Mike Davis on Distance

[Lodestone]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

Because simply the courses are not all just a little longer, and don't need to be. Because the rounds of golf don't need to be any longer. The inflated distance numbers of the last decade smell no better...

 

I'm still struggling to see a problem. If it's distilled down to length of rounds for hackers on the weekends, I definitely don't see a problem caused by equipment. Give them the best stuff available, and it should solve everything, right? It's so easy with the newer stuff . . .

 

The inflated distance numbers are the sour grapes of has-beens who think, "Dammit, that guy shouldn't hit it further than I could back in the day, dammit. Delores, can you get me a sandwich with some ham? Yeah, I want mustard! Why even ask? Dammit! How come you can make that so quickly? Damned sliced bread, ain't it? Dammit!"

 

I'm with you. I don't see a problem. I sure don't see a problem that needs to be solved by dialing back the ball.

[frank700]

Should the average Joe be forced to use a ball that flies shorter? NO!!

 

Should the Tour players play a ball that flies shorter? YES!!!

 

Longer distances in the Pro game lead to some courses being irrelevant and to other courses don't being played, how the designer wanted it to be played. Sand traps should be there to punish bad shots. If all players fly these fairway bunkers with ease ... the hole lost its dynamic. Courses lose their character and the players aren't challenged as it was intended.

 

On Top of that: Driver wedge, Driver wedge ..... it's just dull. A good golfer is supposed to hit all clubs of his bag. In todays golf on some courses maybe 6 clubs in the bag would be enough. Some courses are trying to counter it by making the courses and some holes longer (to get the traps back into play). And of course that costs money. Dialing the ball back would be a cheaper method and it would force the top player to a more well rounded game. I want to see players like Bubba or Holmes playing other clubs than Driver/Wedge.

 

Another element is, that the rough simply isn't penal enough. If Tour Pros say they rather play from 150 yards out of the rough than from 170 yards from the fairway .... something went wrong. Sitting in the rough always should be penalizing, even if you are only 100 yards away. Grow the rough to make those bombers think about twice hitting the ball all over the place. Outside a few tournaments the rough simply isn't penalizing enough (distance control/spin) - that should change along with the ridiculous amount of roll of the fairways. 10 yards less roll would be a start.

[bullie76]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

[The Pearl]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

 

Both observations can be correct.

[Doyle Hargraves]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

 

It is sour grapes plain and simple.

 

I cringe when someone puts a microphone in front of Gary or Jack, because I know what's coming. They will blather on and on about the "hot ball", even if the question is completely unrelated to the subject.

 

Its a not so subtle way of letting us know that, in their opinion, today's players aren't as good as yester year, which is complete garbage.

[tnord]

technology affects more than just maximum distance with a driver. the ball flies straighter now. i watched a guy in league last night put an idiot mark on his epic he hit so little of the ball....but it still went ~270. hybrids have obviously helped the average player. ALL clubs now launch the ball far higher than they used to. shafts are lighter. the fitting process is far better.

 

every aspect of the game, from an equipment perspective, has been made easier, and there's no debating that. if you haven't gained distance in the last 10 years, you either have bad equipment, or you've lost swing speed. i've lost swing speed as i cruise through my 30s, but my distance with all clubs has gone up from improved launch conditions.

[Roadking2003]

 

Longer distances in the Pro game lead to some courses being irrelevant and to other courses don't being played, how the designer wanted it to be played. Sand traps should be there to punish bad shots. If all players fly these fairway bunkers with ease ... the hole lost its dynamic. Courses lose their character and the players aren't challenged as it was intended.

 

On Top of that: Driver wedge, Driver wedge ..... it's just dull. A good golfer is supposed to hit all clubs of his bag. In todays golf on some courses maybe 6 clubs in the bag would be enough. Some courses are trying to counter it by making the courses and some holes longer (to get the traps back into play). And of course that costs money. Dialing the ball back would be a cheaper method and it would force the top player to a more well rounded game. I want to see players like Bubba or Holmes playing other clubs than Driver/Wedge.

 

But when I watch events on TV they are rarely boring as you describe. The Masters this year; exciting all the way to the finish. The British last year; exciting until the final few holes. The US Open last year; exciting all the way to 18. etc.

 

I can't recall a tournament that was all "driver, wedge".

[Doyle Hargraves]

sour grapes by who?

 

i'm proposing to change the ball to my own detriment and making the game easier for the average player.

 

Sour grapes by Gary and Jack to name a few.

 

They are always quick to tell us that if Porky Oliver was alive, 30 years old, and using today's modern equipment, he would hit it farther than DJ.

 

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

[tnord]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

 

It is sour grapes plain and simple.

 

 

you're saying that the only advocates of a new ball are former pros trying to defend their honor or records or whatever. i'm saying that's a convenient oversight of people like me who are advocating the same thing. and i'm not doing it with the mindset of it being a pro-tour only ball. i'm doing it with the understanding that a dialed back ball will take distance away from me personally, but have minimal to no affect on the average player distance because they don't have the speed to fully compress the ball to start with.

 

i'm also doing it with the belief that a dialed back ball will actually make the game EASIER for the average player because the course conditions don't have to be so difficult to defend against the low handicap and elite player.

 

so when any of you say its sour grapes, that is completely nonsense. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU!!!!!!

[North Butte]

I don't any HELP hitting it shorter, thanks.

[Roadking2003]

technology affects more than just maximum distance with a driver. the ball flies straighter now. i watched a guy in league last night put an idiot mark on his epic he hit so little of the ball....but it still went ~270. hybrids have obviously helped the average player. ALL clubs now launch the ball far higher than they used to. shafts are lighter. the fitting process is far better.

 

every aspect of the game, from an equipment perspective, has been made easier, and there's no debating that. if you haven't gained distance in the last 10 years, you either have bad equipment, or you've lost swing speed. i've lost swing speed as i cruise through my 30s, but my distance with all clubs has gone up from improved launch conditions.

 

And yet where is the downward trend in winning scores? Some US Open examples;

 

Oakmont

1962: -1

1973: -5

1983: +5

1994: -5

2007: +5

2016: -4

Olympic club

1966: -2

1987: -3

1998: E

2012: +1

Pebble Beach

1972: +2

1982: -6

1992: -3

2000: -12

2010: E

Merion Golf Club

1971: E

1981: -7

2013: +1

 

Detect any downward trend? Me neither.

[tnord]

 

 

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

 

in some cases yes, i think they would. we have a 540yd par 4 box that i don't believe we'd maintain anymore for example. but as of right now, it's not long enough. i'm on our greens committee, and i had a 60 year old last night ask if there was a way to move the SILVER tees back on a hole.

 

a dialed back ball, i believe, would make the game easier in this way....i've been over this 6 times, but i understand not reading through the whole thread.

 

- you need ~110mph of swing speed to fully compress a modern ball. if you roll it back, it primarily impacts people with these speeds, and the average 80-90mph swinger doesn't really lose anything.

 

- if i'm now hitting say, a 4i instead of a 6i into a par 4, with the exact same green its obviously much harder to keep that ball on the green. universally, if better/elite players are hitting 2-3 more club into each green, i believe the condition of the greens themselves would need to soften.

 

- if the greens soften, that makes the game EASIER for the average player because they're still hitting roughly the same distance as they were before, but now can more easily hold their long iron/hybrid approach shots, and can get closer to the pin with their chips and pitches because it's not a concrete runway rolling a 10 or higher.

[tnord]

And yet where is the downward trend in winning scores? Some US Open examples;

 

Oakmont

1962: -1

1973: -5

1983: +5

1994: -5

2007: +5

2016: -4

Olympic club

1966: -2

1987: -3

1998: E

2012: +1

Pebble Beach

1972: +2

1982: -6

1992: -3

2000: -12

2010: E

Merion Golf Club

1971: E

1981: -7

2013: +1

 

Detect any downward trend? Me neither.

 

look back a couple pages where i posted the course setup for major venues over the years;

 

baltusrol has gained 562 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

olympic has gained 470 yards

oakmont has gained 273 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

pinehurst has gained 387 yards

merion has gained 302 yards

bethpage even in the last 15 years has gained 200 yards.

 

and if you look at photos of old golf courses like i do....you can see that its not just distance and par that has changed. more and bigger bunkers across the board (harder for everybody regardless of how far you hit it). faster, firmer greens with pins placed closer to hazards and the edges (harder for everybody).

 

those changes are a result of technology evolution in equipment the governing bodies have failed to keep control of.

[Matt J]

I really can't understand those of you that can listen to an expert speak and then naysay that you know golf course expenses better. Yes, billions with a B.

 

It's not just Pebble, Oakmont, and Congressional, it's also local tracks competing for regional qualifiers. Think about being responsible for a new design in this economy...

 

Do you stretch it out and try and get your regional and college tournaments, really bill yourself as a "championship course?" That's a lot of revenue and prestige for you naysayers.

 

Or, do you make a sensible decision and build a smaller course?

 

For those of you talking about the wedges, very dissimilar IMO. "Tournament balls" would not take over the ball market. Groove rule was largely smoke and mirrors and there are non-conformimg wedges on the market still. If you can't spin a conforming wedge you can't spin a wedge.

[Doyle Hargraves]

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

 

in some cases yes, i think they would. we have a 540yd par 4 box that i don't believe we'd maintain anymore for example. but as of right now, it's not long enough. i'm on our greens committee, and i had a 60 year old last night ask if there was a way to move the SILVER tees back on a hole.

 

a dialed back ball, i believe, would make the game easier in this way....i've been over this 6 times, but i understand not reading through the whole thread.

 

- you need ~110mph of swing speed to fully compress a modern ball. if you roll it back, it primarily impacts people with these speeds, and the average 80-90mph swinger doesn't really lose anything.

 

- if i'm now hitting say, a 4i instead of a 6i into a par 4, with the exact same green its obviously much harder to keep that ball on the green. universally, if better/elite players are hitting 2-3 more club into each green, i believe the condition of the greens themselves would need to soften.

 

- if the greens soften, that makes the game EASIER for the average player because they're still hitting roughly the same distance as they were before, but now can more easily hold their long iron/hybrid approach shots, and can get closer to the pin with their chips and pitches because it's not a concrete runway rolling a 10 or higher.

 

Is this 60 year old member tearing the course apart with routine 65s from the current silver tees? If so, I would suggest he join the champions tour.

 

A 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough? I'm skeptical....

[Roadking2003]

And yet where is the downward trend in winning scores? Some US Open examples;

 

Oakmont

1962: -1

1973: -5

1983: +5

1994: -5

2007: +5

2016: -4

Olympic club

1966: -2

1987: -3

1998: E

2012: +1

Pebble Beach

1972: +2

1982: -6

1992: -3

2000: -12

2010: E

Merion Golf Club

1971: E

1981: -7

2013: +1

 

Detect any downward trend? Me neither.

 

look back a couple pages where i posted the course setup for major venues over the years;

 

baltusrol has gained 562 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

olympic has gained 470 yards

oakmont has gained 273 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

pinehurst has gained 387 yards

merion has gained 302 yards

bethpage even in the last 15 years has gained 200 yards.

 

and if you look at photos of old golf courses like i do....you can see that its not just distance and par that has changed. more and bigger bunkers across the board (harder for everybody regardless of how far you hit it). faster, firmer greens with pins placed closer to hazards and the edges (harder for everybody).

 

those changes are a result of technology evolution in equipment the governing bodies have failed to keep control of.

 

OK, so the problem has been solved. Scores are not getting lower. So, now there is no need to change the ball.

[Lodestone]

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

 

in some cases yes, i think they would. we have a 540yd par 4 box that i don't believe we'd maintain anymore for example. but as of right now, it's not long enough. i'm on our greens committee, and i had a 60 year old last night ask if there was a way to move the SILVER tees back on a hole.

 

a dialed back ball, i believe, would make the game easier in this way....i've been over this 6 times, but i understand not reading through the whole thread.

 

- you need ~110mph of swing speed to fully compress a modern ball. if you roll it back, it primarily impacts people with these speeds, and the average 80-90mph swinger doesn't really lose anything.

 

- if i'm now hitting say, a 4i instead of a 6i into a par 4, with the exact same green its obviously much harder to keep that ball on the green. universally, if better/elite players are hitting 2-3 more club into each green, i believe the condition of the greens themselves would need to soften.

 

- if the greens soften, that makes the game EASIER for the average player because they're still hitting roughly the same distance as they were before, but now can more easily hold their long iron/hybrid approach shots, and can get closer to the pin with their chips and pitches because it's not a concrete runway rolling a 10 or higher.

 

Are you saying that there is a ball that will shorten Bubba's drive, but not shorten mine?

[jslane57]

And yet where is the downward trend in winning scores? Some US Open examples;

 

Oakmont

1962: -1

1973: -5

1983: +5

1994: -5

2007: +5

2016: -4

Olympic club

1966: -2

1987: -3

1998: E

2012: +1

Pebble Beach

1972: +2

1982: -6

1992: -3

2000: -12

2010: E

Merion Golf Club

1971: E

1981: -7

2013: +1

 

Detect any downward trend? Me neither.

 

look back a couple pages where i posted the course setup for major venues over the years;

 

baltusrol has gained 562 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

olympic has gained 470 yards

oakmont has gained 273 yards and dropped par from 72 to 70

pinehurst has gained 387 yards

merion has gained 302 yards

bethpage even in the last 15 years has gained 200 yards.

 

and if you look at photos of old golf courses like i do....you can see that its not just distance and par that has changed. more and bigger bunkers across the board (harder for everybody regardless of how far you hit it). faster, firmer greens with pins placed closer to hazards and the edges (harder for everybody).

 

those changes are a result of technology evolution in equipment the governing bodies have failed to keep control of.

 

OK, so the problem has been solved. Scores are not getting lower. So, now there is no need to change the ball.

You do watch these events of the last several years on TV. The course set-ups has become ridiculous in order to keep these stats at bay. The average golfer could simply not complete a round of golf with the set ups. Some of the reasons for staying away from bifurcation is that the regular golfer wants to use the same equipment as the pros. I get that. But the course is the biggest piece of equipment there is, and I firmly believe that a 20 hcp golfer simply could not finish a round of golf without putting the ball in pocket at some point. These stats are simply fake news...

[Doyle Hargraves]

I really can't understand those of you that can listen to an expert speak and then naysay that you know golf course expenses better. Yes, billions with a B.

 

It's not just Pebble, Oakmont, and Congressional, it's also local tracks competing for regional qualifiers. Think about being responsible for a new design in this economy...

 

Do you stretch it out and try and get your regional and college tournaments, really bill yourself as a "championship course?" That's a lot of revenue and prestige for you naysayers.

 

Or, do you make a sensible decision and build a smaller course?

 

For those of you talking about the wedges, very dissimilar IMO. "Tournament balls" would not take over the ball market. Groove rule was largely smoke and mirrors and there are non-conformimg wedges on the market still. If you can't spin a conforming wedge you can't spin a wedge.

 

I agree that the groove rule was smoke and mirrors. The equipment was limited to stop the top 1% from spinning it out of the rough. Proximity to the hole out of the rough didn't increase.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuck with conforming grooves only.

 

Shouldn't we learn something from this when equipment changes are suggested in the future?

[Roadking2003]

and if you look at photos of old golf courses like i do....you can see that its not just distance and par that has changed. more and bigger bunkers across the board (harder for everybody regardless of how far you hit it). faster, firmer greens with pins placed closer to hazards and the edges (harder for everybody).

 

those changes are a result of technology evolution in equipment the governing bodies have failed to keep control of.

 

Moving a bunker from 250 off the tee to 320 off the tee doesn't impact most of us. For example, I couldn't reach the bunker on Augusta #1 so I didn't care how big and deep it was. And very few, if any, of the pros fly over that bunker. So it's perfect for the pros and for the average Joe.

 

And most courses set the greens up very different for the tour events than they do for everyday play. When I played Augusta, the green speeds were way slower than during the Masters. Probably around 9 which made them challenging but did not require the skill of a tour pro to putt them. This is true for almost every Tour event.

 

Most courses can be set up for a Tour event one week of the year and the rest of the year "dumbed down" for the average Joe.

 

All I'm saying is that Davis is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. Driving distance has barely moved over the past decade, but when winning scores start going down significantly, maybe then I would agree that we have a problem.

[jslane57]

I really can't understand those of you that can listen to an expert speak and then naysay that you know golf course expenses better. Yes, billions with a B.

 

It's not just Pebble, Oakmont, and Congressional, it's also local tracks competing for regional qualifiers. Think about being responsible for a new design in this economy...

 

Do you stretch it out and try and get your regional and college tournaments, really bill yourself as a "championship course?" That's a lot of revenue and prestige for you naysayers.

 

Or, do you make a sensible decision and build a smaller course?

 

For those of you talking about the wedges, very dissimilar IMO. "Tournament balls" would not take over the ball market. Groove rule was largely smoke and mirrors and there are non-conformimg wedges on the market still. If you can't spin a conforming wedge you can't spin a wedge.

 

I agree that the groove rule was smoke and mirrors. The equipment was limited to stop the top 1% from spinning it out of the rough. Proximity to the hole out of the rough didn't increase.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuck with conforming grooves only.

 

Shouldn't we learn something from this when equipment changes are suggested in the future?

What is it that should be learned? That the pros should use equipment designed to help the average guy, or the average guy should be stuck with the pro's equipment. And why is it that proximity didn't improve? It may have to do with course set up that countered the spin on the wedges, doesn't mean the spin didn't matter.

[Doyle Hargraves]

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

 

in some cases yes, i think they would. we have a 540yd par 4 box that i don't believe we'd maintain anymore for example. but as of right now, it's not long enough. i'm on our greens committee, and i had a 60 year old last night ask if there was a way to move the SILVER tees back on a hole.

 

a dialed back ball, i believe, would make the game easier in this way....i've been over this 6 times, but i understand not reading through the whole thread.

 

- you need ~110mph of swing speed to fully compress a modern ball. if you roll it back, it primarily impacts people with these speeds, and the average 80-90mph swinger doesn't really lose anything.

 

- if i'm now hitting say, a 4i instead of a 6i into a par 4, with the exact same green its obviously much harder to keep that ball on the green. universally, if better/elite players are hitting 2-3 more club into each green, i believe the condition of the greens themselves would need to soften.

 

- if the greens soften, that makes the game EASIER for the average player because they're still hitting roughly the same distance as they were before, but now can more easily hold their long iron/hybrid approach shots, and can get closer to the pin with their chips and pitches because it's not a concrete runway rolling a 10 or higher.

 

Are you saying that there is a ball that will shorten Bubba's drive, but not shorten mine?

 

That ball doesn't exist.

 

Many here are pretending as though that technology exists (or is attainable) so as to lessen legitimate concerns that every golfer will be affected by the rolling back of the "hot ball."

 

The more likely scenario is that the ball gets rolled back for everyone.

[Roadking2003]

You do watch these events of the last several years on TV. The course set-ups has become ridiculous in order to keep these stats at bay. The average golfer could simply not complete a round of golf with the set ups. Some of the reasons for staying away from bifurcation is that the regular golfer wants to use the same equipment as the pros. I get that. But the course is the biggest piece of equipment there is, and I firmly believe that a 20 hcp golfer simply could not finish a round of golf without putting the ball in pocket at some point. These stats are simply fake news...

 

But those courses are not set up for Tour play all year long. I've played Pebble 15 - 20 times over the past decade and it has never been set up like a tour event. I've played Pinehurst #2 and it wasn't set up for a tour event. Also Cherry Hills. Also ANGC. etc. So that part of you post is "fake news".

 

I agree with your post about the 20 handicapper. But a 20 handicapper will never play Pebble under tour conditions.

[jslane57]

How would changing the ball make the game easier for the average player? Are courses going to shorten when the ball is rolled back?

 

in some cases yes, i think they would. we have a 540yd par 4 box that i don't believe we'd maintain anymore for example. but as of right now, it's not long enough. i'm on our greens committee, and i had a 60 year old last night ask if there was a way to move the SILVER tees back on a hole.

 

a dialed back ball, i believe, would make the game easier in this way....i've been over this 6 times, but i understand not reading through the whole thread.

 

- you need ~110mph of swing speed to fully compress a modern ball. if you roll it back, it primarily impacts people with these speeds, and the average 80-90mph swinger doesn't really lose anything.

 

- if i'm now hitting say, a 4i instead of a 6i into a par 4, with the exact same green its obviously much harder to keep that ball on the green. universally, if better/elite players are hitting 2-3 more club into each green, i believe the condition of the greens themselves would need to soften.

 

- if the greens soften, that makes the game EASIER for the average player because they're still hitting roughly the same distance as they were before, but now can more easily hold their long iron/hybrid approach shots, and can get closer to the pin with their chips and pitches because it's not a concrete runway rolling a 10 or higher.

 

Are you saying that there is a ball that will shorten Bubba's drive, but not shorten mine?

 

That ball doesn't exist.

 

Many here are pretending as though that technology exists (or is attainable) so as to lessen legitimate concerns that every golfer will be affected by the rolling back of the "hot ball."

 

The more likely scenario is that the ball gets rolled back for everyone.

Bifurcation would shorten Bubba's drive and not impact you drive. A shorter ball (say 20% shorter) would impact Bubba's driver considerably more than it would impact yours. Either way, Bubba hits it farther than you. (Or me)

[golfer07840]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

 

is it possible you're just better now? you understand your swing better? You may have more time to practice now that you're older than you did when you were 40?

[golfer07840]

You do watch these events of the last several years on TV. The course set-ups has become ridiculous in order to keep these stats at bay. The average golfer could simply not complete a round of golf with the set ups. Some of the reasons for staying away from bifurcation is that the regular golfer wants to use the same equipment as the pros. I get that. But the course is the biggest piece of equipment there is, and I firmly believe that a 20 hcp golfer simply could not finish a round of golf without putting the ball in pocket at some point. These stats are simply fake news...

 

But those courses are not set up for Tour play all year long. I've played Pebble 15 - 20 times over the past decade and it has never been set up like a tour event. I've played Pinehurst #2 and it wasn't set up for a tour event. Also Cherry Hills. Also ANGC. etc. So that part of you post is "fake news".

 

I agree with your post about the 20 handicapper. But a 20 handicapper will never play Pebble under tour conditions.

 

You've played Pebble 15 to 20 times? Lucky you (and I'm not being snarky... btw, ever play Spyglass Hill?)

 

Now to the point.. a 20 hdcp SHOULDN'T be able to finish a round of golf on the same course/setup as a pro. We see how bad these guys look at the Pebble Beach pro am. Yes I know, Larry the Cable guy really isn't a 7 handicap, I get that, but still, for the legit 7's, that course plays HARD for them. As it should play hard. It's for a Tournament worth several hundred thousand dollars to the winner (may even be for a million + now).

 

And this nonsense that it's always Driver and wedge into every hole. No it isn't. I wish I had time to do it, because I'd love to go back to the beginning of the year, and with the shot tracker from all the rounds during the year, how many times a PGA Tour pro hit driver/Wedge on a par 4. I bet it is far less than what you all make it out to be.

[jslane57]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

 

is it possible you're just better now? you understand your swing better? You may have more time to practice now that you're older than you did when you were 40?

At nearing 50 I hit the ball further than when playing college or professional golf as a younger person. No, I do not have a better swing today either. But I do have much better equipment...

[jslane57]

You do watch these events of the last several years on TV. The course set-ups has become ridiculous in order to keep these stats at bay. The average golfer could simply not complete a round of golf with the set ups. Some of the reasons for staying away from bifurcation is that the regular golfer wants to use the same equipment as the pros. I get that. But the course is the biggest piece of equipment there is, and I firmly believe that a 20 hcp golfer simply could not finish a round of golf without putting the ball in pocket at some point. These stats are simply fake news...

 

But those courses are not set up for Tour play all year long. I've played Pebble 15 - 20 times over the past decade and it has never been set up like a tour event. I've played Pinehurst #2 and it wasn't set up for a tour event. Also Cherry Hills. Also ANGC. etc. So that part of you post is "fake news".

 

I agree with your post about the 20 handicapper. But a 20 handicapper will never play Pebble under tour conditions.

Exactly. Golfers wanting the same equipment as the pros will simply never get it. Because the course.

[new2g0lf]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

 

is it possible you're just better now? you understand your swing better? You may have more time to practice now that you're older than you did when you were 40?

At nearing 50 I hit the ball further than when playing college or professional golf as a younger person. No, I do not have a better swing today either. But I do have much better equipment...

If we're using analogies I see people every day with the latest drivers and Pro V1 balls that can't get the ball passed 200 yards. If you're really upset you're driving the ball too far I'd suggest you roll back your ball and equipment to a level that you feel more comfortable with rather than trying to get everyone else to follow you.

[jslane57]

And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Strongly disagree. I'm 62 and driving the ball further than I did when I was 40.

 

is it possible you're just better now? you understand your swing better? You may have more time to practice now that you're older than you did when you were 40?

At nearing 50 I hit the ball further than when playing college or professional golf as a younger person. No, I do not have a better swing today either. But I do have much better equipment...

If we're using analogies I see people every day with the latest drivers and Pro V1 balls that can't get the ball passed 200 yards. If you're really upset you're driving the ball too far I'd suggest you roll back your ball and equipment to a level that you feel more comfortable with rather than trying to get everyone else to follow you.

Just answering a question. I'm not upset. I'm happy. I also think it is ridiculous and bad for the game of golf.