Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Paul Carey on July 02, 2011, 06:35:26 PM
-
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/124902774.html
Brooks said Aronimink, which is playing at 7,237 yards this year for the AT&T National, has a long-term plan on the books to lengthen the course to as much as 7,700 yards should the PGA or the USGA deem it suitable for a major. Any plan, he added, would be subject to the approval of the membership.
7700 yards.
-
Are you really that shocked by this?
-
Are you really that shocked by this?
Matt,
I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.
A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
-
I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations. That's why they hit it so far. It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies. Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile. I mean there are very few fat guys out there anymore. I could give a crap if they are playing a course of 8,000 yards; I'm never going back that far. Apparently it needs to be 7,700 yards because Watney's card on the back nine today looked like he was playing at Pirate Jim's Putt-Putt. THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!
-
I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations. That's why they hit it so far. It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies. Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile. I mean there are very few fat guys out there anymore. I could give a crap if they are playing a course of 8,000 yards; I'm never going back that far. Apparently it needs to be 7,700 yards because Watney's card on the back nine today looked like he was playing at Pirate Jim's Putt-Putt. THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!
Tony,
While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour. Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35. Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.
-
Tony,
While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour. Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35. Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.
Why is this bad?
-
Tony,
While thats partially true...look no further than the Senior Tour. Most of those guys are hitting further now at 55, than they were when they were 35. Some is due to conditioning, but the vast majority of it is technology.
Why is this bad?
I don't think I made the claim that 55 yrs old hitting it longer than they were 35 is bad.
But what is bad, is the current crop of PGA Tour players who are making a mockery of the original intent of golf courses everywhere. This has been debated at length on this site, but to me I don't know why the following isn't done:
A) Have a tourney ball for the pros and let amateurs use the non-limited stuff. Differnt equipment is used in virutally every sport on every level. Different baseballs and bats in the majors, different footballs in the NFL, different basketballs in the NBA, etc, etc.
B) Its far cheaper to rein in the distance on how far the ball will go instead of spending untold millions on adding tee boxes to courses that rarely get used, except when the big boys are in town. It also sets a very bad precedent in the monkey see, monkey do world of golf course setups worldwide.
-
I don't want to get this thread all out of whack, but these guys now that are playing golf are such better "athletes" than previous generations.
That explains why I'm hitting it 30 yards further now than I did 30 years ago at 18 (without even working out) ??? ??? ??? ;D ;D
Clearly I'm a better athelete now.
Technology is way out of whack.
get a TOUR ball-stop ruining classic courses
-
Matt,
I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.
A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
[/quote]
Why do you care about the yardage of the back tees if you have no business playing there anyways? 6800 is long for you, but it wouldn't be long for me. 7700 would be long for me (not because I can't hit it long enough (I can) but because I am simply not good enough. 7700 is really not ridiculously long for a pro golfer these days.
I do, however, find it unfortunate that things have gotten out of control and that certain golf courses have to spend all this money to stay"relevant" to the pro game. But 7700 yards honestly seems about right for the pro game of today.
-
I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.
A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
kalen,
If a course is too long for me, I just convert everything to the metric system. 6500 metres is less intimidating that 7200 yards.
-
If these guys are so good then they will accommodate technology induced change. I see no need for long courses (over 6500 yards) if a rollback ball gave the rear option to utilise skill over distance.
Somewhere these long hitters have missed the whole point of the game concentrating on making money via sponsorship deals and the winner’s purse. That I believe is the sad reflection upon the boy wonders a betrayal of the game for simple financial reward. Alas the problem does not end there; they are the vanguard leading the charge for longer courses, certainly not for the good of the game nor the majority of the ordinary players who ultimately have to foot the bill.
It’s totally understandable why people are leaving the game, the boredom of the repetitive long shots, lack of watching skill incorporated within the GCA and finally the financial burden of these bloody expensive golf courses, be they due to length of poor site selection combined with the modern approach of strip back and reshaping the course.
Technology can be a good friend to golfers and GCA, but we need to define our game. Due to various reasons, many are starting to turn to Hickory Golf, as its plays well on the majority of older courses and more skill is required to achieve a low score. The benefit being we keep our old courses intact and unchanged for future generations, Technology is not the introduction of clubs and balls that have the facility to travel long distances nor should IMHO it be used to help golfers select clubs by judging distances.
Anyway I want to see the old fairways and traps coming more into play rather that watch the ball fly high over what was one great Fairways. The modern game is getting closer and closer to a simple game of Pitch and putt.
Melvyn
PS Lets not forget that some places in the world cater for a 36 hole game of golf in a day with a luch break - now that's golf as I know it. 7500 yards plus more or less kills off the 36 Hole
-
It's also probably why some of them (Tiger) won't have as long as prime careers as others did. They put a ton of stress on their bodies.
Gary Woodland is about 6'5" I think and dabbled in D-II basketball for awhile.
Tony, Gary Woodland is listed at 6'1" on the Kansas U website, in his PGA Tour bio, and on Wikipedia. He hits it a very long way, but he isn't unusually tall. Athletic, yes. As evidenced by playing legitimate college basketball. (He appeared in 32 games, averaged just under 20 minutes, and scored 6.0 ppg. He is a great shooter with 87.2% made from the line. He was just 37.6 from the floor, but almost all his attempts were from beyond the arc.)
As for your first point: a decade ago Tom Marzolf, a design associate with Tom Fazio, said their working premise is that golf would go the way of tennis and become a young man's game. Players were swinging so hard they envisioned wear and tear.
-
Are you really that shocked by this?
Matt,
I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.
A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
The main reason for this is the way ball technology has benefitted longer hitters disproportionately more. If 6800 yards is long for you, you probably saw little benefit from the modern ball. I saw some benefit - enough to even notice the improvement between the Pro V1 and V1x - but certainly not as much as a Bubba Watson. If it was the same percentage of help for everyone that would be one thing, however it provided essentially no help to the shortest hitters who need that help the most, but more like 10% for the guys who don't need help at all.
Change the rules to eliminate the engineering that was done on the balls to get them to spin less off the driver while still spinning great for short irons and short game and the problem is pretty much taken care of. You wouldn't see 310 or 320 yard driving averages on tour anymore, because the balls would allow that would cost you two strokes a round in the short game, and then there's no need for 7700 yard courses, and all those "double black" tees can be left to go to seed.
-
Are you really that shocked by this?
Matt,
I think the real problem lies in the fact that few/no one is shocked by this anymore.
A 6800 yard course is long for me...so yes 7700 yards seems shocking!
Ding, ding, ding on the problem being the Pro V. It all started when the best players could use a hard cover ball but still get the spin of a balata. I think for the goo of the game we should the kill the Pro V and similar balls.
The main reason for this is the way ball technology has benefitted longer hitters disproportionately more. If 6800 yards is long for you, you probably saw little benefit from the modern ball. I saw some benefit - enough to even notice the improvement between the Pro V1 and V1x - but certainly not as much as a Bubba Watson. If it was the same percentage of help for everyone that would be one thing, however it provided essentially no help to the shortest hitters who need that help the most, but more like 10% for the guys who don't need help at all.
Change the rules to eliminate the engineering that was done on the balls to get them to spin less off the driver while still spinning great for short irons and short game and the problem is pretty much taken care of. You wouldn't see 310 or 320 yard driving averages on tour anymore, because the balls would allow that would cost you two strokes a round in the short game, and then there's no need for 7700 yard courses, and all those "double black" tees can be left to go to seed.
-
I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of 1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry. This with all the same equipment as I started with. The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering.
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice. I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury. I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played. My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades. I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432. On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both. In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes. Irons flew pretty much the same. I was pretty shocked!
I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed. The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well. The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
-
I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
The bottom line.
Ciao
-
1% today perhaps but maybe 10% tomorrow – we do need to wake up to this problem before it overtakes us or more importantly our existing great courses, both normal and Championship .
It's a a wake up call
Melvyn
-
I only started watching pro golf in the past decade. But watching old films it seems a lot easier to relate to the distance players of Jack's generation and earlier, hit it. The increased hang time and the aerial bombing of greens is a big turn off.
I’ve seen these guys in action. I have always had good eyesight but have needed reading glasses since I turned 50, 3years ago. They literally hit it out of sight.
My belief is that the distance increase is hurting professional golf as a spectator sport and long term that is not good for the game.
-
The modern golf swing is soooooo different, generates soooooo much more club head speed, than the swing I learned when I was in my teens....
Equipment, in my opinion, is only a small part of this explosion in distance....
And, as I have said before, and others have commented, they are not lengthening the course to accommodate me...the equipment I use, the swing I use, and the distance I hit the ball, provide plenty of challenge for me when I play the proper tee's.
-
I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of 1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry. This with all the same equipment as I started with. The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering.
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice. I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury. I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played. My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades. I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432. On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both. In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes. Irons flew pretty much the same. I was pretty shocked!
I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed. The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well. The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Bingo. Great post.
Beware of people with simple answers (i.e., tournament ball) to complex issues (i.e., distance gains). They generally cause far bigger problems than the one they purported to solve.
-
That’s another problem, this ever increasing need to play the Professional Tees. Is it to prove to oneself that ‘I am The Man’, I have the balls or testosterone to prove my manliness.
Play the right Tees in competition by all means but utilise the other when playing for enjoyment or practising control or skill shots during a casual game, remembering we all can’t be a Tiger, ops sorry a Rory McIIroy.
The art of golfing has rapidly been extinguished due to some seeking in technology that which they have acquired via that little blue table Viagra. The result for the game is we now see so many dick heads chasing the money trail with permanent mental erections of their own abilities, although for some reason we have not seen them pick up ‘The Claret Jug’ or wear ‘The Green Jacket’.
Melvyn
-
The real problem is that many architects are looking for work. If the distance issue creates jobs then it is selfish for us to fight it.
-
John
Trust you think more of your country than you seem to do about golf
Melvyn
PS Its not about jobs but what we get from the coal face - a very little return for our money, so the future = higher costs, higher Green Fees - that equates to less numbers.
-
Melvyn,
I care more about people than my wallet. I do believe the right architect can modify a course and reduce maintenance costs at the same time.
-
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Pat:
I agree completely with this, and have tried for the last 20 years to convince the clubs where we consult not to over-react.
However, it's getting harder, and I think it's because these gains apply to more than 1% of the players now. It's still only 2-3% of players, but that is 5-10 guys at each good club -- not just Jay Sigel at Aronimink. [I haven't seen Jay in 15 years, but he'd be 65 now, and probably still among that 2-3%.] And those are influential guys at the clubs.
Also, the talk of 7700 yards is a red herring to me. You should tell us how long a course would really have to be to challenge the Tour pros today.
-
I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of 1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry. This with all the same equipment as I started with. The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering.
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice. I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury. I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played. My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades. I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432. On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both. In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes. Irons flew pretty much the same. I was pretty shocked!
I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed. The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well. The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Bingo. Great post.
Beware of people with simple answers (i.e., tournament ball) to complex issues (i.e., distance gains). They generally cause far bigger problems than the one they purported to solve.
AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.
I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).
I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated
-
The irony seems to be that those 2-3% of top club players are trying to 'keep up with the Jones' -- while the Jones themselves (Woods, Els, Poulter...anyone) rarely belong to home clubs/courses much longer than 7,200 yards.
Peter
-
If they want a major and the governing bodies deem that the course needs to be lengthened to 7700 yards, I don't see the problem. I'd look at the back tees from time to time, but I wouldn't dare subject myself to the humiliation of playing from them! That's not to say that technology isn't a problem; it is causing difficulties in using classic courses for professional tournaments and majors. It's dramatically helping the rest of us mutt golfers. That point is scarcely deniable, unless one is a hickory fetishist or a Luddite.
-
I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated
Jeff,
I had no idea you were such a stud. Few things in life are more satisfying than when you can brag under the cloak of good intention. Don't you think there are enough Championship courses in that neighborhood already? Perhaps the restoration of Southhampton was more for the playing intent of it's members than you. You remind me of myself when I was younger and hated seeing the speed limit reduced to 55, we are not all young at the same time.
-
I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated
Jeff,
I had no idea you were such a stud. Few things in life are more satisfying than when you can brag under the cloak of good intention. Don't you think there are enough Championship courses in that neighborhood already? Perhaps the restoration of Southhampton was more for the playing intent of it's members than you. You remind me of myself when I was younger and hated seeing the speed limit reduced to 55, we are not all young at the same time.
Southampton is a great course.
Always has been.
It stacks up quite well every time it hosts local/regional events.
and John, if my quibble were with Southampton, which it's not (in fact I'm thrilled to see they haven't over reacted by lengthening wherever they can), wouldn't my vote as a member count as much as another's?
Doesn't mean the ball isn't a joke.
Just because most don't benefit from more distance(because we suck in so many other ways), doesn't mean the challenge and intent of original design doesn't change.
What kills me is the denial by the regulators as it happens right in front of them and they do bizare things such as target a stimp meter reading of 14.5(which they didn't get) at their championships.
We're all getting old.
It helps the longer hitters more, which is the real joke.
and we still deal with the speed limit of 55 out here on Long Island ::) ::)
-
Paul,
Don't forget that at par 70 that equates to close to an 8,000 yard par 72 golf course.
-
Who pays for the long courses, and all the modification to these courses, is it the TV companies, the PGA, the Clubs or the poor ordinary golfers who use the facilities on a regular basis.
Technology is great, long courses please some, some of the time, but who ultimately pays the price for all these continued changes, would it the equipment manufacturers or yet again the poor ordinary golfer
If you want these facilities then should not those who use them pay for them rather than spread the cost out to the rest of us who still believe in the integrity of the older designs and courses.
Yet the truth seems to be those with ability who make money out of golf do not actually pay for the services they receive. I do not want to pay to watch someone bypass the fairways, but I do not mind watching a good golfer navigate and overcome the hazards and traps without resorting to the full aerial game – which in truth is no more than a glorified game of Pitch and Putt. Where is the skill the test the challenge, not only do these guy bypass the fairway they bypass the game which we call of golf in preference to their game of Professional Pitch and Putt.
Melvyn
-
Pat:
I agree completely with this, and have tried for the last 20 years to convince the clubs where we consult not to over-react.
However, it's getting harder, and I think it's because these gains apply to more than 1% of the players now. It's still only 2-3% of players, but that is 5-10 guys at each good club -- not just Jay Sigel at Aronimink. [I haven't seen Jay in 15 years, but he'd be 65 now, and probably still among that 2-3%.] And those are influential guys at the clubs.
Also, the talk of 7700 yards is a red herring to me. You should tell us how long a course would really have to be to challenge the Tour pros today.
Tom,
I have heard that you try to keep the clubs from over reacting. And as I said, my opinion is very UN scientific. As an instructor now, I do see kids hitting it longer. I see a few members who can really move it. What really concerns me is bifurcation of the rules.
The simple difference between a ProV1 and a ProV1x creates about a 1 or two shot difference for me. I hit the X further, but don't spin it enough to keep my long irons in the air. Wedges and pitches with an x are really bad for me. With a ProV1, one of my students spins it too much, and even hitting an extra club to "chip" a shot, spins it way too much. The point? Say there is a "Tour ball". Rolls back the distance, keeping the architectural intent in play. Mini tour, college, and any player wanting to play will be faced with playing that ball at a disadvantage to those that do not, or playing the current ball to stay competitive. The second choice then sets them at a disadvantage when competing against tour players who have been playing the tournament ball. And believe me, subtle differences in playing characteristics make an enormous difference in a game where 1/2 shot a round means the difference between success and failure.
In a nutshell, from my standpoint, I have no idea what to do. I would lean towards an across the board roll back before separate rules. BUT, the game is too hard for the paying/playing public. IMO opinion, I have said before, leave the great old courses to the people who pay the bills, and if it isn't good enough for a major, let them take the major to the Chambers Bays/Whistling Straits etc. I'll keep playing Cypress and Kingston HEath! ;D
-
Pat,
Why is it a problem? If they simply make rules that bring back the former relationship between wedge spin and driver spin we'll be back to where we were 20 or 30 years ago ball-wise. If you want to get a lot of spin on your wedge and short game, you'd have to accept the fact you'll have a lot more spin on your drives - which would mean a much lower ideal launch angle and no 300+ yard carries. If you want to hit the bomb, that's fine, but you're going to give up most of your control around the greens.
Many handicap golfers would choose to play the modern equivalent of a Rock Flite, just because their ego is too wrapped up in bombing the drive, nevermind that when they are greenside on a 340 yard par 4 they're only able to come up with a par. But you won't see many really good players using them, so courses wouldn't feel so much pressure to keep lengthening to deal with the issue.
-
It's not quite as simple as "let them play the 7700, I'll play 6700" or whatever. Many classics have maxed out back tee yardage, so significant changes have to be made. And newer courses end up having walkability sacrificed for a handful of players. Other than that, I don't much care what the pros play.
There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.
-
It's not quite as simple as "let them play the 7700, I'll play 6700" or whatever. Many classics have maxed out back tee yardage, so significant changes have to be made. And newer courses end up having walkability sacrificed for a handful of players. Other than that, I don't much care what the pros play.
There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.
And they are changing greens to accomodate faster speeds a nd deepening bunkers to make the courses harder because they are too short for the 1%. They are doing far more than just adding some back tees.
-
I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of 1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry. This with all the same equipment as I started with. The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering.
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice. I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury. I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played. My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades. I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432. On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both. In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes. Irons flew pretty much the same. I was pretty shocked!
I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed. The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well. The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Bingo. Great post.
Beware of people with simple answers (i.e., tournament ball) to complex issues (i.e., distance gains). They generally cause far bigger problems than the one they purported to solve.
AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.
I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).
I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated
Jeff,
Don't misunderstand; I am NOT opposed to finding ways to keep classic courses relevant, to whatever extent they are not.
However, the use of a tournament ball in golf (aka bifurcation) is NOT like other sports. There is a relationship between the professional SPORT of golf and the BUSINESS of golf that is absolutely, 100% unique. The BUSINESS of golf depends on the identification of the average guy with the Tour; trying to do what the pros do with the same equipment (more or less) on the same playing field (more or less). That is NOT the case with baseball, football, hockey, et al.
Having the tour guys go out with a ball that is in some way fundamentally different than the ball that you or I play on Saturday morning would be a massive change to the dynamic of the game and business, and it is one that would have unpredictable (and very possibly undesirable) consequences. This is especially worrisome when the ball is only one of the changes that accounts for modern distances. My personal opinion is that it will NOT grow the game to bifurcate the rules, and it will NOT grow the game to make the grass roots players play a ball that makes a very hard game harder.
That's what I mean by a simple answer maybe making things worse.
-
There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.
George,
This is the heart of it. Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less!
Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor. The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.
I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those. That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule. Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.
-
There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.
George,
This is the heart of it. Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less!
Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor. The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.
I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those. That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule. Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.
The MCGuire anecdote is amusing, but useless.
Length has always been important.
No one's saying it's not.
The groove rule?
Really?
Call me a knee jerk guy then.(a while ago I was a simple guy)
the ball goes way longer than ever before and has changed the game.
Why change something other than the ball?
The best the stuffed shirts at the USGA can come up with is a groove change?
Why because wedges were going too far?
If baseballs started going 100 feet farther due to a seam breakthrough, would you alter the gloves?
That's the equivalent of a groove change in an era where the ball goes WAY farther than it did 20 years ago (for anybody swinging 100 mph or more)
It really is simple, but there are so many agendas in conflict with a rollback that theri well planned smokescreens deceive otherwise reasonable people.
-
Pat Burke is right on. Guys train far more now than they used to. Fit clubs, strength training and other things contribute just as much to distance as technology, if not more. When I switched from a Titleist Professional to a ProV1, I gained 8-10 yards, maybe. In the past 11 or so years, I've picked up about another 30 yards because of being custom fit for a driver and because I'm much stronger than I was 11 years ago, the same weight, but around 8% less total body fat (a decrease from like 23% to 15%). Take a guy like Bubba Watson, didn't he play fairly high level basketball? I also remember Jack Nicklaus was the same way, I seem to remember him saying he played football and all other sports as a kid, then took up golf "seriously" after he won the US Am. A friend of mine's father served in the USMC with Lee Trevino, I can tell you that requires some serious physical fitness. So, generally, I think the best golfers have always been great athletes, just not all of them are great athletes, and they all hit it a ton. 300 yard drives are not a new occurrence, Jack used to do it, Bob Jones used to do it. Now, a lot of guys do it.
People think length is the key in golf courses, its not. Make them shorter. Make the greens crazier. Make angles matter. That's what you do, not add length. Although the architects intent issue brought up earlier is major, a different ball won't fix that.
Oh, and other sports don't differentiate the rules. Tennis is played on the same court and the balls used in Pro tennis are actually "hotter" than the balls you can get at Dick's. Football is played on the same field with the same ball; times can be different. Baseball uses the same ball through the levels, bats are different. Basketball is the same from high school to NBA (regulations are slightly different from NCAA to NBA, but I suspect that is a cost issue). I can go on.
-
I have a semi long winded opinion on this, mostly backed by unscientific observations in the game.
The training I did before my injury in 1997, resulted in gains of 1 full club in irons, and 8+ yards of driver carry. This with all the same equipment as I started with. The evolution of training methods is pretty staggering.
I am now NOT training, fat, and never practice. I hit my driver 5-10 yards further than I did before my injury. I also have learned to hit the ball at 12 degrees launch angle instead of 8.5 as I did when I played. My driver is 1 inch longer than my go to driver of 2001.
My irons are 1/2 inch longer, and 2 degrees stronger, Callaway blades. I have tried every ball on launch monitors, and found and optimum number that gives me distance with the ability to still shape the ball.
I played a few holes a year ago with a ProV1 and an old Maxfli HT 432. On tee shots, there was virtually no difference on the 3 holes I hit both. In fact, the Maxfli was a little longer on 2 holes. Irons flew pretty much the same. I was pretty shocked!
I have students who are training hard, have perfectly fitted equipment and can just generate crazy club head speed. The lighter, longer clubs, and forgiveness allow this speed to work well. The kids are pretty ripped, and much bigger than when I was playing in the 90's.
I am an ODg fan, grew up in new Jersey with access to many great courses, and understand the concerns about these courses being left behind by the professional game (and high level amateurs). BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Bingo. Great post.
Beware of people with simple answers (i.e., tournament ball) to complex issues (i.e., distance gains). They generally cause far bigger problems than the one they purported to solve.
AG,
Please explain how a tournament ball would create more issues than bastardizing every course that hosts a tournament?
Sometimes simple answers are the best, unless you're a ball manufacturer.
Works in every other sport.
Pretty simple actually.
I don't have a modern swing(same one I always had complete with 2 herniated disks), have not worked out since high school, and hit it 30 yards further than I did 30 years ago.
Is the game too easy for me because of this? NO-, but it certainly is a different game.
Course are always responding with silly fixes (higher rough,more hazards, faster greens,whatever) to a simple problem (or a simple difference- the ball goes farther than it used to for back tee players).
I recently played Southampton GC which underwent a "restoration"
hit 5 irons to both par 5's and flew it on a par 4 with a three wood.
Has that course been restored to it's former architectural intent?
It could be if the ball were properly regulated
Jeff,
Don't misunderstand; I am NOT opposed to finding ways to keep classic courses relevant, to whatever extent they are not.
However, the use of a tournament ball in golf (aka bifurcation) is NOT like other sports. There is a relationship between the professional SPORT of golf and the BUSINESS of golf that is absolutely, 100% unique. The BUSINESS of golf depends on the identification of the average guy with the Tour; trying to do what the pros do with the same equipment (more or less) on the same playing field (more or less). That is NOT the case with baseball, football, hockey, et al.
Having the tour guys go out with a ball that is in some way fundamentally different than the ball that you or I play on Saturday morning would be a massive change to the dynamic of the game and business, and it is one that would have unpredictable (and very possibly undesirable) consequences. This is especially worrisome when the ball is only one of the changes that accounts for modern distances. My personal opinion is that it will NOT grow the game to bifurcate the rules, and it will NOT grow the game to make the grass roots players play a ball that makes a very hard game harder.
That's what I mean by a simple answer maybe making things worse.
AG,
I bowl, and I have no idea what ball the PBA players use.
Doesn't change the fact I need to go buy a bowling ball.
Same with tennis.
i still need to buy balls to play.
No idea what they use at Wimbledon.
Golf enjoyed pretty steady growth for years.
Over that time equipment adavances were minimal.
For instance in the early 80's, the best driver to have was made in the 50's, and I used late 60's Wilson staffs, much to the envy of my low handicap friends.
The last 10 years equipment technology has exploded, yet participation has dropped.
perhaps we were better off when golf attracted people who wanted to practice using their static older equipment in order to improve , rather than buy a better game
with adjustable clubs and claims of 10 more yards and ultimate forgiveness.
-
There's better ways to address the problem than lengthening, but few seem willing to explore those options, so we're left with the cookie cutter approach.
George,
This is the heart of it. Lengthening a golf course make length MORE important, not less!
Many years ago, when there was a discussion of raising the basket in basketball, the late Al McGuire pointed out that if you really wanted to bring the little guy back, then put the basket in the floor. The higher the basket, the more important height becomes, not less.
I agree that there are better ways, and I fully agree that there isn't enough use of those. That's why I, for one, applaud the USGA for at least trying something subtle and different with the groove rule. Arguably, it hasn't had much impact, but at least it was a thoughtful effort instead of a knee jerk reaction.
The MCGuire anecdote is amusing, but useless.
Length has always been important.
No one's saying it's not.
The groove rule?
Really?
Call me a knee jerk guy then.(a while ago I was a simple guy)
the ball goes way longer than ever before and has changed the game.
Why change something other than the ball?
The best the stuffed shirts at the USGA can come up with is a groove change?
Why because wedges were going too far?
If baseballs started going 100 feet farther due to a seam breakthrough, would you alter the gloves?
That's the equivalent of a groove change in an era where the ball goes WAY farther than it did 20 years ago (for anybody swinging 100 mph or more)
It really is simple, but there are so many agendas in conflict with a rollback that theri well planned smokescreens deceive otherwise reasonable people.
Sorry, Jeff; I didn't mean to post a "useless" anecdote. Thanks for pointing out my flaws.
My attempted point, lost apparently, was that lengthening golf courses to combat length off the tee is folly.
And in order to be precise, let's be clear; the ball has NOT gotten longer, not one bit.
What HAS happened is that the manufacturers figured out how to make a COVER for the ball that would fly like a Pinnacle and spin (more or less) like balata. And so Bubba Watson now uses a Pinnacle off the tee and a tour balata with a wedge. So how do you roll that back, exactly?
USGA/R&A distance standards haven't changed, and I don't hit my Bridgestone B300 RX any farther than I used to hit a Top Flite. But I sure can hit it farther than I used to hit a Tour Balata.
I know that you know that, but it seems to get lost in these absurd discussions of a "rollback" to something that never existed anyway.
I'm done.
-
People saying longer distance is a result of improved fitness have clearly not seen the Golf Guys video. Bubba and Rickie crush the ball, and I don't think Hunter is very short either. Those dudes have more flab bouncing around than a beached whale. Ben Crane is the fittest guy in the video, and he's the shortest hitter.
Among other players, Justin Leonard might be the fittest guy on Tour and can't hit it past his own shadow. Nick Faldo is absolutely jacked and probably can't outdrive Michelle Wie. Meanwhile, in his prime John Daly was the poster child for the red neck, lard ass couch potato and he led the Tour in driving for almost a decade.
Fitness is waaaaay overrated.
-
Dan, as I mentioned before,
I had tried many trainers and work out programs as a player.
Finally worked with a guy that helped me increase my distances by an entire club with my irons,
and driver carry by 8 plus yards carry. No equipment change, but these distances went up in less than 4 months!
I was never confused for Bill Glasson ripped wise back then!
Guys work out much differently. Norman was ahead of the curve. Faldo was huge, but not fast.
I have had students increase their distances significantly with the correct work out.
The problem of our classic courses being attacked comes from many directions. I don't believe it is the ball, though I believe the ball is most controllable as a fix. Fitness, lightweight longer clubs, completely different club and ball flight ideals, agronomy, and forgiveness of equipment have created speed!
-
These guys are BORING. Why don't we just take those long drive contest football fields and add some small "fair" greens, flanking bunkers and rough and call it a day.
-
To really sort these testosterone boys out from real golfers, just crater bunkers across the fairway in the vicinity of their LZ, as No Man’s Land in WW1. It will give them the opportunity to navigate the course showing their full understanding of the complexities of the game.
As for us poor mortals, well we will see the approaching hazards with enthusiasm knowing that it will test what little skills we possess to perhaps the limit, but we will persevere because WE ARE GOLFERS. Not only will we make it through, we will have the time of our lives rising to the challenge, armed only with our less than super human bodied but a good golfing brain (well that those who do not use distance aids ;) )
I suppose we could call these long hitters,’ Long in the Arm, Thick in the Head’ if they fail to successfully navigate their creeping bunker zones.
In other words design courses to discourage these most boring of players. Perhaps some of the old ideas are not really dead and could combat this current problems, First as I mentioned cross fairway creeping bunkers on the LZ and then of course we have the old blind shots. I believe the latter demise was greatly encouraged because many players just seek lower scores rather than make a game of Golf. Perhaps, just perhaps we will again make a good game out of the Royal and Ancient Game called Golf. Well there is always hope, they say it springs eternal (like following a 4 ball carting group, progress is so very painful and there is hope they will wave you thought – but don’t hold your breath as hope tends to hide most of the time just to cause mischief).
From ‘The Campaign to Save our Great and Noble Golf Courses’ by Brothers In Arms
-
Jud. Your suggestion sounds really boring. Great players having a great day should go low. Shorten the courses, let them get in more trouble because lengthening them hasn't stopped the desire to go deep. By shortening them maybe, just maybe, the desire to longer will be squashed, eventually.
-
The ball may be one issue but clubhead speed is still the engine that drives the ball. And with the new balls it gives more advantage to the higher clubhead speeds. Was it the ball in tennis or the size of the racquet head. IMHO the USGA also needs to reduce the size of the driver heads which would most likely reduce the length of the shafts which would reduce speed. BUT...I think the biggest difference in golfers is whether they began to play as a child or after 30 years of age. And so many of our courses are too difficult for a person to pick up the game. I really don't know how a country like China or many of these other countries will ever use the courses we are delivering because there are no players that were taught the game as children and it's too hard. So why should we make it more difficult for them by toughening equipment and ball standards. Let's just watch the pros shot 58 on a few days per year.
-
These are the Pro’s, the top people in our game and what do we want to do watch them utilise equipment designed not to show skill but the make it easy for them to perform their trick of wonder.
Have we all gone senile? We must be the stupid ones for spending all that money which fuels the Golfing industry and for what, to sit back and watch the experts utilising clubs designed to enhance their performance.
Wonder why some of us are sick at heart at these clowns and the many ring masters pushing their products, just so us gullible nuts can keep our heroes in the comfort they feel they deserve. WE are being short changed, we are being treated as morons for accepting this disgraceful circus, there not for the glory of Golf but to make Money.
I want to see skill used which I regret I do not possess, I want to see shots that show that talent with determination and bloody hard work, can do. That’s golf.
I am sickened by this easy attitude, I am surprised that the designers are not looking to increase the hazards to combat the manufacturers, or have the designer decided that they cannot combat these new changes – please surely not, because we need your flare more now than ever before, we need you to push your customers to actually go out and visits the simple great courses in the world before deciding upon their own requirements. We need developer so ship themselves and clients over to courses like Machrie, Machrihanish and Askernish, to see what the environment can maintain and preserve for minimal costs yet through good design achieve a great raw experience of Golf.
Please Guys persuade your Clients, be they old, current or new to venture out there and look, not just at the courses but behind the scenes noting maintenance procedures and their costs.
Design is paramount, its way in advance of any architectural gimmick and given the chance it can pull players away from the monoculture of long drives, back to facing the Hole you designed in the hope of pushing the golfer to display his/her real skill they actually possess and certainly not generated by some expensive club that does the work and takes the credit for the shot.
In the end its all down to what it all means to you, and generally apathy rules, yet I was told this site was special, it’s had people of likeminded ideas and thoughts. Golf being the game and its all about the golfer and his/her battle with the designer, yet we have a ménage a trios with the equipment manufacture pushing in and now dictating the games we are to play. As I said in the end its all down to you.
Melvyn
-
The ball may be one issue but clubhead speed is still the engine that drives the ball. And with the new balls it gives more advantage to the higher clubhead speeds. Was it the ball in tennis or the size of the racquet head. IMHO the USGA also needs to reduce the size of the driver heads which would most likely reduce the length of the shafts which would reduce speed. BUT...I think the biggest difference in golfers is whether they began to play as a child or after 30 years of age. And so many of our courses are too difficult for a person to pick up the game. I really don't know how a country like China or many of these other countries will ever use the courses we are delivering because there are no players that were taught the game as children and it's too hard. So why should we make it more difficult for them by toughening equipment and ball standards. Let's just watch the pros shot 58 on a few days per year.
I'm with you Mike,
but that's not what's happening.
Athens CC is the perfect model to play golf at every level, particularly when learning as there is room, yet challenge for players of all levels.
New courses get tougher and longer with more "out of play " areas with brutal native grass, OB, water, etc. as a "knee jerk" reaction(just read the suggestions to "protect par"of many on this forum)
They don't allow baseball manufacturers to create balls/bats that go 100 feet farther , then enlarge the stadiums and move the mound closer.
but then again they do let them tale steroids...
Honestly, would it be that hard to regulate equipment for pros like they do in many sports?
Who cares if the #98 player in the world has to adapt his ball/technique because it's not his preferred ball?
and AG your point about Pinnacles and Balatas is well taken.
"Useless" was a poor word choice by me as well.
-
Here's an interesting idea. Go the route of baseball. Let the players use any ball they wish, they're all basically equal across the board. But make them use wooden drivers, woods and hybrids. Keep the irons the same and wedges.
Or, make a spec ball and spec set of clubs for use in pro competition. The companies can make them however they wish, but the grooves must be identical, must be blades, all same shafts in every competition set, whatever, just make the equipment exactly the same for all, and the only fitting allowed is for length and lie.. You still have the company stamp. How much money could Titleist/Callaway/etc., make selling those "tour spec" clubs to normal golfers because this is the exact set that Tiger/Rory/whoever plays?
-
Doug Siebert,
I think you example is flawed.
I'll take the 340 yard drive every time.
I'll figure out how to flight the 60 yard and 120 yard wedges on 400 and 460 yard par 4's, as opposed to hitting a 260 yard drive and hitting 140 and 200 yard approach shots with more spin.
I agree that higher spin rates would help offset the gains in distance, but head size, shaft lengths and the ball are contributing factors that shouldn't be ignored
-
Dan, as I mentioned before,
I had tried many trainers and work out programs as a player.
Finally worked with a guy that helped me increase my distances by an entire club with my irons,
and driver carry by 8 plus yards carry. No equipment change, but these distances went up in less than 4 months!
I was never confused for Bill Glasson ripped wise back then!
Guys work out much differently. Norman was ahead of the curve. Faldo was huge, but not fast.
I have had students increase their distances significantly with the correct work out.
The problem of our classic courses being attacked comes from many directions. I don't believe it is the ball, though I believe the ball is most controllable as a fix. Fitness, lightweight longer clubs, completely different club and ball flight ideals, agronomy, and forgiveness of equipment have created speed!
Hi Pat,
My comment was a little bit tongue in cheek. I'm sure you're right. It's some combination of a lot of things, and fitness can't hurt.
But I think you're right on about speed. In every sport, speed is the thing that can't be taught. My kids, all under the age of 10, are pretty good soccer players. They love the game and have remarkably good skills. What I don't tell them, though, is that as they get older, all the skill in the world is useless unless they have speed. And I can work with them every day from now until they go to college, but they're either going to be fast or they won't. I used to play lacrosse and had friends who were absolutely dedicated to their fitness but remained brutally slow. Not much you can do about that.
Watching a guy like Quiros or Fowler or Segio, it's remarkable or fast their arms and hands get through the ball. Especially Quiros, who almost has an Allen Doyle backswing. Lots of it is technique, but most, I think, is god-given ability to generate speed.
Even if you required Tour players to consume a 12-pack of donuts and a milkshake chaser before each tournament, I don't think you'd shorten how far they're hitting it. Putting balatas in every bag might be more effective. Hard to believe the manufacturers would mind, since balatas get torn up so fast the sales would have to skyrocket.
-
BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment. I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.
Nice post Pat and I totally agree with what you on this point. These courses are not obsolete for most of members and is only when the touring professionals play the course. I find that only the low handicap players are benefiting from technology and that the majority of golfers aren't seeing any increase in distance. They may be hitting it straighter with the large sweet spots and new golf ball but I don't see them bombing it down the fairway and making old courses that are 6800 yards or shorter pitch and putts.
-
So the comment was made in a earlier post that its not just the extended tee boxes that are the "bad" of all these distance gains.
But the other trend we're seeing is greens being flattened on old courses so they are more "fair", in addition to new courses being built with flattish greens.
I couldn't help but think of Palouse Ridge. It was built specifically as a college course for major DI golf play. Its plenty long from the tips, 7500+, and the course from tee to green is pretty darn good. But where it stumbles the most is when you get on the greens. They are disappointedly void of interest...(ok the 18th green is at least a little interesting with a semi-bowl feature and 3 different levels). But all the rest of em are almost dead flat with gentle back to front slope. So I'm thinking what a missed opportunity here. Why only challenge players from tee to green with massive distance, but then give it away with flat putting surfaces?
P.S. After having a chat with the guy in the pro shop, I learned several college kids have already shot mid 60s numbers...from the tips. Once again an opportunity missed to challenge players with the flat stick in hand.
-
In baseball it took an era of pumped up players and age old records falling under questionable situations. Finally it looks like the steroids are gone and all of a sudden the art of pitching has returned. The record book will always have the *. Will golf have a similar moment? It's not likely.
The only reason courses are being lenghened is because someone wants to protect a number call PAR. Look what Augusta did after Tigers ronp. The USGA want Par to be a good score at the Open. I say who cares what number they shoot. Low number still wins, always has. The game is only marketable if the best in the business play the best and hit it the best. Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day. Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?
-
manufacturers and their schills would have you believe they make the game more fun with all the game improvement features.
and that they are helping "grow" the game
For years the game grew steadily while equipment remained relatively static (and arguable almost went backwards with laminated woods ;) in the 70's) bladed irons and persimmon woods were the standard for years.
Now the equipment get better every year.
yet the game is shrinking.
If a kid feels he needs to buy a $400 driver every year to remain competitive, is that really helping to "grow" the game?
I see plenty of shanks with brand new, perfectly fit high tech equipment.
Those people look just as frustrated as the shankers I saw in 1975.......
just saying....
-
Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day. Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?
No,it doesn't matter today,nor will it probably matter in a couple of years.
The problem,IMO,is what will happen after a couple of years.It takes a pretty strong Board or Green Chairman to keep from following the crowd.My guess would be that those unwilling to alter their classic golf courses will face more and more pressure from their younger/less "educated" members.Eventually,the guys opposed will be replaced by those in favor.
To a lot of younger members,the idea of having a "quaint" golf course has zero appeal.They'll eventually look at it as a relic which needs to be updated and improved.Ugliness will ensue.
-
Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day. Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?
No,it doesn't matter today,nor will it probably matter in a couple of years.
The problem,IMO,is what will happen after a couple of years.It takes a pretty strong Board or Green Chairman to keep from following the crowd.My guess would be that those unwilling to alter their classic golf courses will face more and more pressure from their younger/less "educated" members.Eventually,the guys opposed will be replaced by those in favor.
To a lot of younger members,the idea of having a "quaint" golf course has zero appeal.They'll eventually look at it as a relic which needs to be updated and improved.Ugliness will ensue.
+1
I too think the vast majority of courses won't be able to leave well enough alone....
-
If I could just mention something from sort of a "Freakonomics" point of view about the growth of the game, and the relationship of equipment, course length, difficulty, cost, slow play and so on.
Golf is NOT going to "grow" any time soon in terms of the number of golfers and/or the number of rounds. The overwhelming likelihood is that both will continue to drop for years to come. Many here will continue to blame a lot of things that exist tangentially with the decline, but are not causative.
Very simply, golf's demographic is upside down, and is going to get moreso. The golf boom was fueled entirely, IMO, by the Baby Boomers (and their families) taking up the game in large numbers through the 80's, 90's, and the first part of last decade. However, at about the time the recession hit, my guess is that most of the Boomers that were going to take up golf had already done so.
Equally importantly, as the first boomers began to reach retirement, my guess is that many simply were unable to continue to afford a very expensive game, or at least to play as much as they had in their high wage days. Again, the beginning of the Boomers' retirement coincided with the recession to a great extent.
Now you have much, much smaller generations with less disposable income and quite possibly less leisure time as well. This is a very bad recipe for golf, and it doesn't have anything to do with courses being too hard, play being too slow, and so on. It is an inescapable demographic trap. Even as the economy recovers, we will NOT see a return of rounds played to previous levels; it just won't happen. When you look to assign blame, don't point to technology leading to longer and tougher and more expensive courses, and so on. Those are just window dressing.
The result of all of this will be a continued reduction in new courses being built, and a slowing but continuing closing of existing courses that can't make a go of it. Those courses and clubs will survive that for some reason(s) are able to be financially viable in the new reality of golf.
BTW, I think that all of this has already happened to tennis, running 10 years or so ahead of golf. The tennis boom was just Boomers taking up tennis, and as they moved from tennis to golf, there was a golf boom and a tennis decline. As a Boomer myself, I can't bring myself to write what the next boom that we go through will be, but it will NOT be a sport...
-
AG,good to meet another Little Mary Sunshine.
There's not really anything you've said that I disagree with.Golf became cool for BB's,golf bubbled,the BB's moved on to something else,the bubble burst.
I might take some issue with your idea that the difficulty of the game has/had no impact.I think more BB's would have stuck around if golf was a game that could be mastered with a few lessons.The fact that golf is borderline impossible for everyone,even those who've played since childhood,just never fit into their world of instant gratification.
I worry that clubs believe this is only a temporary dip in golf participation.Those clubs waiting for the uptick in golfers (and presumably members) are probably in for a rude awakening.
-
One of the answers for long-term growth is probably way to risky for any investor to pursue. I can speak from experience when I say that the absolute best way to get kids into the game is to develop 9-hole par 3 courses.
I have three boys ages 6, 8 and 10. I take them up to the par 3 in NH that Atkinson opened a few years ago. It's nothing special, but it's in nice shape, there's good variety, and the holes range from 93 to 170 yards (from the tips). There are four sets of tees, but only the back two are actually tee boxes. The other two are just markers in the ground maybe 45 yards or so from the green. My kids love it there. Up until now they had just come to the range with me. We like to do things together, so the youngest is our lowest common denominator ... if he's too young for it, we don't do it. He now hits the ball well enough that I figured he was ready to actually go on the course. Each of them just has a wood, and iron and a putter. I've been waiting to see if the older two actually like it, because I don't want to buy more equipment that just sits in the garage.
That course was exactly what we needed to get all of us out there. It's perfect. An easy walk; most people who play it suck so you don't really worry about holding anyone up; and it is a good enough design so that they will learn to hit all the shots they need. Once the older two are driving all the greens, I'll move them over to the championship course.
I would love to see a few more of these well-conceived par 3s pop up around New England.
Oh, and the best part about Atkinson is that kids pay their age, so a 6-year-old is only $6. A nice way of doing it, I think.
-
AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think. Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards. Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications. I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's. Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money. Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers. And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation. That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.
To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it). Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology. Would the courses have been lengthened? Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game. I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.
On architecture, i have never understood why golf course operators and owners have an issue with changing a short par 5 into a par 4 when the best players come to the course. My home course in Las Vegas is par 72. We used to have a fun, short par 5 which the owner thought was too easy. So his solution was to move the green around the existing lake, creating a hole which will not receive a long shot in. It was our only par 5 where a mid to high single digit player could get there in two with two good shots. We have a major collegiate tournament at our course, so some of the best in the world play there once a year. I still do not understand why they just didn't make it a long par 4 and leave it all alone. Who cares if it's a par 71? Make it fun, not punitive.
Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in. We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course. In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight. They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key. Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning? Doubt it. But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states. Get the kids out. How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?
-
P.S. After having a chat with the guy in the pro shop, I learned several college kids have already shot mid 60s numbers...from the tips. Once again an opportunity missed to challenge players with the flat stick in hand.
Kalen:
Your quote above is one of the major things that's gone wrong here.
So what if several college kids have shot mid-60s? They are erratic as hell, they've also shot high 70's on the same course when they don't have it all together.
But, it's precisely those kids who scare all the club pros. One of my best friends is a club professional at a very good course, and still holds most of the scoring records at the same course. He never worried about the course being "defenseless" or being obsolete until his 17-year-old son and his buddies started hitting wedges into the longest par-4's. The pro knows they are not that good, but it still worries him that the course is "defenseless" -- even though the kids never break par, because the rough and the greens take their toll.
-
AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think. Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards. Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications. I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's. Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money. Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers. And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation. That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.
To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it). Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology. Would the courses have been lengthened? Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game. I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.
Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in. We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course. In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight. They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key. Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning? Doubt it. But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states. Get the kids out. How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?
Jim,
It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.
By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years. The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965. It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.
In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.
IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf. That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math. My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.
I also agree with you about the technology. I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago. I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had. I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.
-
AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think. Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards. Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications. I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's. Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money. Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers. And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation. That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.
To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it). Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology. Would the courses have been lengthened? Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game. I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.
Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in. We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course. In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight. They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key. Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning? Doubt it. But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states. Get the kids out. How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?
Jim,
It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.
By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years. The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965. It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.
In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.
IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf. That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math. My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.
I also agree with you about the technology. I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago. I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had. I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.
AG, please don't confuse me with the facts! ;D
You clearly have a much better grasp of birthrates than I do, but some stats can be misleading. There are a lot more "1000s" out there than there were when we were hatched (for the record, I'm 58). When my twins were born in CA in 1979, I remember the news saying that more babies were born that year in CA than ever in its history. So, while the birthrate might be declining or static, the overall population continues upward in this country. More people should equal more golfers, but that doesn't seem to be the case. BBs took up golf and as they age, their participation goes down or is eliminated which is your point and I agree. We can discuss population stats, but we can't change them. The only thing we can change is working to make golf more popular. How do we get the next generations to pick up the game?
My point on Ireland was that their population has been pretty static (I'm sure someone will correct me on this too) over the years, yet they seem to have robust youth participation.
I also agree that clubs who think that participation will increase on its own are dreaming. I fear this will become a survival of the fittest until enough clubs have shuttered. I know better minds than mine have pondered getting kids back into the game. We need to get it done if we are not to lose a generation of architects and designers too.
-
AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think. Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards. Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications. I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's. Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money. Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers. And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation. That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.
To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it). Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology. Would the courses have been lengthened? Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game. I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.
Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in. We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course. In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight. They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key. Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning? Doubt it. But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states. Get the kids out. How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?
Jim,
It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.
By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years. The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965. It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.
In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.
IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf. That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math. My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.
I also agree with you about the technology. I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago. I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had. I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.
AG, please don't confuse me with the facts! ;D
You clearly have a much better grasp of birthrates than I do, but some stats can be misleading. There are a lot more "1000s" out there than there were when we were hatched (for the record, I'm 58). When my twins were born in CA in 1979, I remember the news saying that more babies were born that year in CA than ever in its history. So, while the birthrate might be declining or static, the overall population continues upward in this country. More people should equal more golfers, but that doesn't seem to be the case. BBs took up golf and as they age, their participation goes down or is eliminated which is your point and I agree. We can discuss population stats, but we can't change them. The only thing we can change is working to make golf more popular. How do we get the next generations to pick up the game?
My point on Ireland was that their population has been pretty static (I'm sure someone will correct me on this too) over the years, yet they seem to have robust youth participation.
I also agree that clubs who think that participation will increase on its own are dreaming. I fear this will become a survival of the fittest until enough clubs have shuttered. I know better minds than mine have pondered getting kids back into the game. We need to get it done if we are not to lose a generation of architects and designers too.
Jim,
Let's back up.
You are right that a small % of a big number is a big number; Sam Walton figured that out, and it has worked great.
But golf isn't Walmart; golf is (and really always has been) a game played by affluent white males. Everybody, rich and poor alike, goes to Walmart. Everybody does NOT play golf, and we are seeing a fundamental demographic shift in this country in which relatively affluent middle-aged Caucasian males are becoming a smaller and smaller segment of the population. The Caucasian % of the total population in the US has dropped by 15% in the last 40 years, and 8% in the last 20 years. By 2050, estimates are that Caucasians will drop under 50% of the US population.
The issue for golf is not how many people there are total; it is how many people there are who can afford to play golf. Median incomes for minority groups are increasing BELOW the rate of inflation in most parts of the country, and those groups make up the majority of population growth. That seems to me to paint a very, very simple picture when wondering about the future growth of golf. Of course there will be a gradual shift to more diversity among golfers as more members of minority groups become affluent, but the pace of that has been glacial to date, and I see no reason to think it will be accelerating especially soon.
So with golf's traditional constituency shrinking, unless you assume that there are ways to fundamentally change the cost of playing golf, get used to fewer rounds, which means fewer courses. And by fundamental, I don't mean a drop from a $75 green fee to a $37.50 green fee. I mean a price structure in which a round of golf costs what a movie costs. I don't believe that is possible, much less likely.
-
AG,
I think this discussion might qualify as a hijack. So, I'll try to be quick. I fundamentally agree with your assessment. Men play golf more than women, affluent more than middle and working class, Caucasian more than minorities, older more than young. That said, will there be more affluent, Caucasian older men around in 10 years than there were 10 years ago? Not as a percentage, but total. I don't know and would be interested (really I would) to know. You seem to have an expertise in this area and I think the gross number is important.
But let's go over those four divisions. How can we move the needle in each of those areas. We need to get more women, working and middle class, minorities and young people involved. Cheaper golf does make a difference, but that's not the whole story. I don't have the answers, but lots of people need to be working on this.
I do have one little opinion unrelated to our discussion but one which has come up in these posts. I firmly believe that our slavish devotion to our score and the USGA's insistence that we always post has hurt the game in our country. Match play, ladies and gentlemen, match play. Just play the game and forget about your score. There I said it. I have now succeeded in hijacking my own post.
Just to make myself feel better and reverse the hijack, I believe that golfing technology for the masses has made the game more accessible and fun. The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch. Not my problem. But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us. We pay the bills, not the professional tours.
Final comment, AG, have you been to a movie lately? Throw in popcorn and a soda and you are getting scary close to that $37.50 number.
-
Jim,
I think we're ok on the threadjack because it had been suggested above that technology has led to longer, more difficult, more expensive courses, and that those had led in turn to the decline in participation. My suggestion is that whatever the reasons for the decline, there is little likelihood of a reversal in the years to come.
And you are right about the movie comparison; not sure what I should have used instead.
-
Jim,
I think we're ok on the threadjack because it had been suggested above that technology has led to longer, more difficult, more expensive courses, and that those had led in turn to the decline in participation. My suggestion is that whatever the reasons for the decline, there is little likelihood of a reversal in the years to come.
And you are right about the movie comparison; not sure what I should have used instead.
I agree. I just keep wishing there were some solutions, but I think the overall trend is as you say. There will be blood in the streets, or should I say, in the fairways. I am also tired of commentators saying a particular star is good for the game. Tiger did not move the needle of either minorities or golf participation in general. What they think is good for the game really translates into good for the PGA Tour, networks, advertisers and manufacturers. If they do not increase participation, then I really don't care how good they are for the aforementioned entities.
-
"The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch. Not my problem. But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us. We pay the bills, not the professional tours."
This quote ties in perfectly with the knee jerk reaction to protecting par - which in and of itself is a focus on the completely wrong segment of golfers. My only difference of opinion is that I could care less about growing the game. In fact I think this mindset of growth could be bad for golf as a game and indeed really only meters into the business of golf - which we all should know often has little to do with the game. From selling magazines to homes, golf has carried too many for too long. I fear that no matter how many years of hard times fall on the industry, the bottom line will always be the same because golf is driven by rich people like no other big time sport on earth.
Ciao
-
"The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch. Not my problem. But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us. We pay the bills, not the professional tours."
This quote ties in perfectly with the knee jerk reaction to protecting par - which in and of itself is a focus on the completely wrong segment of golfers. My only difference of opinion is that I could care less about growing the game. In fact I think this mindset of growth could be bad for golf as a game and indeed really only meters into the business of golf - which we all should know often has little to do with the game. From selling magazines to homes, golf has carried too many for too long. I fear that no matter how many years of hard times fall on the industry, the bottom line will always be the same because golf is driven by rich people like no other big time sport on earth.
Ciao
I beg to differ
Tennis, Polo, Yachting, Skiing, Shooting...and one could make a Rich guy argument for any professional sport e.g. Soccer. What the pro's do can be seen reflected on any local sports field. I live right on a big inner city park and you rarely see kids in a kick about session now, but I do see organised training camps for youngsters by Arsenal and The Orient.
Golf was in the doldrums until the gutty ball came about at a time of enormous social change. Many courses were lost as people stopped playing. Please explain how that was good for the game.
We need to look at golf as a whole. Trends from following the professional game have impacted all of us. That’s where the rot is greatest and sorting it out needs to happen if the future of grass roots golf is to be secured. I'm 53 and I'm sure there will be enough courses for me to play for another 30 years. However it's such a great game I'd like to think there will be people planting something I've enjoyed so much in 1000 years.
-
Further proof the magazine business is not the golf business.
http://www.facebook.com/GolfDigestMag
-
Sean,
Its not really about "protecting par". I don't think anyone would object too much if some modern day Moe Norman came along who was sticking it close on par 4s with 4 irons and 7 irons and making birdies all over the place. Its more the fact that watching a game where guys are hitting wedge to every par 4 isn't very interesting, whether or not they're making the putts. The idea that you can just say "who cares, leave the course alone and let them shoot whatever they shoot" is a non-starter, not because its a problem if they shoot -25 in a major, but because watching guys who aren't being challenged is boring as hell.
-
Spangles
With the possible exception of skiing (tennis is dirt cheap to play for the folks who don't need the trappings - even at some private clubs), how are those other sports you mention considered big time? I don't know how you can mention soccer. Its very cheap to play. Soccer is organized for kids for peanuts compared to golf.
Doug
Once we get over worrying what pros do we shall all be a lot better off. Why would I consider altering courses based on the pro product?
Ciao
-
Sean,
Its not really about "protecting par". I don't think anyone would object too much if some modern day Moe Norman came along who was sticking it close on par 4s with 4 irons and 7 irons and making birdies all over the place. Its more the fact that watching a game where guys are hitting wedge to every par 4 isn't very interesting, whether or not they're making the putts. The idea that you can just say "who cares, leave the course alone and let them shoot whatever they shoot" is a non-starter, not because its a problem if they shoot -25 in a major, but because watching guys who aren't being challenged is boring as hell.
Doug - I can see you point but rather than protecting par you want to protect what you think is interesting to watch. But this idea is what has driven Augusta to make the changes they have made since 97. Remember all the comparisons of the second shots hit by Woods and Jack? On #15 Jack hit a 4 iron, Tiger hit a wedge I think? But if this is what is held so important in the game then why didn't they go back to Sarazen and his 5 wood? I know that was not the "modern era". You may not want to watch them hit wedges all day but in the end you want to protect the same thing, a number that you think they should make. Better athletes, better equipment the numbers should be low. My hope is that eventually somebody will realize we are well on our way to 8,000 yard golf courses and this doesn't make sence for any reason I can think of. There needs to be a technology limit for the best in the game just as drug testing was needed in baseball.
-
Kyle Stanley just hit wedge for his second shot into a 596-yard par 5 at the John Deere Classic. Drive estimated at 400+ yards (it is admittedly dry out there).
He missed the green with his approach shot. ;D
-
Sean Arble,
It's not just the pros, it's the young amateurs who hit the ball farther than the pros.
It's getting impossible for an architect to design a hole that will provide a challenge to the broadening spectrum of golfer.
Architecture involves the creation of features meant to interface with the golfer.
Like the Germans and the Maginot Line, the features are being ignored by simply "air mailing" them.