What Would Happen To Golf If

I think we can all agree that when Tiger was winning in his prime, he certainly changed how the game was played. Aside from physical training, which apparently a lot of players have taken too, he was responsible for courses "Tiger Proofing" their layout. With all the current advances in equipment, pro's are in general, longer than ever. OK, given all that, if a player starts on a similar run like Tiger, what if anything do you think would happen to golf in general, but especially the pro tour?

Personally, I think the pool is too deep with talent and there won't be another "Tigeresque" player, but lets play what if..........

Time to put a limit on the Golf Ball.

Generally speaking most courses cannot be lengthened. They don't have the property for it. Most courses don't have the money behind them like Augusta to go out and purchase more land **IF** it's available.

I do agree the talent pool is deep and becoming deeper. IMO no one will ever dominate again like Jack and Tiger. There will be guys go on a hot streak for a year or two perhaps but it won't last for 10-20 years.

Deep bunkers and smaller, more undulated greens.

I would go with the restrictions on equipment and balls. Golf is supposed to be the only sport where restrictions don't apply so let the haters commence their game of showing golf has not advanced in 50 years so why restrict advancements in technology? This thread will never end or find a workable agreement. I expect the Jack haters to reveal themselves by post 20.

> @disco111 said:

> if a player starts on a similar run like Tiger, what if anything do you think would happen to golf in general, but especially the pro tour?

>

> Personally, I think the pool is too deep with talent and there won't be another "Tigeresque" player, but lets play what if..........

We're still in the Tiger era, its way too early to tell. There will be another Tiger, there will have to be, because of golf being an individual sport. Let's revisit this topic in 10-15 years...

> @ctsgolf said:

> Deep bunkers and smaller, more undulated greens.

Deep, unraked bunkers along with tighter fairways/deeper rough. Just like if a ball rolls into a divot, if a ball rolls into a footprint in a trap from a previous player, let them play from that.

The surge of physical fitness coincided with TW, but it still would have happened if Earl had pulled out in March of 1975. The next “jump” will happen if one player dominates or not. I can’t imagine length can continue to grow, but I’m sure it will. What is the next aspect of the game to take a giant leap forward? Maybe it’s accuracy, but I doubt it. The highest level of play doesn’t reward accuracy and takes measures to mitigate the lack of it. Until that changes the focus of improvement will be speed and distance.

> @Lagavulin62 said:

> I would go with the restrictions on equipment and balls. Golf is supposed to be the only sport where restrictions don't apply so let the haters commence their game of showing golf has not advanced in 50 years so why restrict advancements in technology? This thread will never end or find a workable agreement. I expect the Jack haters to reveal themselves by post 20.

agreed. only if there was an unlimited supply of land i would disagree.

> @puttfordoux said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > if a player starts on a similar run like Tiger, what if anything do you think would happen to golf in general, but especially the pro tour?

> >

> > Personally, I think the pool is too deep with talent and there won't be another "Tigeresque" player, but lets play what if..........

>

> We're still in the Tiger era, its way too early to tell. There will be another Tiger, there will have to be, because of golf being an individual sport. Let's revisit this topic in 10-15 years...

>

>

I think the "Tiger era" has come and gone. Yes he is still fairly formidable, at times, but reality at 43+ plus health issues he is not the same player as in the past. Besides, I can't wait that long to revisit, I'll be long gone by then. So for the interim, lets focus on what would possible happen if another player starts to dominate. But it's interesting that you state "there will have to be". Why do you think that?.............

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @ctsgolf said:

> > Deep bunkers and smaller, more undulated greens.

>

> Deep, unraked bunkers along with tighter fairways/deeper rough. Just like if a ball rolls into a divot, if a ball rolls into a footprint in a trap from a previous player, let them play from that.

Also giant fans to make sure the wind is always blowing at least 20 miles an hour.

> @disco111 said:

> > @puttfordoux said:

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > if a player starts on a similar run like Tiger, what if anything do you think would happen to golf in general, but especially the pro tour?

> > >

> > > Personally, I think the pool is too deep with talent and there won't be another "Tigeresque" player, but lets play what if..........

> >

> > We're still in the Tiger era, its way too early to tell. There will be another Tiger, there will have to be, because of golf being an individual sport. Let's revisit this topic in 10-15 years...

> >

> >

>

> I think the "Tiger era" has come and gone. Yes he is still fairly formidable, at times, but reality at 43+ plus health issues he is not the same player as in the past. Besides, I can't wait that long to revisit, I'll be long gone by then. So for the interim, lets focus on what would possible happen if another player starts to dominate. But it's interesting that you state "there will have to be". Why do you think that?.............

For the diehard golf fan, I don't think it really matters much if one person dominates or if there is a deep pool of great players. But for the casual golf fan, it means everything. They are not tuning in for the sport, they are tuning in for the player.

Let's turn the tables here for a second to another individual sport, tennis. I haven't watched one second of Wimbledon, but I will probably be watching Federer and Nadal tomorrow morning, because they are the dominating players of the sport. I am, what you call, a casual tennis fan. Without Federer and Nadal in the mix I wouldn't be watching pro tennis at all, ever. And I suspect I am probably not alone in this.

Same with the casual golf fan, which WAY outnumbers all other fans, and Tiger. A player such as Tiger, transcends the sport. Federer and Nadal transcend the sport of tennis. Even in a team sport such as pro basketball, Lebron James transcends the sport. Players like these are part of the larger culture, outside of the niche element, which brings their respective sports to the forefront when they play. Everyone knows who they are, not just people familiar with sports.

Not to be too critical of your assessment, but it may be a bit short-sighted to think that the tour will survive and thrive simply on talent, training, and technology alone, especially in the long term, although those are all good arguments when you are talking from a diehard fan's perspective. Golf will always need somebody to carry the mantle. Even at 43 with all his health issues, Tiger is still doing this.

As crazy as it sounds i think the tour needs to focus on total score vs how many shots under par they are. Yes the advancements in equipment have changed the game but also the data that is coming from technology to improve mechanics. All of the tour pros have access to the same equipment per say so they are all on the same playing field. I do believe that the depth of players is enormous (due to the tiger effect) and it is harder to win week to week or stay at no1 in the world. On the flip side growing up with the game during Tigers reign makes me appreciate just how good he was to hold that no1 spot for so long.

Honest super bored when watching -24 as winning score. Easiest rollback for Tour is add more initial spin to ball and make them less wind resistant or less aerodynamic. Fairways and greens will get smaller doing that and wild card of wind will regain it's rightful place. Now get off my lawn.

The golf industry would in no way put roadblocks in place to prevent another Tiger Mania. Why on earth would they?? A LOT of MONEY was made the first time around, and even more of it will be had with a part 2.

Gotta introduce conditioning to top performance. Caddies can accompany, but players have to carry. Have to play in 3.5 hours, or you’re DQ’d, no matter what your fellow competitors are doing. Get those MF’ers in gear, or you wear it too. US Opens in Phoenix. 36 holes on Friday. Modern players must be stopped, and they have to play how we want them to play. Let’s see how these spoiled brats do then.

Golf equipment manufacturers v. golf.

The sport would be better if we were playing with gutties. We could play on shorter courses, the long guys would still be long. the rounds would be shorter to play. We could play golf within 4 hours easy, maybe shorter.

Who would be apoplectic? The ball manufacturers and the driver manufacturers.

Think about that for a minute. Who directs the game as it is played today? The ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers. They spend unbelievable amounts of money sponsoring the best golfers so that the rest of us will buy their products.

Is that healthy for the game. I think not. The game has been hijacked by the ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers.

The game would be better if we all played with shorter equipment on shorter golf courses. Less time, less money. Amen.

> @gvogel said:

> Golf equipment manufacturers v. golf.

>

> The sport would be better if we were playing with gutties. We could play on shorter courses, the long guys would still be long. the rounds would be shorter to play. We could play golf within 4 hours easy, maybe shorter.

>

> Who would be apoplectic? The ball manufacturers and the driver manufacturers.

>

> Think about that for a minute. Who directs the game as it is played today? The ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers. They spend unbelievable amounts of money sponsoring the best golfers so that the rest of us will buy their products.

>

> Is that healthy for the game. I think not. The game has been hijacked by the ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers.

>

> The game would be better if we all played with shorter equipment on shorter golf courses. Less time, less money. Amen.

Yep. First there was golf, the honored game. Now there is bomb and gouge, sponsored by the latest OEM to promise you 20 more yards (for the 20th year in a row).

Tour Courses need to bring rough back,

Normal golf course need to be alot shorter and get rid of rough

> @gvogel said:

> Golf equipment manufacturers v. golf.

>

> The sport would be better if we were playing with gutties. We could play on shorter courses, the long guys would still be long. the rounds would be shorter to play. We could play golf within 4 hours easy, maybe shorter.

>

> Who would be apoplectic? The ball manufacturers and the driver manufacturers.

>

> Think about that for a minute. Who directs the game as it is played today? The ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers. They spend unbelievable amounts of money sponsoring the best golfers so that the rest of us will buy their products.

>

> Is that healthy for the game. I think not. The game has been hijacked by the ball manufacturers and the club manufacturers.

>

> The game would be better if we all played with shorter equipment on shorter golf courses. Less time, less money. Amen.

With no animosity

Aren’t the manufacturers really just being driven by what sells ?

Nicklaus hit it long, high, and accurate.

Courses were adjusted as players made the evolution to the massive air game

Tiger causes the “tiger proofing” era and player and manufacturers respond by figuring out how to hit it further and higher (again)

Equipment research and development is usually driven to help react to the newest exploits of the best players

Vicious circle, but I still believe manufacturers are simply giving consumers what they want, so the average golfer is just as responsible for the equipment improvements maybe?

These guys on TV hit it two clubs farther than I do, and I don’t like it.

Stop using tight fast fairways, narrow the fairways. No need to rollback the ball or change equipment. There’s a max of 14 clubs allowed, setup the course so the player has to use a majority of them during a round.

If the PGA Tour thinks things are out of hand than they can address it however they want. They can stop going to courses, historical or not, that give up absurd scores. That's their choice. If they want, they can bifurcate either the ball or the clubs or a combo of both. Again, their choice for their members.

But I for one don't want to give up my distance. I don't want to play a rolled back ball. I don't want a dialed down driver. I'm never worried about too much distance in my game. The pros can do what they want. It's their Tour, if they think it's an issue than let them deal with it in their own little bubble. But stay the ef' away from my game.

Roll back the springy face at tour level.

Make the ball spin more off driver.

> @puttfordoux said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > if a player starts on a similar run like Tiger, what if anything do you think would happen to golf in general, but especially the pro tour?

> >

> > Personally, I think the pool is too deep with talent and there won't be another "Tigeresque" player, but lets play what if..........

>

> We're still in the Tiger era, its way too early to tell. There will be another Tiger, there will have to be, because of golf being an individual sport. Let's revisit this topic in 10-15 years...

>

>

And it might be longer than 10-15 years but it will happen. A single minded player will come along that wants/needs to win. So many posts say the modern players are too complacent because of the money. But, like Tiger, what if they weren't complacent. What if a blend of the top players, name him Leopard, comes along with the skills and desire week in and week out.

Those of us old enough recall the same arguments 20+ years ago. There were too many good players for one player to dominate like Jack. It's sports. In every sport it seems someone will come along and dominate.

It’s all about the golf ball. I don’t want to see the rules bifurcated when it comes to the ball. Can’t our great ball technologists come up with a ball that a tour Pro can’t hit more than 300 yards but the guy who hits it 220 can still hit it 220?

> @dalehead said:

> It’s all about the golf ball. I don’t want to see the rules bifurcated when it comes to the ball. Can’t our great ball technologists come up with a ball that a tour Pro can’t hit more than 300 yards but the guy who hits it 220 can still hit it 220?

I don’t know if that’ll ever happen, pard. Physics and chemistry and stuff. Guy can dream.

The fact remains that these touring professionals hit the ball too far for the likes of you and me. I won’t stand for it. I hope our stance here can bring some real change.

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @dalehead said:

> > It’s all about the golf ball. I don’t want to see the rules bifurcated when it comes to the ball. Can’t our great ball technologists come up with a ball that a tour Pro can’t hit more than 300 yards but the guy who hits it 220 can still hit it 220?

>

> I don’t know if that’ll ever happen, pard. Physics and chemistry and stuff. Guy can dream.

>

> The fact remains that these touring professionals hit the ball too far for the likes of you and me. I won’t stand for it. I hope our stance here can bring some real change.

You're upset because there are professionals that are better than most? Like there are in Baseball, Football, Tennis, etc.

I'm not sure what it is you won't stand for and this stance is we're (you) supposed to take.

Tighter fairways and deeper rough would solve any issues people had about the PGA game. IMO

The problem with just narrowing fairways and deepening the rough is that it doesn't resolve the loss of architectural interest and strategy that make the game so great. It just reduces it to a game of exclusively accuracy and penalty, which is even more boring than bomb and gouge. The ball is the right answer, and has been for decades.

I believe the OP is asking what would happen if another game changing player such as Tiger came along. I honestly don't see it happening - Tiger marked the evolution of golf from a relatively sedate sport to the trend towards sport as science. The fact that he is as long as he has ever been, and is now only keeping up with others rather than blowing it 40 yards past them kind of proves that he has moved the goal posts, and they are fairly fixed now. Unless you get a Sadlowski with the touch of Phil, I would expect the game to stay the way it is for a long time - balls and clubs are fairly maxed out, and I find it hard to see where physical conditioning can take the average pro from here. Maybe someone will come along with a new technique that does what the Fosbury Flop did for High Jumping, but until then I foresee minimal gains from now on.