Rants and Raves...

[wkuo3]

So our local girl Lexi Thompson gets cheated out of her win. Viewers should not be Rules Officials! Two stroke penalty for misplacing her ball... fine. B.S., but whatever. Two more stroke penalty because she signed for an incorrect score she didn't know was incorrect, wasn't incorrect at the time because the first 2 stroke penalty hadn't been assessed... Are You F'n Kidding ME!?! PGA & LPGA better get their sh*t together!

Yes, I'm P.O.'d! No wonder our Game is dying. Can you imagine someone new to the game watching this crap?

So you can lose for something that happened the day before because a viewer saw something the rules officials there didn't call?

Who would want to play a stupid game like that!?!

 

It;s not fair and probably prompted the proposal of not using the digitized image / video to REcall the event to assess penalties.

Time had changed rapidly in the last couple of decades when everyone had become an expert using the aid the of modern technology. Not quite sure if this is all good for the general public.

[TimV]

It's not 'Our Game' anymore, but maybe it will be again some day...

 

http://www.morningread.com/features/13685546-b1c9-42d0-88e8-bcee96a0bc2d

[TimV]

This...

 

http://www.morningread.com/features/06090969-4098-4804-bd17-49210596f3f8

[golfmj228]

Good article Tim, just the way I’ve felt for a long time!

[ctmason_98]

This...

 

http://www.morningread.com/features/06090969-4098-4804-bd17-49210596f3f8

 

I think Bill Fields is a very good writer and explains the “problem” in a decent way.

 

I put problem in quotes because we cannot begin to discuss solutions without identifying what exactly is wrong with the advancements in technology.

 

And I’m very sorry, but saying something along the lines of “It’s taking away the essence of the game” is meaningless.

 

If dialing back technology on one or multiple components of the game is a goal, then the objectives must be:

 

1) lower costs for manufacturers, and course operators

2) Reduce confusion and needless complexity for the player in selecting equipment

3) legitimately be able to demonstrate to the player that the game will be easier (or at least simpler) to learn, improve, and excel at.

 

If these aren’t objectives, then in my opinion we’re just wasting time talking about it.

 

 

 

[scomac2002]

Bifurcation of the rules has been brought up a number of times, but I'm not sure how this would play out. The advances in golf equipment technology have been largely paid for by the recreational player/weekend warrior funding these advances as they strive to buy improvement. If tour players are forced to use different equipment via ruling -- let's not forget that they already are using different equipment than what we are seeing OTR at your local golf shop -- then how will you market as successfully to the recreational class player? If there isn't the professional market to design for and use as your primary marketing tool, then what incentive will there be to put the same level of effort into development that there is currently? Do we end up with an endless stream of specialty type clubs similar to what is marketed via infomercial that are sold at prices far below what is typically charged by OEMs? We already have recreational specific equipment in the form of SGI irons, mixed sets with hybrids, etc., so this may simply continue on parallel tracks, but trying to put the distance genie back in the bottle isn't really going to do anything for the recreational player or to bring new players into the game. It's a professional problem more so than a golf problem so the solution needs to be devised from that end.

[Fellaheen51]

Yet another article on "ball goes to far", golf has surrendered the "essence of the game" to technology. An argument voiced by no one in my golfing circle. We're all after a few extra yards off the tee, especially as the march of time take its toll on SS and ultimately how far we can advance a golf ball.

 

To whom is this this argument directed towards, 5% of the world's best golfers? Probably less than that. The governing bodies can create whatever rules they want for the top echelon of golfers. I simply do not care what, if anything, they choose to do about this issue. Just do not create stupid and unnecessary rules that penalize those of us that still slog around the local munis trying to hit the ball as far as we can, play as well as possible on any given day, with whatever implements we choose to play with.

 

Golf as a recreational activity has many problems moving forward. To much distance is most assuredly not one of them.

[Bigarch]

It's not 'Our Game' anymore, but maybe it will be again some day...

 

http://www.morningre...e8-bcee96a0bc2d

 

Great take and I totally agree. The powers that be are missing the boat on trying to reign in the distance of the golf ball. What they need is a golf ball that spins more. You can't make a golf course long enough for the longest hitters. But you can give them big time headaches when you make them maneuver the ball (side to side or low to high).

 

The USGA gets it totally wrong by taking the Open to golf courses that are very long but don't have any trees on them. 3 out of the last 4 didn't have one tree in play and the 4th (Pinehurst) did a redesign to bring the playing lines well within the tree lines and basically took most of the trees out of play. Therefore all that was required was a long, straight shot from point A to point B. The winning score those 4 years has averaged -7 under par on courses that averaged 7543 yards in length. The winning score in the two previous Opens (Merion 6996 yards & Olympic 7170 yards) was both +1 over par!

 

Trees may not be great for spectators or television, but they are great for the game of golf. They are less expensive to maintain, they have a super long lifespan and when placed in the correct area, they require a golfer to maneuver his ball. It's also one of the reasons that classic venues never go out of style. And I realize that some areas of the country don't have a lot of trees, but true links style courses near the water bring in the same challenging element because of the wind that is usually found there. It challenges a player to control the movement of their ball better...just like trees do.

 

If you want to see who the best players are, make them play with a golf ball with a certain minimum spin rate. Current golf balls don't spin enough and the golf courses they are playing don't require them to maneuver the ball, so spin is not required or desired. Trajectories into the greens are also higher than ever, so again...spin is not required or desired in order to stop the ball. Give them a ball that spins a bunch and it would totally change things. It would change the game overnight and give the golf ball companies a new set of challenges to overcome. And this wouldn't have a negative impact on the recreational golfer. They would have the same choice as players did 30 years ago..."do I play the players high spin ball, or do I go with a distance low spin ball?"

 

I'll get off my soapbox now. :)

[ctmason_98]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

Imo, what we watch on television is a long drive contest played out over 72 holes. There are very few tournaments where creativity is rewarded. It is becoming more boring every year. It's rare that I will stay home to watch, I'd rather be playing. They play a different game, which is primarily entertainment as opposed to sport. My 2 cents.

[Bad9]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

 

I have asked the same question several times in the various threads about this issue. No one has ever answered.

[Jiggered]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

 

I have asked the same question several times in the various threads about this issue. No one has ever answered.

 

Only an anecdotal answer but I'd ask you, when you play a typical 6,000 to 6,400 yard course, on how many par 4 holes are you hitting 8 iron or less for your second shot? And can you reach any of the par 5s in two?

 

If the answer is several and yes then I'd say that's not how the course was designed to be played by a club golfer.

[HoganApexBlades]

It's not 'Our Game' anymore, but maybe it will be again some day...

 

http://www.morningre...e8-bcee96a0bc2d

 

Great take and I totally agree. The powers that be are missing the boat on trying to reign in the distance of the golf ball. What they need is a golf ball that spins more. You can't make a golf course long enough for the longest hitters. But you can give them big time headaches when you make them maneuver the ball (side to side or low to high).

 

The USGA gets it totally wrong by taking the Open to golf courses that are very long but don't have any trees on them. 3 out of the last 4 didn't have one tree in play and the 4th (Pinehurst) did a redesign to bring the playing lines well within the tree lines and basically took most of the trees out of play. Therefore all that was required was a long, straight shot from point A to point B. The winning score those 4 years has averaged -7 under par on courses that averaged 7543 yards in length. The winning score in the two previous Opens (Merion 6996 yards & Olympic 7170 yards) was both +1 over par!

 

Trees may not be great for spectators or television, but they are great for the game of golf. They are less expensive to maintain, they have a super long lifespan and when placed in the correct area, they require a golfer to maneuver his ball. It's also one of the reasons that classic venues never go out of style. And I realize that some areas of the country don't have a lot of trees, but true links style courses near the water bring in the same challenging element because of the wind that is usually found there. It challenges a player to control the movement of their ball better...just like trees do.

 

If you want to see who the best players are, make them play with a golf ball with a certain minimum spin rate. Current golf balls don't spin enough and the golf courses they are playing don't require them to maneuver the ball, so spin is not required or desired. Trajectories into the greens are also higher than ever, so again...spin is not required or desired in order to stop the ball. Give them a ball that spins a bunch and it would totally change things. It would change the game overnight and give the golf ball companies a new set of challenges to overcome. And this wouldn't have a negative impact on the recreational golfer. They would have the same choice as players did 30 years ago..."do I play the players high spin ball, or do I go with a distance low spin ball?"

 

I'll get off my soapbox now. :)

 

Arch,

 

Great points!

[HoganApexBlades]

Imo, what we watch on television is a long drive contest played out over 72 holes. There are very few tournaments where creativity is rewarded. It is becoming more boring every year. It's rare that I will stay home to watch, I'd rather be playing. They play a different game, which is primarily entertainment as opposed to sport. My 2 cents.

 

Doug,

 

I concur!

[Fellaheen51]

I just want a ball that goes straight (with a secondary benefit of going far) on this hole. Is this an adequate number of trees?

 

 

 

As to the question of courses I've played that have been modified due to excessive distance (i.e. ball go far)..........Zero.

[scomac2002]

That reminds me of the valley hole at Tyandaga -- the 8th -- that I have yet to figure out how to play effectively.

 

 

 

 

 

It's only 314 yards, but the narrow throat that opens into the dogleg requires a precise 165ish yd. drive to a very small target. An iron hole for sure, but there is no room for error at any point with the trees and stream along the left beside the cart path. I always find myself having to lay-up because of less than ideal position with my tee shot. A par is a very good score on that hole!

[golfmj228]

Fellaheen, nice looking “tough” hole! Just to add a few points & I’m probably way in the minority here so I apologize. In the early 1990’s when playing high school golf on the course I “grew” up playing and worked at for a few summers I had shorter distances into holes than when I came back and played it 10 years later in my late 20’s. I don’t believe that I had lost the physicality it took to hit it longer by then so my conclusion is that the change over in equipment to low spin balls with large titanium drivers actually hurt me from a distance perspective. My game had (and still has) been best by creating shots and getting out of trouble not necessarily overpowering a course but still this had the opposite effect than most players maybe. Contrast to what I watch on TV and the guys now just all hit it as long as they can no matter to where it goes and the shortest hitters don’t win anything. The last guy I can think of that was in the upper echelon and relatively a short hitter was Justin Leonard (how long ago had that been?). Throughout golfs history you had short hitters that could still contend until now where I don’t believe their are any who can or at least very, very few. I say all of that and I’m still longer than most everyone I play with/against in my golf league but by pro standards the gap is WAY bigger than ever before. Sorry for the long diatribe this morning!

[Fellaheen51]

That reminds me of the valley hole at Tyandaga -- the 8th -- that I have yet to figure out how to play effectively.

 

 

 

 

 

It's only 314 yards, but the narrow throat that opens into the dogleg requires a precise 165ish yd. drive to a very small target. An iron hole for sure, but there is no room for error at any point with the trees and stream along the left beside the cart path. I always find myself having to lay-up because of less than ideal position with my tee shot. A par is a very good score on that hole!

 

That looks devilishly difficult. Need to hit it far enough to get beyond the dogleg, but the landing area IS tight. If that's the 150 stake I see, still have a longish second into the green. Well designed, short par 4's are some of my favorite holes to play. Can't just grip and rip, have to use some finesse and strategy. At least that's the idea standing on the tee.

 

There's one on the course I play frequently, short (300 yards) dog left. Trees, undulations, sand. Big oak that protects the dog, that only the big hitters can go up and over (certainly not me). Just have to lay a drive out there on the right side with a fairway or hybrid. All about position. Then a small, elevated green surrounded by bunkers, with slopes on the edges. Just a miserable little hole. It's #15, have had good rounds going till I reach that hole. And it busts me. I've taken so many triples (or worse) on it! Takes a couple of holes to calm down, regain composure, by then I'm done. A nemesis hole if there ever was one.

[Davewn]

Fellaheen, nice looking "tough" hole! Just to add a few points & I'm probably way in the minority here so I apologize. In the early 1990's when playing high school golf on the course I "grew" up playing and worked at for a few summers I had shorter distances into holes than when I came back and played it 10 years later in my late 20's. I don't believe that I had lost the physicality it took to hit it longer by then so my conclusion is that the change over in equipment to low spin balls with large titanium drivers actually hurt me from a distance perspective. My game had (and still has) been best by creating shots and getting out of trouble not necessarily overpowering a course but still this had the opposite effect than most players maybe. Contrast to what I watch on TV and the guys now just all hit it as long as they can no matter to where it goes and the shortest hitters don't win anything. The last guy I can think of that was in the upper echelon and relatively a short hitter was Justin Leonard (how long ago had that been?). Throughout golfs history you had short hitters that could still contend until now where I don't believe their are any who can or at least very, very few. I say all of that and I'm still longer than most everyone I play with/against in my golf league but by pro standards the gap is WAY bigger than ever before. Sorry for the long diatribe this morning!

 

I get what you're saying, but 2 short knockers, Zach Johnson and Jim Furyk, have had really good careers and have won a ton of $$ and 3 majors between them. Furyk has shot 58 and 59 on tour. While a fair bit longer (and a couple of decades younger) than those 2 guys, arguably the best of the current crop, Jordan Spieth isn't one of the longer hitters on tour. He outdueled another short hitter, Matt Kuchar in the last round of the Open this past summer. As it always has been, length off the tee is an advantage, but it certainly isn't the only way to score.

[Sean2]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

 

I have asked the same question several times in the various threads about this issue. No one has ever answered.

 

Courses don't need to be made longer: look at Merion and Harbour Town. Make the rough a bit longer, narrow the fairways a bit, etc.

[Bigarch]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

 

I have asked the same question several times in the various threads about this issue. No one has ever answered.

 

Courses don't need to be made longer: look at Merion and Harbour Town. Make the rough a bit longer, narrow the fairways a bit, etc.

 

Excellent examples. Harbour Town holds up year after year on Tour and it's one of the shortest courses they play.

[HoganApexBlades]

I just want a ball that goes straight (with a secondary benefit of going far) on this hole. Is this an adequate number of trees?

 

 

 

As to the question of courses I've played that have been modified due to excessive distance (i.e. ball go far)..........Zero.

 

Doug,

 

May I recommend VASELINE on the clubface of your driver??? Just kidding!

 

Gorgeous looking golf hole. Maybe a 1 iron is needed here???

[Tumbleweed_1968]

I just want a ball that goes straight (with a secondary benefit of going far) on this hole. Is this an adequate number of trees?

 

 

 

As to the question of courses I've played that have been modified due to excessive distance (i.e. ball go far)..........Zero.

Aim for the gap, land near the trap... That would be my first thought. I would be under the trees on the right tho....

:to_become_senile:

[TimV]

My 2c...

Bring back tree lines and real rough.

For the Pros make them play a deader and/or higher spinning ball.

Those two things alone would force shot making which has virtually disappeared from golf in general and at the Pro level specifically.

Bomb and gouge is now what everyone wants to do because that's what the Pros do. If the Pros were forced to play with more finesse and less brute force then that would quickly become what Joe Average golfer wanted to do as well.

[stixman]

I don't like penal solutions.

 

I like green complexes with diagonal slopes, left to right slopes, right to left slopes. I hate boring front to back slopes.

I hate beatifully raked bunkers (Oh, sorry, sand traps!). I hate receptive dartboard greens. By now you will be getting the idea that I don't like most televised golf...and you would right on the money.

 

I want untended hazards with sand, yes, and with a guaranteed penalty. Bomb and gouge...hah, let's see you get up and down from that little mess.

In no time you will have Pros and amateurs alike hitting their drives to the piece of the fairway the architect intended.

No trees needed, no extreme, ball losing rough needed.

[SteveNZ]

I don't like penal solutions.

 

I like green complexes with diagonal slopes, left to right slopes, right to left slopes. I hate boring front to back slopes.

I hate beatifully raked bunkers (Oh, sorry, sand traps!). I hate receptive dartboard greens. By now you will be getting the idea that I don't like most televised golf...and you would right on the money.

 

I want untended hazards with sand, yes, and with a guaranteed penalty. Bomb and gouge...hah, let's see you get up and down from that little mess.

In no time you will have Pros and amateurs alike hitting their drives to the piece of the fairway the architect intended.

No trees needed, no extreme, ball losing rough needed.

 

Agree with this 100%.

[Sean2]

I just want a ball that goes straight (with a secondary benefit of going far) on this hole. Is this an adequate number of trees?

 

 

 

As to the question of courses I've played that have been modified due to excessive distance (i.e. ball go far)..........Zero.

 

I always hit the ball straight. It's the direction it goes that can get me into trouble. lol

[oldschoolrocker]

I don't like penal solutions.

 

I like green complexes with diagonal slopes, left to right slopes, right to left slopes. I hate boring front to back slopes.

I hate beatifully raked bunkers (Oh, sorry, sand traps!). I hate receptive dartboard greens. By now you will be getting the idea that I don't like most televised golf...and you would right on the money.

 

I want untended hazards with sand, yes, and with a guaranteed penalty. Bomb and gouge...hah, let's see you get up and down from that little mess.

In no time you will have Pros and amateurs alike hitting their drives to the piece of the fairway the architect intended.

No trees needed, no extreme, ball losing rough needed.

+100%, will comment more later.

[ChronicSlicer]

I appreciate people who do see a benefit in courses not having to adjust to combat longer distances. It's a valid point and seems reasonable.

 

However, how many courses has this impacted? Not anecdotes....what courses, where, how much renovation, the cost, how much was technology REALLY a factor, etc.

 

Secondly, I hold that this proposed attempt to "bring back our game" is futile in comparison to the increasing cost of water and the associated compliance costs. There's no way it is even close.

 

I have asked the same question several times in the various threads about this issue. No one has ever answered.

 

Courses don't need to be made longer: look at Merion and Harbour Town. Make the rough a bit longer, narrow the fairways a bit, etc.

 

Here`s what happens when the USGA try`s to toughen up a course.

https://www.thoughtco.com/times-golfers-ripped-the-usga-over-the-us-open-golf-course-1565531

Everybody cries about it. The players don`t want a challenge, they want low rounds of golf.

[oldschoolrocker]

Sorry for the delay, but, I was out working on the greenside bunkers before start of today’s play. 1920ish Seth Raynor design that we are trying to resurrect to it's original intent.

So much I want to say, but, I can tell I would be on my soapbox, so, for now, I will just say,”Target Golf, what’s the fun in that?”