent - your position defends the manufacturers, whose combination of R&D talent, marketing savvy and logistics expertise make them a) infinitely more capable of adapting to any modification in the rules around what equipment is competition-conforming, and b) eminently capable of profiting from those changes.


This position is a slap in the face to the golf courses and operators who give the OEMs a reason to exist in the first place.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The most startling aspect of your position is how it seeks to absolve itself of all accountability and responsibility for caring for a game that, as is the case with every golfer, has given a whole lot more back to you than you can ever hope to contribute to it.

If you'd like to apply the same logic to everyone who didn't step in and ensure that we're still hitting featheries with grooveless, metal and wooden-headed clubs with wood shafts and no real grips while wearing heavy jackets, then I'd at least applaud your consistency.

I care very much about the game. I simply disagree that there's a "problem" in need of solving across the entire "game" of golf.

"Sorry folks, I know your golf course has made golfers of all abilities happy for a century, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce your client base because some of them hit it farther than you knew to be possible when your course opened. Hope you planted enough trees between the fairways so that golfers don't get hit by tee shots sprayed farther than you ever expected!"

You said "What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer" and so my response was "so don't." You pointed out that they're often playing for a reduced or even free rate, so why cater to them? And you said that those were the back tees, implying that if they no longer visited the course, the course would still have room to grow should the 90-95% of golfers somehow find more distance.

It is a demonstrable fact that golfers - especially the ones who drive perceptions of what a golf course should be like for the rest of us - hit the ball farther than ever before. This has fundamentally altered the way thousands of golf courses play, relative to the intent of the people who designed them.

I'm not denying any of that.

And yet, 6500 yards is long enough for the vast majority of golfers, and for those 5 or 10%, there are plenty of courses longer than that for them. For the PGA Tour, a tiny portion of the game, I don't care if they shoot -27 in a week. They're not "the game."

Rather than the integrity of these courses - and the small businesses that many of them represent - your position defends the manufacturers

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't agree that there's a "problem" in need of a solution. It's not like equipment is unregulated and someone's going to find 30 yards via equipment. And my position is also that if a change happens, for the disruption that it causes, that it not be a change just for the sake of change without truly knowing what the end result will be. If you want to say "make the ball spin more," and you don't know exactly what that's going to cause, or how people might work around that in a heartbeat…

Did the grooves rule really change much? Did it accomplish much? Or did the engineers figure out how to work around it pretty quickly? Was it worth it, to change that rule?

[Steve Kline]

Erik,


The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.


Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.


Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.


The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."


My response, "No, we are going to make it better."


His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."


My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."


Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.


And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.

[JMEvensky]

Erik,


The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.

I agree with this to an extent. There are certainly clueless high handicaps who can only see a golf course for its total yardage.


But, there are also high handicaps who either through learning/traveling or intuition realize there's more to a golf course than that. Plus, they realize that any lengthening or making a course harder for harder's sake is frequently inimical to their interests.


For those high handicaps, frequently what happens is they run into a Green Chair who stops the discussion with "you're a high handicap, what could you possibly know?". So you end up with a group of members, whose opinions/input should be heard, being "bullied" by a putz who's going to spend their money making their course more enjoyable for him.

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,


The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.


Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.


Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.


The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."


My response, "No, we are going to make it better."


His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."


My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."


Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.


And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.

Steve,
I think the challenge is to make the course more playable and enjoyable for ALL the players. I think that’s were the talent of the architect comes into play. How do you do that without making the course too easy for the better player?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.

Oh good, anecdotes. 

His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."

Then educate the guy (which it sounds like you did, or tried to do). Or say "Buddy, you don't play the back tees we have now" and go on about your day.

How do you think this guy would react to hitting it even shorter than he does now?

And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.

I didn't do that. My comment about telling the golfers the one person was complaining about (raters, top ams, the people who play for free or a reduced rate), not the flip side of the 90%. Many courses have tees beyond 6500. I've only said 6500 yards is plenty for 90%+ (I think at times I've said 95%).

I've also called for data on the number of courses that have, in the last 10 years, or 20 years, added 300+ yards, or 500+ yards, to their courses. Many seem to act like it's happening all over the place, but few have shared information about the actual number of courses undergoing this. Is it happening at 5% of courses, or 95%? 60%? 20%?

And even on courses that have added back tees, you'll hear people say "oh, it results in more fairway that needs to be maintained" while simultaneously talking about how they want more width and angles, and ignoring that people from the back tee box are already flying the first 140 yards of fairway anyway.

[Joe Hancock]

I fell in love with this game many years ago, playing PowerBilt Levelume irons and laminated woods. It was(and still is) a hard game to learn, and improving was a self-esteem builder. I don’t see the reasoning of making things easier just to keep drawing in dollars from the half-commited. Wait, I may have just discovered something…..

[Steve Kline]

Erik,


The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.


Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.


Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.


The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."


My response, "No, we are going to make it better."


His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."


My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."


Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.


And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.

Steve,
I think the challenge is to make the course more playable and enjoyable for ALL the players. I think that’s were the talent of the architect comes into play. How do you do that without making the course too easy for the better player?

My club has a great set of greens. If we wanted to defend par we could put holes in places that are fair but would pretty much guarantee none of the members would shoot a good score. The greens have enough slope you have to hit it directly below the hole to make putts. We tend to have pretty firm greens too. So angles on those hole locations become important.


In the top 16 handicaps (the championship flight if the club championship) at the club we have four plus handicaps and then it tales off really fast. The bottom four seeds had an index in the high 3s to over 4.

[Rob Marshall]

Steve, It's not about defending par it's about making the course challenging from the tee all the way thru the green. A better player is going to want to be tested off the tee and into the greens. They aren't just looking for a putting contest.


I get what you are saying. We just went thru a bunker renovation that also modified some holes. The changes were great and well received by all levels of golfer at our club. Now we are working on a tree program. We hired a great Architect in Ian Andrew. I think there is a very fine line in making changes that work for all levels of golfer. It's a balancing act. A tough one at that. That's all I'm saying.

[Steve Kline]

Steve, It's not about defending par it's about making the course challenging from the tee all the way thru the green. A better player is going to want to be tested off the tee and into the greens. They aren't just looking for a putting contest.


I get what you are saying. We just went thru a bunker renovation that also modified some holes. The changes were great and well received by all levels of golfer at our club. Now we are working on a tree program. We hired a great Architect in Ian Andrew. I think there is a very fine line in making changes that work for all levels of golfer. It's a balancing act. A tough one at that. That's all I'm saying.

Okay...I should have said challenging instead of defend par.


The tough hole locations aren't about a putting contest. You can get to them, but you better hit the tee shot in the right place. And, you are going to need to end up below the hole.



For the good player, the test is getting the proper angle to green off the tee not just hitting the fairway (I know the theory that players can't reliably do that). With a renovation at my club, that would mean challenging ravines or bunkers to get the angle to certain hole locations or use the slopes to feed the ball to the green.

[Thomas Dai]

There shouldn't be much if indeed any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a say 90% ball on an 90% length course.
Same number of shots .... but on a smaller area of land.
Might be quite nice.
atb