State of the Game-Golf Channel show 12/5

[George Pazin]

b_g

You'll have to check out Weir's stats occasionally during tourneys. I remember looking in on the Amex championship thing late in the year & going through player after player, trying to find who was leading the field in distance after the first day or two. He wasn't on top, but he was in the top 10 when I checked. He's not short by any measure. Seems to me that the "handful of long guys" that all the manufacturers blame everything on are a pretty big lot, far more than Jack and a couple others in his heyday.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

b_g,

Just to show there are different points of view on Weir's ability to hit it a long way (I'm in the minority that believes he's a long hitter after watching him at Riviera this year), here's what Nick Price says:

"People say, ‘Well, Mike Weir’s not a long hitter.’ He’s not short, trust me.”

[T_MacWood]

b-g
Golf course devlopment is one thing to measure, another is to measure the financial health of already developed courses (and compare that health to other decades).

Jim
I'm not sure I understand...is the modern man more uncoordinated (by percentage of the population) than his counterpart pre-cavity back and metal wood? Would we have expereinced more growth in the 50's and 60's with more forgiving clubs--did a lot of golfers quit back then because the game was too hard?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Not more uncoordinated, just more golfers. At 25m and counting there are bound to be more bad swings just as there will be more good swings than before.
With the advent of cavity backed, peripherally weighted irons more golfers found it easier to get the ball airborne and one of the benefits to height comes better directional control. They made the game more playable with less work which helps to keep particpants.

I don't know how they would have affected growth. In 1958 there were about 5,745 courses with a big boom of 900 or so planned for 1959. This was about one course for every 30k people, today that number is around 17k.
An interesting note, munis were 15% of the total courses but got 40% of the play, semis were 33% w/ 28% of the play and privates were 52% with 32% of the play. There were about 75mil rounds played in '58.
Golf was starting to boom, I think it's anybodys guess as to how many more players would have been attracted if easier to play equipment was available but the limited number of courses didn't help either.

Did they quit back then because it was too hard?- I really don't know but at the time golf was less expensive than it is today, adjusted for inflation.  

[ian]

When I started our started with Doug, we had a safety distance of 60 metres between holes. We, 10 years later, use 90 metres. The ball goes further in every direction. The longer the ball goes the wider the safety zones get. The more land we need to build. The more capitol that is borrowed, the higher the green fee is to service the debt. The green fee has grown in leaps and bounds and has doubled in 5 years in Toronto for a mid-teer public golfer (I'm one). The latest rise has been met with 1 12-18% reduction in play this year. While weather was a factor, price was too.

Golf had a great run over the last 10 years. You have got to wonder whether the game is about to go through hard times. Its expensive. Tigermania will never be as big as it was, the players are less interesting, and most importantly Tournyment golf is less interesting. Drive, wedge, putt is far too common. We sit in awe over the length, but it just isn't the same as Pavin's 4 wood at Shinny etc.

Maybe I'm a huge pessamist, or its Christmas burnout, but I think the game is worse off than most. I think we are about to go through a period of decline in participation, a lot of bancrupcys in new facilities, minimal new projects. And most importantly watch for a tournyment or two to cease to exist. I think for the tour to get it, the purses need to be frozen or decline, because people stop going in large numbers. I think that is coming, especially since corporate sponsorship is becoming more difficult. Why, mainly due to the players not being tournyment friendly. They don't want to play Wednesday, they expect a lot of perks, and yet they insist they should have complete peace and quiet.

Ignoring the paroblems by saying golf will always overcome is naive. Look at tennis.

[Alfie]

Jumpin' in here a wee bit late - but better late than never. This issue is really close to my heart - so much so that I've been writing a short essay on the matter. It's in word doc format, so anyone who wants (CARES ?) to have a look at it should e-mail me and I'll send it over. alfie@fernie55.freeserve.co.uk
Don't know what was said on the golf channel, but reading between the lines - it was the same old disappointing crap and cop-outs ? Golfers need to get "honest" with themselves, and if anything needs a really goooood kick in the arse (ass - USA) it's the governing bodies on both sides of the pond !
There is unnecessary hysteria about taking the ball back in time (10, 15, 20 years whatever) and yet it's the most sound and logical solution to what is undoubtedly a continuing (and historic) problem ! Too many are missing the whole point of what the game is all about - it's essence !
Maybe GCA can sort this one out for the experts ? Somebody needs to - and quick !

Alfie Ward, Scotland.

[Brian_Gracely]

Alfie,

Good to hear from you again!  Any "good" news on Arbory Brae?  I'm going to be back in that neck of the woods in May.  Hope things are getting better.

Brian

[Alfie]

Brian,

And good to hear from you ! Arbory, alas, is a dead duck. Couldn't get anyone interested in it over here. Plenty of rich golfers, but none with a conscience ? Going up there today to start taking down all the course signs etc  
Will pay for my ambition for a long time to come, but hey ; I done it - and don't have too many regrets ! You got a wee taster that bitterly cold day and I just wish you had seen the place in summer ! All I've taken out of the project are memories - but they're priceless. Meeting great people like you and Amy (and GCA's slag_bandoon) - that's a great part of golf.
I'm sure I must have preached at you about this technology lark ? It really is killing the game and the cure is so simple ! Too many golfers hiding behind their own ego's !!! Length does appear to matter ?  

Will be sending my essay to you, Brian. It's a good tonic for insomniacs ?

best regards,

Alfie

[TEPaul]

Alfie:

What is or was Arbory Brae? And where?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

 Here is Adam Barr's review of his show from thegolfchannel.com:
   
Industry Stars Gather at TGC
December 5, 2003

Editor's Note: Adam Barr is the host and moderator for The Golf Channel's original production, "RBS Presents The State of the Game" which premieres Fri., Dec. 5 at 8 p.m.

"Twelve influential, experienced, opinionated people. One stage. One moderator.

Worse than L.A. traffic?

No; much better, really. That’s not to say that managing the logistics and exchanges among the panelists during the taping of Royal Bank of Scotland presents The State of the Game was easy. But it was a great deal more exhilarating than an hour on the 405.

Actually, it was a dream assignment. Jack Nicklaus, Suzy Whaley, TaylorMade-adidas golf chief Mark King, Golf 20/20 director Ruffin Beckwith, Ping chairman and CEO John Solheim, Golf World editor-in-chief Geoff Russell, PGA Tour veteran John Cook, LPGA commissioner Ty Votaw, Nike Golf GM David Pillsbury, course designer Tom Fazio, Cleveland Golf president Greg Hopkins and Golf Channel technical adviser Frank Thomas formed the panel. And yes, their heavyweight insights into golf are as substantial as all that.

Starting from a basis of healthy respect, this group lit into each other pretty hard on their ideas – and differences – about what’s good for golf. Always with the decency the game’s traditions demand, they took each other on, not waiting for me to call on them. Their energy made for a fun – and fast-paced – evening.

Jack Nicklaus took the offensive in his defense of his and Gary Player’s decision at the Presidents Cup. Suzy Whaley, who brings a lot of positive energy to any issue, was ready with the grass-roots perspective on participation and what recreational players think. After all, she just about loses count of how many lessons she gives every week.

Greg Hopkins was frank about golf’s growth – which is stuck, in his view. John Solheim brings 40 years of experience, begun working at the side of his father Karsten, who founded Ping. Tom Fazio had cogent observations on how golf’s playing fields have changed in response to equipment advances and other factors.

Naturally, player performance and golf ball distance generated more heat than any other subjects. The constant tension between recreational player desires, advances at the game’s elite level, and manufacturers’ need to innovate make for lively discussion.

Fact is, we could have gone on all night, and I think the panelists were willing. To me, that illuminates one more reason why golf is superior to so many other sports. Our game is as interesting to talk about as it is to play. And legends and the lesser-known can come together to discuss it – and do.

Thanks for watching. I hope you’ll enjoy the show. "

To respond to those who posed questions to me re distance, I still say that the game requires one to put the ball in the hole. If one is "long and wrong" or doesn't have a good short game,what good is a 325 yard drive? Why aren't the professional Long Driver contestants on some tour? I will concede that golf course architecture on some courses,whether where professional events are played or not,will have to be modified. But, after all, a golf course is not made of stone and course modifications are part of golf.

Steve

[Mike_Sweeney]

Alfie:

What is or was Arbory Brae? And where?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/arborybrae_.html

http://www.hickorygolf.co.uk/

[Alfie]

TEP,

Mike_Sweeney kindly obliged by answering your question at GCA. I'm afraid the website is archaic and well past the sell by date but my scribblings at GCA My Home Course tell part of the story and what Arbory Braes "was" intended to be. It turned out to be (by mere chance) the perfect platform for me to explain the dangers of technology by preaching - while my customers learned through their own golfing experience by playing "authentic" ancient golf (1890's). It was designed both for FUN and education - but built with the heart rather than the head !  I know !!! that golfers loved it, cause they couldn't all be liars, and the few who were starting to make return trips would not have done so if they didn't see (and feel) something in it ? The whole set up was modest to the extreme due to the lack of hard cash, but the people appreciated that (I think ?) and that is, after all, the way it would have been at Abington and most other golf establishments during the 1890's.  Here I go again...........
Anyway, Foot & Mouth in 2001 killed the dream and local gov't apathy failed to give it the lifeline it needed for guys like you to visit the place in the future So much for golf tourism in the hame o' gowf ? That's also why the SNGC at Drumoig really sticks in my throat. All that lolly (£4.5m) - jeest flushed doon the dunny !!!

Oh dear, and this is just the tip of the iceberg TEP ?

Will be happy to answer any and all questions put to me (if I have one to give ?) re - Arbory - technology - and..... shit happens !

best regards from Scotland.

Alfie Ward

[Brian_Gracely]

Alfie -

Thanks for the update and as always my best wishes.  Send me a private IM or email with your contact information as whay I have may be out of date.  Perhaps we can get together on one of these modern tracks in May, maybe even break out the hickories??  

TEP -

Arbory Brae was essentially the concept that we wish modern architects and owners would embrace, as much as they talk about their concerns about improving technology.  Restore a course to its original desgn and principles, and stay with that vision against all opposing viewpoints.

I only had the chance to play 4-5 holes at Arbory Brae (due to time constraints), in some of the most Scottish of winter weather in January, 2003.  But the experience and the knowledge gained was not only educational and eye-opening, but as much fun as the rounds I'd played at Turnberry or Prestwick earlier in the week.  

The game would be just as much fun if the technology was rolled back!!  And if you want to meet a true soulmate to the spirit of the game, travel a few miles off the beaten path to Glasgow and go meet Alfie Ward.  

[Andy Hodson]

Ian
Very interesting point about the need for more land for the safety aspects of a golf course. The logic follows that more land equals more money needed which equals higher green fees (or initiation fees) to support that.

This leads to one of two conclusions: 1) The technological race continues and the ball keeps going farther and farther. This leads to higher and higher costs for golf; and in the case of existing courses (not in a residential community) higher safety risks. Inevitably, the concurrent higher costs will lower the number of players in the game. Or 2) The techno guys are right and distance increases are at the edge of the limit, and thus the number of acres needed for a golf course will not increase, meaning (barring any outside inflationary influences) the price of golf moderates. Number of players stays stagnate.

Either way, under these scenarios, the number of players in the game would not appear to be increasing. With no more new players coming into the game, how do the OEMs continue with their profits? Point is, would a roll back (or at least keeping if from going any further) in distance actually be beneficial to the OEMs in the sense that it may be crucial to bringing more players into the game, based on the financials?

[Brian_Gracely]

More land for safety aspects is also brought up in this months issue of T&L Golf, http://www.travelandleisure.com/tlgolf/invoke.cfm?ObjectID=2D5C6BE0-4E7C-4DF4-B5D02684201DF847.

Actually, there are alot of head-scratching and contradictory comments in this article.  For example:

MORRISH: When I first got into this business, we were capable of designing a 7,000-yard golf course that would force you to hit all fourteen clubs. I don't know what we would have to do right now, today, to guarantee that a good player would have to hit every club in his bag.

...how many clus do the good player hit during the Crump Cup at Pine Valley?

JONES:  "..we can't defend par with small greens anymore because of the increase amount of play"  

...been to Pebble Beach lately?

HILLS: "At Oakmont Country Club they have a charity event every year with thirty-some players from the Tour. They charted all the shots. On no par four did a player hit more than a driver and nine-iron."

...were they playing it from tournament tees or in tournament conditions?  seems like a potentially bogus analysis model to me.

HURDZAN: I think that this new technology is good for the game. I think it's good for the average player. It may not be good for tournament golf, but I think that if it gets people interested, if people think they can play better, if they're willing to spend their money in the industry thinking they can play better, I don't have any problem with it. Every time there has been a major technological advance, the game has grown. When we went from a featherie ball, which was going to ruin all the golf courses, to the gutta-percha, the game grew. When we went from the gutta-percha to the wound ball, the game grew. When we went from wood-shafted to steel-shafted clubs, the game grew. Every time we've had these advances, it's made the game a little easier for the average person, and the game has grown.

...sounds like some of the pitches I used to hear from the technology start-ups during the Internet boom.

[George Pazin]

Alfie -

Sorry to hear about your endeavor's demise. Wish I had the cash to save it. Please continue to contribute your thoughts to the group & stay in contact.

[Alfie]

Thanks George. I appreciate that, and I'll certainly be posting some opinions till we all come to our senses ?

re - the Hurdzan comments ; I couldn't agree more that the historical aspects of technology made golf what it now is. But through the game's evolution, these advancements could be accomodated, and sometimes were essential for the betterment of golf ! That's no longer the case ! Golf must be the winner - and it's losing big style because we appear to be putting too much emphasis upon what Joe Public wants from the game. Joe Public has always been steered and guided as to what is best for him / her ? And unfortunately, JP as often as not, just couldn't care less ! It's time the steering committee's got their act together and I think they might even find that the average golfer is not as daft as some people make out ? Many know that something is not right - it's not just the Pro's who know about golf. Many a hacker can sometimes turn out to be a better golfer than the gifted player !!!!
I've been encouraged by some of the comments here at GCA and it's great that we can all talk about it. The future of the game has never been more dependent on the wishes of the average golfer.

Alfie Ward

[A_Clay_Man]

Alfie- If JP was benefitting from the improved equipment the average score would be substantially lower. Yes? I am not the stats guy, but I believe it has been shown the average score hasn't budged.

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas-

Playing to your strengths, e.g. hitting a 3-wood to keep it in the fairway is strategy.  Knowing a bit about Cook's game, he would have a better chance with a 4-iron in his hands then a guy like Corey Pavin with a wedge out of severe rough.  I think that it would be far less strategic if Cook, Pavin, or Woods could just hit the ball from the tee anywhere without fear of the rough or other hazards.  The angle to the green for these guys, specially with short irons, is not a big deal in most cases (unless the wind is really blowing) because of their ability to hit high, soft shots to near-exact distances.  I haven't seen NGLA, the poster child here for strategic golf, but I think that a guy like Woods or even Cook would probably tear it up under normal conditions.


Adam-

Perhaps part of the reason that the average score is not coming down is that courses are getting harder.  In other words, while the new technology has helped J.P., it has done so exponentially more for the best, strongest players.  Particularly at the high end, private or public, most new courses  seem to be built according to the needs of the top 1%.  Add to this the wall-to-wall irrigation systems making the courses lusher and softer, and faster, undulating greens, it is no wonder that the game for J.P. is not getting easier.

I tend to agree with Cook re: length.  7,000 - 7,200 at sea level is plenty long.  Cut back on the water through the green.  Allow the second or third cuts of rough to get penal for major competitions, and just overlook "par" in favor of total score.  If the ball is going too far for the pros, let them deal with it without expanding the playing field.  Cost and 4.5+ hour rounds is what will kill the game for J.P.  As a goal, perhaps it would be good to get back to the times when courses were confortably being built in tracts well under 150 acres (including an ample practice facility).

[A_Clay_Man]

Lou- I would agree with most of all of this argument except for the fact that I have seen Pros who could rip-up any course shoot 87's on occasion. This one fact, leads me to believe the game is still between the ears, even at the highest level. So, to blame the 57 and 58's on Technology ignores the accomplishment of the player that not only goes low but stays low.

[Alfie]

Andy,

Good point - but - you must remember that as technology has undoubtedly, made the game easier - then as a counter measure, the courses have gone through their various defence mechanisms to try and cancel out these benefits. New bunkers, water hazards, narrowing fairways, lengthening holes etc, etc,, have all contributed to protecting the honour of any course over the past century.
I believe we need to get away from the statistical issue of scores in golf. Lies - damned lies and statistics ?
The golf course itself (proven from 1901 to the present day) has required this "protection" versus the techno advances, for amateur and pro alike. All I'm saying (and perhaps Hootie Johnson will agree with me re - Augusta ?) is that the scope for the actual courses being able to keep ahead of the advances has all but gone. More especially with the finest courses on the planet !
The easy solution is the ball, and that in return will bring a plethora of advantages that by far outweigh the damage being done at present ! Advantages for both amateur and pro alike !
Scores are required to define 1st from 2nd etc.. and play a necessary function in the game (am or pro). But scores will be scores, whether we're playing with 300 yard bullets or 250 yard "golf balls" ?
It's "the game" we need to think about ?
And don't listen to the Pro's - too many are speaking with forked tongues !!!!

Who CARES enough to do something

Alfie Ward. Scotland (forever)

[Lou_Duran]

Adam-

Perhaps I failed once again to communicate clearly.  My thesis is that game enhancing technology has had a much greater impact for the best golfers, exponentially, than it has for those of us who "need" it.  And since the reaction of designers and developers has been for the most part to protect par (Tiger-proof) against the elite, J.P. is getting further and further behind.  No doubt that the mind plays a large part in the game, but holding everything else equal, that can't account for what is now clearly a bifurcated game.  

As one who was longer-than-average at one time, and who gets the occasional chance to play with professionals and scratch amateurs, the disparity in our games is much less a result of me getting shorter than they getting unimaginably longer.  The 550 yard par-five with no wind has always been a stretch for me.  For Doug Swanson, Matt Ward, and Shivas (when we can find his ball), it is often a well hit driver and a
long iron.  I guess that I've done a Howard Dean on this issue several times, I am now for the tours mandating a competition ball, and the USGA also if it wishes to for its events.  While I agree with Sandy Tatum's argument against having separate rules for the game, I think that this is the lesser evil.

Shivas-

Width is taken into consideration with accuracy.  Strength by itself is a great advantage which is only expanded by game improvement technology.  It used to be that long hitters tended to be wild.  Now, with controlled-spin balls, clubs with large sweet spots, and fitted components, it is possible for many of these guys to be long and straight.  You can firm the greens to the hardness of concrete, and the longer player with the shorter club will have more control on the ball.  Hard greens also have a disproportionate impact on J.P., specially when combined with heavily contoured green complexes.

From what I've learned about Rustic Canyon here (and experienced at Texas Tech), the KPIII might be an interesting test of your theory.  If the greens are firm and fast, I suspect that the higher handicappers will have a more difficult time in relative terms than the long knockers, near scratch guys like Doug Swanson.  Of course, I could be completely out to lunch.

[Alfie]

Adam, Shivas, Lou,.........John Cook ?

I think we're over complicating the fundamental issue that golf is going wrong !
Let's just say, for arguments sake, that the ruling bodies did take the ball back twenty, or so, years. WHAT HARM WOULD THAT DO ? What would be the negatives for such an action ?
Component factors = the average player ; the manufacturers ; the courses ; the professional game.

WHAT IF ?

(all other techno devices to be left as they are)

Alfie Ward

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, as concerns the Denver contingent, Doug is Wright, Brad is Swanson.

Alfie is correct...

[A_Clay_Man]

I think we're over complicating the fundamental issue that golf is going wrong !

Golf has gone wrong! I agree. But not for the same reasons being discussed here.

Let's just say, for arguments sake, that the ruling bodies did take the ball back twenty, or so, years.

Here's a classic Ayn Rander, Who gets to decide where & when the exact ball should be used, what year?

WHAT HARM WOULD THAT DO ? What would be the negatives for such an action ?

I'm not in the architectural business but this would seem to put a rather large yoke on the shoulders of the GCA business. Negatives could be as bad as some archies kids not having food on the table. (sorry couldn't resist)

WHAT IF ?

The problems the industry are suffering are more related to the unimaginative unsportsman-like venues that have removed all the primordial excitment, challenge and joy which seemed to attract past generations.

Lou- If Bobby Jones only needed a little extra backswing to carry it 300 yards and Jack Nicklaus hit a 3 wood in 1962 364 yards, I'd argue the pros haven't benefitted proportianally all that much. But as you can tell, I'm not one to often ass kiss.