[Dave Doxey]

Dave,

Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.

They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc.  And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.

But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?

Little of that is regulated by the industries.  Helmets, sneakers, gloves, pads, etc. are not governed by rules.  Shoes and clothing are not regulated.  Most of the spending in the sports that you mentioned is unaffected by regulation.   Balls, and bats are, but they are a minuscule market compared to golf clubs and balls. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Interesting that Chamblee makes that assertion. In the absence of shotlink data, does he have another source or is that his personal recollection. There are plenty of us who have been interested observers of the game for longer than he who have different recollections.

Yes, he has ShotLink data. 175-225 is still one of the key areas of the game. Players who excel in that area are strongly correlated to perform well.

I think it's possible, if not likely, that you're both over-estimating how many long-irons guys hit into 6700-yard courses in the 70s or 80s or whatever, and under-estimating how few they hit these days. Combine that with the fact that lofts are stronger now, so a modern 7-iron might be an Arnie-era 5, and you get this skewed perception.

Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.

Obviously the "weekend golfer" isn't playing a PGA Tour event.

Bifurcation is nonsense.

Grandfathering is where it's at. Everything up until 202X is legal. Everything after must conform to this...

I agree with the first, but… it's not like there aren't regulations in place right now. Guys are just swinging a little faster. The ball has been maxed out for nearly 20 years, and drivers too. Optimization of launch angles might still have a little room for growth (not in our understanding of them, just in how many players truly optimize), and players will swing faster, maybe. That's about it. We're out of runway. I don't think the trend will "continue" unless we also continue to have firm fairways, etc.

Why not do something like bowling does with changing oil patterns. Keep the fairways firm at 250, and slowly make them a bit softer out to 350 or so. It'll help reduce the differences in distance and reduce overall distance.

Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.

Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game?

I don't think anyone on here is an "average golfer" in the sense of the word that people use when they say that.

Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?

That would reduce distance slightly, but probably not as much as you think. Compare these two shots, at 2250 and 3750 RPM. Note also that even though the spin axis is 20°, neither ball curves much. Increasing the spin doesn't necessarily guarantee you're going to tilt the spin axis more.




11 yards, and not much more curve. (Shot 1 was with a 10° spin axis tilt).

My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.

:thumbsup:

In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:

Straw man. Those aren't bifurcations in the actual rules, or else you could say golf has been bifurcated as long as we've had the chance of different weather for the 8:20am tee times than the 1:40pm tee times.

Your list has no actual bifurcations in it.

If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.

They ARE stopped, and balls ARE all subject to the same technical restrictions. They have been for decades. I don't understand posts like this: do you think balls are unregulated or something? The golf ball is one of the most highly regulated pieces of equipment in sports.

It's all just marketing BS.


-----


P.S. Not for nothing, but I laugh when I see people say the current ball doesn't spin. No, it spins… just go sit at a public course any time. PGA Tour players are just good, and their balls don't curve much mostly because of that, and only a little bit because of the golf ball. It's not like many PGA Tour players back in the 80s were hitting duck hooks and 60-yard slices accidentally when they swung 5% harder.

[jeffwarne]

Interesting that Chamblee makes that assertion. In the absence of shotlink data, does he have another source or is that his personal recollection. There are plenty of us who have been interested observers of the game for longer than he who have different recollections.

Yes, he has ShotLink data. 175-225 is still one of the key areas of the game. Players who excel in that area are strongly correlated to perform well.

I think it's possible, if not likely, that you're both over-estimating how many long-irons guys hit into 6700-yard courses in the 70s or 80s or whatever, and under-estimating how few they hit these days. Combine that with the fact that lofts are stronger now, so a modern 7-iron might be an Arnie-era 5, and you get this skewed perception.

Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.

Obviously the "weekend golfer" isn't playing a PGA Tour event.

Bifurcation is nonsense.

Grandfathering is where it's at. Everything up until 202X is legal. Everything after must conform to this...

I agree with the first, but… it's not like there aren't regulations in place right now. Guys are just swinging a little faster. The ball has been maxed out for nearly 20 years, and drivers too. Optimization of launch angles might still have a little room for growth (not in our understanding of them, just in how many players truly optimize), and players will swing faster, maybe. That's about it. We're out of runway. I don't think the trend will "continue" unless we also continue to have firm fairways, etc.

Why not do something like bowling does with changing oil patterns. Keep the fairways firm at 250, and slowly make them a bit softer out to 350 or so. It'll help reduce the differences in distance and reduce overall distance.

Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.

Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game?

I don't think anyone on here is an "average golfer" in the sense of the word that people use when they say that.

Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?

That would reduce distance slightly, but probably not as much as you think. Compare these two shots, at 2250 and 3750 RPM. Note also that even though the spin axis is 20°, neither ball curves much. Increasing the spin doesn't necessarily guarantee you're going to tilt the spin axis more.




11 yards, and not much more curve. (Shot 1 was with a 10° spin axis tilt).

My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.

:thumbsup:

In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:

Straw man. Those aren't bifurcations in the actual rules, or else you could say golf has been bifurcated as long as we've had the chance of different weather for the 8:20am tee times than the 1:40pm tee times.

Your list has no actual bifurcations in it.

If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.

They ARE stopped, and balls ARE all subject to the same technical restrictions. They have been for decades. I don't understand posts like this: do you think balls are unregulated or something? The golf ball is one of the most highly regulated pieces of equipment in sports.

It's all just marketing BS.


-----


P.S. Not for nothing, but I laugh when I see people say the current ball doesn't spin. No, it spins… just go sit at a public course any time. PGA Tour players are just good, and their balls don't curve much mostly because of that, and only a little bit because of the golf ball. It's not like many PGA Tour players back in the 80s were hitting duck hooks and 60-yard slices accidentally when they swung 5% harder.

The ball does spin less now off a driver,and generally curve less-both on purpose and accidentally-but a ball still can easily be hit wildly as low spin can't help a ball started 50 yards off line.
Interestingly back in the era mentioned(80's and the 70's), because of the spinnier ball and wooden heads, there were far more right to left players as only the elite who shallowed out(Hogan, Trevino, Leitzke) or truly powerful(Nicklaus, Stadler) could hit a fade with enough power to play that way(or so we believed).
To create a draw, many more good-very good players played from underneath the shaft plane(in to out) which created a far greater need for timing the body and hand/arm release, so in their case swinging all out could affect their timing and make the fairways more difficult to find.
I'd say 95% of the club pros juniors and top amateurs I worked with in the late 80's and 90's were too far under the plane, reducing their day to day consistency, especially under pressure.
Players today are far more on plane or even slightly over it and have been taught from an early age to allow the club to go back to the left(inside-square-inside) to avoid excessive in to out--which doesn't work well at all with a low spin ball.
The greats of all eras have always played on plane, but there certainly was a drive-the-legs generation of the 1970's who played golf from way too inside-out for a long or successful career, and certainly many from that era suffered with bad backs from all the lateral lower body drive(popularized by Johnny Miller and Jack Nicklaus who talked about driving the legs probably more than they did) and hung back upper to a high finish(Danny Noonan)
There were a lot of short careers in the 1970's (Mark Hayes, John Schlee) Those that lasted altered their motions (Tom Watson, Faldo, Price) The rest of us became "those who can't do teach"(ers) who suffer with bad backs.


Despite my constant moaning about equipment, certainly much of the gains have been from better technique, lighter equipment from a young age, and optimization of equipment, ball, physique and technique.

[Peter Pallotta]

Forget this thread and the possible rule changes: I just learned more about the golf swing at the 'macro level' and, more importantly to me, my particular golf swing, from Jeff W's single post than I did from all the years of reading countless books and too many hours of youtube combined.
That was just excellent, Jeff - the big picture and the small, all in one neat package. Thanks much!

[SL_Solow]

An additional point, players can "go after" the ball harder with a ball that spins less and a larger more forgiving clubhead.  The penalty for off center hits is smaller

[David Harshbarger]

The greats of all eras have always played on plane, but there certainly was a drive-the-legs generation of the 1970's who played golf from way too inside-out for a long or successful career, and certainly many from that era suffered with bad backs from all the lateral lower body drive(popularized by Johnny Miller and Jack Nicklaus who talked about driving the legs probably more than they did) and hung back upper to a high finish(Danny Noonan)
There were a lot of short careers in the 1970's (Mark Hayes, John Schlee) Those that lasted altered their motions (Tom Watson, Faldo, Price)

This Danny Noonan? 


"He gets it up to the top OK, but then he slams his hips to the left," Boyd said. "[Noonan] hadn't played golf in about 20 years because he's a Zen practitioner and doesn't believe in country clubs.

http://www.badgolfer.com/departments/features/michael-okeefe-profile.htm

[Erik J. Barzeski]

An additional point, players can "go after" the ball harder with a ball that spins less and a larger more forgiving clubhead.  The penalty for off center hits is smaller

IMO this point is vastly over-stated. Guys were good in the 80s, and the guys playing now are better yet.

[Adam_Messix]

Erik


When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook?  It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more.  I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook?  It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more.  I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.

Jason Day topped a driver at Kapalua or whatever a few years ago. Zach Johnson hit the ball with a practice swing. Heck I think Justin Thomas popped one up a little at Kapalua, perhaps, too. Or maybe Sony. They hit shanks occasionally, too, and will blade a ball now and then as well.

But, overall, Tour players are better than they were in the 80s.

[jeffwarne]

Erik


When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook?  It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more.  I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.

I certainly still have the snap hook still-less spinny, just as left

[Adam_Messix]

I remember when, as assistant, watching a fellow pro in a tournament hit one straight up and it going 80 yards and he was more concerned about the "idiot" mark on top of his driver head.  Don't see many idiot marks anymore.


Jeff, I can still hit it left too but just not the Palmer on 16 at Olympic in 66 caliber snapper. 


My point is that the tour pros may be better and the fields are much deeper top to bottom, they just aren't THAT much better.  The issue is as much the tour pros getting so much more distance out of the new equipment vs. the average player. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My point is that the tour pros may be better and the fields are much deeper top to bottom, they just aren't THAT much better.  The issue is as much the tour pros getting so much more distance out of the new equipment vs. the average player.

Oh, for sure, smaller heads (or whatever) would slightly increase the weird shots we'd occasionally/rarely see.

Though I think their information was pretty light, the reports did have numbers about how much distance amateurs gained. It might be (maybe?) more than you think. (I'd think a fair way of judging is by percentage.)

Oh, there's a tweet: https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1224727472190697472

From 1995 to 2019 Avg drive for tour player increased 10.6%. From 1995 to 2019 avg drive for amateur players increased 8.0% (200 yds to 216 yds).

So it's not the full amount, but it's not what I'd call an insignificant gain… plus, I wonder if the 8% would have been larger had all amateurs been playing balata instead of distance balls back in 1995.

[Rob Marshall]

Erik


When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook?  It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more.  I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.

I certainly still have the snap hook still-less spinny, just as left

Me too!

[SL_Solow]

1980, first year of official driving statistics, Dan Pohl led at 274.6.  Tour average 256.8.  Wooden drivers and balata balls. I will stipulate that the dollars, Tiger, etc have brought better athletes and better training into the game.  I'll even give credit to instruction although the best always seemed to figure out how to get it done.  But the difference in that space of time is too great to attribute to increased athleticism.  Take a look at films of Snead and ask yourself whether the current players are better athletes.  The young Nicklaus was enormously powerful.  I can name others who are lesser known.  Clearly on an across the board basis, the current players are better conditioned athletes but that does not explain the vast gains, particularly when compared to prior similar time periods.  Historically,each time there has been a major change in distance it has been connected to changes in technology whether you start with the advent of the Haskell ball or earlier.  The question presented is not whether technology has impacted the game but whether one wishes to stop it.  Put a different way, when has the game become "mature" so that regulations should be enacted to preserve it. Putting aside my preference for competition where a wider variety of skills are required, the greatest argument for deciding the game (equipment) is mature, or even that it should be rolled back, is the impact it has on our playing fields.  Regardless of whether it makes sense for the average club member, there is tremendous pressure to make one's club a "championship" test.  Thus clubs and owners push to lengthen their courses to the limits of their property.  Those who can afford to buy more land,e.g. Augusta, buy land.  Putting this in perspective, average length hitters today hit shorter clubs into Augusta's par 5's than Nicklaus did in his prime.  It is not credible to suggest that today's average to short hitting pro is more powerful than Nicklaus.  So courses are made longer even though a miniscule number of members play from the back tees.  Maintenance costs go up, environmental impacts increase (although in fairness to my superintendent friends, this can be a good thing), lengths of rounds go up etc.  All of this so that a long drive is 325 yards as opposed to 275.  I can recall watching golf on television when a 260 yard drive was deemed to be very long and nobody pooh poohed it.  The first thing we need to do is agree on the impact of equipment.  It has taken awhile for the USGA and the R&A to recognize that reality, although apparently there are some on this Board who disagree.  Then there has to be a decision made on what, if anything, to do about it.  Finally, there must be sufficient fortitude and resources (likely devoted to litigation) to implement the decision.


While I like the way the game was played when courses were effectively longer, I continue to enjoy watching the pros.  My main concerns are the impact on architecture, recognizing those who resist such as Tom, and the increased pressure on the economics of the game.

[Peter Pallotta]

"The question presented is not whether technology has impacted the game but whether one wishes to stop it.  Put a different way, when has the game become "mature" so that regulations should be enacted to preserve it."

I think that's it precisely, and that you put it just right, Shel.

The 'fields' are no doubt better now than back then, but the 'greats' were just as great.

The only alternative to grappling with the tough questions of if & when the game has become mature and how & to what extent it should be preserved is to say, in essence, that there is no other "game" but the one that is being played today (or that will be played 'tomorrow'), and so there is nothing to "preserve".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But the difference in that space of time is too great to attribute to increased athleticism.

It's a lot of things.

• Longer clubs.
• Lighter clubs.
• The ball.
• The conditioning of the fairways (height, firmness).
• Launch monitors and optimized launch conditions.
• An increased understanding of how important distance is to scoring.

Take a look at films of Snead and ask yourself whether the current players are better athletes.

That comment, if you're talking about me, is in regards to the average PGA Tour player, who is a better golfer now than they were during the 1960s. Or 1980s.

Clearly on an across the board basis, the current players are better conditioned athletes

There we go.

Thus clubs and owners push to lengthen their courses to the limits of their property.

I think the number of clubs doing this over the last 20 years has been over-estimated by many. 6500 yards is long enough to serve the needs of almost all golfers. This is, at best, a ~0.01% problem IMO. And I don't really care what they do, or what they shoot. It's not like they play great courses week in and week out, anyway.

[SL_Solow]

Erik,  I am involved in the administration of amateur golf in the greater Chicago area.  Perhaps it is different where you reside, and I will rely on others to describe their experiences, but here I assure you that the lengthening of courses has not been an occasional event.  The interesting thing is that courses used to try to get to 7,000 yards.  Now??

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik,  I am involved in the administration of amateur golf in the greater Chicago area.  Perhaps it is different where you reside, and I will rely on others to describe their experiences, but here I assure you that the lengthening of courses has not been an occasional event.  The interesting thing is that courses used to try to get to 7,000 yards.  Now??

I don't doubt that's how you feel, but I would rather see actual data on this type of stuff. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe my "anecdata" either.

Page 42 of the Distance Insights Report has some information on this stuff. I won't quote it, but it notes the average course length of courses opened in 2011-2016 is < 7000 yards, and that courses lengthened were not abundant in number (though their numbers lack some clarity).

The median and 90th percentiles for course length haven't increased much since the 1980s. The top line is 7500 yards, the second line is 7000. So, 7100 in 1980 and just over 7200 now?

And again… 6500 yards is fine for almost all golfers.

This is a ~0.01% problem, if you stipulate that it's a problem at all.

[SL_Solow]

Erik,  I limited my comments to personal knowledge.  I am familiar with almost all of the renovations in my area over the last 20 years.  Increased length is a reality.  Incidentally, your suggestion that longer clubs and lighter shafts added to length confirms that equipment changes are a significant factor in increased lengths.  As far as agronomic factors, many courses did not have the extensive irrigation systems almost universally in use so that a fair number had baked out fairways adding to distance.  Of course this was more true from the 40's (before my time) through at least the mid 60's.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik, a question, just to understand better your perspective:

Say there were only 10 golf courses in all of America that have been (and will continue to be) lengthened and renovated to suit the modern game and to serve as venues for pro-level championships -- only 10, in the entire country, but all of them golden age classics, all of them the best & most indicative examples of work by the greatest architects of all time, and none of which you or I will ever play.

For you: are those 10 courses worth 'preserving' in anything resembling their original form, and simply because they represent unique expressions of creative genius and are storehouses of the game's history and spirit?

And, more to the point: if preserving those courses and allowing them to continue to serve as venues for pro-level championships that 'play' in some way like they did for Hogan and Nicklaus required that the USGA bring in new rules & regulations limiting and/or rolling back equipment technology, would you think those new rules worth it?

There's no 'right' answer here: some people on this board who I'm fond of and who I often agree with I suspect would say "no"; others might surprise me and say "yes". But I think that this 'yes or no' is really one of the key drivers of our individual POVs on the broader question -- i.e. not only our views on/reaction to driving stats and our opinions on sustainability/maintenance costs etc, but also this: are a few truly great courses worth preserving as championship fields of play, simply because they are truly great?
 
Peter         

[SL_Solow]

In the interest of fairness to the architects and membership, two recent restoration projects in the Chicago area, Bob O' Linc and Old Elm did not add significant length

[Ken Moum]

What would be the benefit to any single individual if the Tour ball were rolled back?


Keep in mind, the Tour already plays forward from the back tees on a great number of holes every week...

That's the problem, we don't know who that player is now, because the shift toward a power game over a "finesse" game has been so complete that a player who simply can't generate ultra-high club head speed isn't going to rise to the level where we'd even see them.  Not even in elite junior golf.


I've walked the fairways with a bunch of juniors (as a volunteer walking scorer at AJGA events) and they are LONG. I walked with Akshat Bhatia when he was 15 and it was incredible how far he hit it.  Now, he's gone from junior to pro, skipping college and in 11 rounds on Tour he's averaging 316 yard off the tee.


That puts him 5th in driving distance at AGE 18!! The only players ahead of him are Cameron Champ, Grayson Murray, Ryan Brehm and Bubba Watson.


I'll say the same thing I say every time this comes up.  We need a lighter ball.  Not the reviled Balloon Ball of the 30's that was both balata and 1.55 ounces. But maybe somewhere around 1.58 to 1.60 instead of the current 1.62.


A lighter ball will curve more. Abd this effect will increase as ball speed increases, because aerodynamic  drag increases exponentially as speed goes up.


A lighter ball at the highest ball speed will lose more of it's speed in the first 100 yards (or 50 yards, or 150 yards) than a ball launched at lower velocity.  (FWIW, it's a product of the ballistic coefficient and the cross-sectional density of a sphere).


So truly short hitters like women and seniors wouldn't lose as much percentage-wise.  They's also benefit from the fact that a lighter ball is easier to keep airborne, which would again affect the elite players because they'd slightly see more of a likelihood of the ball "getting away" from them.


Their response could take two paths, play a ball that spins less, taking away their ability to control shorter shots after they landed, or learn to swing "under control" just like Jack Nicklaus and every other long hitter from the balata ball days.


And anyone who says today's "athletes" of golf are head and shoulders above guys like Jack needs to read this.


If you don't want to read it, it's simply makes the point that in 1963 JAck won the PGA long drive contest by hitting a BALATA ball with a 42.75" PERSIMMON DRIVER... 341 yards.

Thats a yard longer than what it took to win that 2014 contest with a titanium driver and multi-layer ball.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik,  I limited my comments to personal knowledge. I am familiar with almost all of the renovations in my area over the last 20 years.  Increased length is a reality.

I know you did. I'm just looking for some actual numbers, because I feel the "reality" where I live is a bit different. Heck, the course I play most often opened in 2008 and tips out at 6900 yards.

Incidentally, your suggestion that longer clubs and lighter shafts added to length confirms that equipment changes are a significant factor in increased lengths.

As did the other things I listed. My point was it's more than just "adding spin to the golf ball." That will get you, at most, a few years (and a few yards) back.

Say there were only 10 golf courses in all of America that have been (and will continue to be) lengthened and renovated to suit the modern game and to serve as venues for pro-level championships -- only 10, in the entire country, but all of them golden age classics, all of them the best & most indicative examples of work by the greatest architects of all time, and none of which you or I will ever play. For you: are those 10 courses worth 'preserving' in anything resembling their original form, and simply because they represent unique expressions of creative genius and are storehouses of the game's history and spirit?

I would say, in that vastly different scenario, that the courses should be preserved as such.

However, the scenario you proposed is nowhere near the 100+ year reality that we have now. The PGA Tour does not regularly play "unique expressions of creative genius" or "golden age classics." They visit TPC Scottsdale.

My perspective is that 6500 yards is enough for the vast majority of golfers. That courses that want to lengthen to cater to the tiny percentage of golfers who can play at those lengths are making decisions for themselves, and nobody's forcing them to do that. That I don't think what 0.01% of golfers can do should dictate the terms by which the rest of the golf world should abide, and before you say "bifurcation," that I'm against that as well for reasons I've shared a few times.

And, more to the point: if preserving those courses and allowing them to continue to serve as venues for pro-level championships that 'play' in some way like they did for Hogan and Nicklaus required that the USGA bring in new rules & regulations limiting and/or rolling back equipment technology, would you think those new rules worth it?

No, because I don't really care if players hit the same clubs in as older players, because time moves on. In choosing Hogan and Nicklaus, you're setting a marker where someone else might say we should go back to hickory so players could hit the same clubs as Ouimet or Sarazen or Jones.

I don't really care if, some day, they no longer play championship golf at The Old Course, because it will still be there for the vast majority of golfers to enjoy. The ones for which the on-course back tees (not the off-course British Open tees) are still too much of a challenge. I also think that the impact of equipment is pretty much done - we have standards, and we domesticated the Pinnacle, and guys are swinging faster these days, but that's going to reach a limit, too. If you think the PGA Tour is going to turn into the WLD, watch those guys and realize how seldom they hit the ball within a 60-yard-wide area.

I also don't really care if they continue to play the Old Course and shoot -26 because the wind doesn't kick up for four days. People talk about how "par is meaningless" but then talk about how they can't stand to see people beating up some course here and there. And, I think the doom and gloom about courses hosting majors and PGA Tour stops is over-done, too. Pebble is barely 7000 yards and just hosted another great U.S. Open (albeit one in which the USGA was a bit gun-shy). Oakmont stands up to the guys.

Some of the game's best holes are the short ones. You want to reward more "skills" in the game - look at the 10th at Riviera. Look at the second at Oakmont. Those holes don't require a 4-iron approach shot, and never did. They require skill, touch, and thought. They confuse the guys.

175-225 is still a highly important yardage on Tour. It's where Tiger lived and breathed, and where the others who are now at the top of the game gain a lot of separation. So what if a guy is hitting the 15th at Augusta with a 5-iron now instead of a 5-wood or a 2-iron? The 5-iron has the loft of a 3-iron and the greens are firmer, faster, and more dangerous than they were when Nicklaus was playing it anyway.

Some people will talk about the "excitement" of watching PGA Tour golf, but I don't see that point either. Excitement comes from a few areas, including the personalities at play, the storylines, the closeness of the tournament on the back nine, the shots pulled off… etc. TV coverage shows a guy hitting a ball, the ball against the sky, and the ball landing on the green. We know for a fact that if the guy hits a 4-iron, it's going to generally finish farther from the hole than the guy who hits an 8-iron, so which is more exciting? Yes, us golf geeks can appreciate the extra skill it takes to hit a 4-iron to 30 feet than an 8-iron to 25 feet, but… so? If TV golf coverage never told you a yardage again, and added three clubs to everything the caddies flashed to the on-course reporter, would golf suddenly be more exciting because you think the guy hit a 5-iron instead of an 8-iron?

I didn't agree with all that Brandel Chamblee said, but I did with a lot of it. I think you could slow the fairways down (even doing the tapered idea that was my own twist on that), make them longer (amateurs like a little cushion anyway, and it'll reduce chemical use as well), and grow the rough at PGA Tour stops a bit longer.

There's no 'right' answer here: some people on this board who I'm fond of and who I often agree with I suspect would say "no"; others might surprise me and say "yes". But I think that this 'yes or no' is really one of the key drivers of our individual POVs on the broader question -- i.e. not only our views on/reaction to driving stats and our opinions on sustainability/maintenance costs etc, but also this: are a few truly great courses worth preserving as championship fields of play, simply because they are truly great?

Why can't we have new courses, like Whistling Straits, enter the fray? Why does a course we played 120 years ago have to be played today, when it can still be played by 95% of golfers?

I run an event called the Newport Cup, named after the site of the first U.S. Open. It's not long enough to support U.S. Open play anymore, but 95% of golfers can get all the challenge they need from that course, no? What's so wrong with that?

Note: These are totally my opinions, and everyone gets to have their own, of course. Nobody's "right" or "wrong" because we're not talking about facts here. I appreciate that environmental concerns and societal pressures are valid and legitimate concerns. I do not want the government deciding that golf needs heavily regulated. I wish we could go back in time* and, somehow, create a game where a long par five was 390 yards and even expansive golf courses could fit into < 100 acres, and long drivers talked about how they can occasionally hit it 200, but we can't, and history is what it was, and even Nicklaus was hitting it 341 in the 60s. That's our history. (* And even if we could craft that game in our time machine, I wonder if people wouldn't bemoan the 5,500-yard monstrosities that started to spring up as golf became a richer sport that athletes began playing more regularly…).

I've walked the fairways with a bunch of juniors (as a volunteer walking scorer at AJGA events) and they are LONG. I walked with Akshat Bhatia when he was 15 and it was incredible how far he hit it.  Now, he's gone from junior to pro, skipping college and in 11 rounds on Tour he's averaging 316 yard off the tee.

And how's he fared in those 11 rounds? It's not just about power. The game still requires a ton of finesse, touch, and skill. Speed is a "skill" in every sport; golf is no different there.

That puts him 5th in driving distance at AGE 18!! The only players ahead of him are Cameron Champ, Grayson Murray, Ryan Brehm and Bubba Watson.

He's played six PGA Tour events. He's missed the cut in six PGA Tour events.

And anyone who says today's "athletes" of golf are head and shoulders above guys like Jack needs to read this.

Nobody's said that today's golfers are better than perhaps the second-best golfer of all time, Ken. The average PGA Tour player, however, is much better now than in the 60s to 80s, though.

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.


Allow me a romantic hypothetical.
Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?


Certainly we've built plenty of tees at most courses where players could simply move up a few yards-or God forbid hit a slightly longer club in from their regular tee-you know the one that was in and popularly used in 1975 before someone gave them a freaking chart telling them that's where they should play based on their 5 iron distance.
Suddenly rounds would be slightly shorter from less back and forward walking.
Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)
Classic courses would have less need to be bastardized by USGA annointed Open Doctors(wouldn't hold my breath on this one)
Less tees would be required and the game could be more social as the difference between long and Super long would be less in total yards.(yes you can poke holes in this one)


Why is the game better now on what is a larger scale than it was 25-40 years ago.
And yes I'm picking an era but I'd be perfectly fine with 1925ish as well-even less walking-in fact when I play my persimmon and soft Bridgestones I hit it about the distance of that era-Fairways seem a lot wider at 230(of course the ball used to run out) and no walking back.




If courses haven't lengthened as you state, why is golf better with the ball going 10-15% farther?
Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?
Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?
And if they do enjoy it more, why are we so dang worried about people leaving the game?


and if you can successfully dispute all of that..
Would golf be even better if/when we gain another 10%?
Which we could easily do by further changing the rules for more face rebound(ERC on steroids) and hotter balls.
If more distance is good, why not even more?
Why not 1 minute abs?
Seems odd to say golf is better with the ball going 10-15% farther, but then not agree that another 10% would be a good thing.
Seems suspiciously like picking an era as well.




OT-I started a thread years ago about having one or two sets of tees and 5 or 6 different "hottnesses" of balls.
We all play the same tee but DJ plays the SloV1, I play the ProV1, my dad plays the FastV1, my wife the FastV3.
That thread went nowhere......

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.

Thank you. Many of the people who disagree with me also make compelling points and have done their homework. I just don't agree with them, in the same manner in which they don't agree with me.

Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?

Why not just 15% for everyone? I hate arguments like this because they get bogged down and defeated (IMO) in semantics. Where does it switch from 10% to 15%? Why have a break point at all?

Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)

My oh my, all that from a 5-10% drop in distances, eh? I think you're over-reaching a bit.

Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?

0-5 handicappers aren't hitting all that many wedges on 400-yard holes. That range of handicap still averages about 155 yards in. So, if they hit wedge there, it's not a 48° club very often; they're just hitting a 7- or 8-iron marked with a "P" or a "W." Or maybe it's the Titleist "P43". 

Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?

Golf is still ridiculously hard. Equipment can only help the average golfer so much.

and if you can successfully dispute all of that..

I can't dispute it any more than you can "prove" any of it. This is all just opinion. From both sides.

If more distance is good, why not even more?

Straw man argument. Just because "no reduction in distance" is seen as "good" by some doesn't mean they're also saying "more distance" is also good.

-----

Edit: a question for you, Jeff. Do you agree or disagree that 6500 yards is "enough" golf course for 95% of the world's golfers? Do you agree that the "distance problem" is almost entirely limited to a small part of the golf world (of which you are likely a member [to clarify: a member of the "very very good golfers" group, not a "part of the problem"])? Do you also think that if golfers across the world lost 10% of their distance, that golf courses would in fact have to renovate and build new tees and possibly re-configure hazards, etc. in the opposite direction - shorter - so that people could continue to play and enjoy the game? What would happen to the current "back tees?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()