Mike Davis on Distance

[Ashley Schaeffer]

WTF am I missing here!? Are people actually saying a 540 yard par four is "short-medium" length? That's longer than any par four I've ever played! Do you guys mean par five? I'm lost.

 

Your myopia is at least consistent. I said that it "plays" short. Surely you've played a 400 yard par four that plays long due to elevation or prevailing wind?

 

I don't care if it's 40 miles an hour downwind, I would love to be able to say a 540-yard par four plays short. In the end, all those who say the ball goes too far to honor the designer's wishes on any given layout are more than welcome to hit less than driver. That way, they can be "shotmakers" or whatever the F all of them say, and they get to play the course "how it was meant to be played."

[AceCatKY]

In some alternative-reality universe the game might have evolved around a ball that was two inches in diameter and weighed an ounce and half. Dustin Johnson would be hitting that ball around 220 yards with his driver and I wouldn't have a single club in my bag that could hit even 150. Full-size "championship" courses might be 4,500 yards. We'd probably all be playing golf in that universe and indeed the game might require less real estate and (slightly) less time to play.

 

The problem is path dependency. AKA you can't get there from here. What's the old saying, once they've seen the big city you can't keep them down on the farm? There is no constituency for seeing the game radically scaled back with promised of saving a few bucks on green fees or taking 20 minutes less time to play a round.

 

Exactly. Even if some money was saved by not maintaining as long of a course its doubtful that a whole lot of savings would be passed on to the consumer. Courses supers aren't going to just say " Oh now that we are 5,000 yards we are going to charge you 10% less, since we don't have to mow the back tee boxes anymore". If existing courses are shortened the same existing real estate will still have to be maintained.

 

Also, if anyone has a problem with "too much distance" they can just play hickory/balata from the women's tees. Hell, just start using gutta percha and play from the 200 yd marker. This distance "problem" doesn't really manifest itself at most courses, MAYBE 5% of golfers carry the ball 300 yards. As for the PGA, if it is so sickening to you to watch guys hit it 330 off the tee on 7600 yard courses, then just turn off the TV. Whats next? 12 feet rims in basketball? 600 feet wall in baseball? Sports evolve, training evolves, equipment evolves. All of this desperate clinging to a notion of what golf was 30 years ago is pointless. Trying to conjure up a "it will save money, you can play quicker" argument against distance is bogus. The difference in driving/walking 1500 yards over the course of 18 holes is minimal.

[North Butte]

What ability is Dustin Johnson's equipment "masking"?

 

30 years ago anyone swinging their driver harder than about 110-115mph were basically wasting effort. The crummy golf balls they used made swinging harder than that a fool's errand of giving up huge amounts of control in return for a tiny bit of extra distance.

 

Now a guy who swings it (with amazingly good techique) at 125mph gets better results than the guy swinging at 120mph. And when a guy comes along one day who can swing at 140mph he'll get better results still.

 

No, it was the equipment YOU grew up playing that "masked" the sort of athletic ability we take for granted today. There are kids in college who put a more athletic move on the ball than Nicklaus ever did, at least in part because the scoring advantages of hitting it harder than Nicklaus did with the equipment of the day were hardly existent.

 

What you're proposing is that since freakish athletic talent is letting elite golfers overpower very long golf courses we ought to make them (and only them) use a golf ball that keeps that talent from being evident. The old equipment (mid-late 20th century) was crap, ill-suited to the purpose of either elite golfers or hacks like me. Eventually it was supplanted with far, far better equipment and we've reached the point where superior athletic ability pays off almost without limit as long as you have the technique and the consistency to match the raw ability. That's a good thing.

[jslane57]

In some alternative-reality universe the game might have evolved around a ball that was two inches in diameter and weighed an ounce and half. Dustin Johnson would be hitting that ball around 220 yards with his driver and I wouldn't have a single club in my bag that could hit even 150. Full-size "championship" courses might be 4,500 yards. We'd probably all be playing golf in that universe and indeed the game might require less real estate and (slightly) less time to play.

 

The problem is path dependency. AKA you can't get there from here. What's the old saying, once they've seen the big city you can't keep them down on the farm? There is no constituency for seeing the game radically scaled back with promised of saving a few bucks on green fees or taking 20 minutes less time to play a round.

"The cat's out of the bag!". This is true for cats, you can't just go back. But we're talking golf and adults, going back would not be rocket science, in fact golf could go back without losing what it has gained in the way of multicore golf balls, club balance, and maintenance. Which IMO would be moving forward...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

:facepalm:

 

i knew it'd get to this point. but i tried.

 

Hey, man, don't worry. You can't always get everyone on board. Thank you so, so very much for trying to help us all. Maybe tell those who think they hit it too far around your course to leave the driver in the trunk. I'd probably also walk down the range and give everyone swing tips to help some more.

 

what you and others are not processing is that i'm trying to help you and every single golfer out there with faster pace, cheaper green fees, and an easier game.

 

but whatever....call me an elitist if you want.

 

OK, so are all of those changes happening right when your new dudball is all I can buy? People will chip and putt faster and not take so much time around the greens where 80% or so of slow play happens? The local muni is not only going to save a ton of money, but then its going to pass its savings on to me? I will find that the dudball makes the game easier? Wow! Show me, for I must see the path before I can walk it with you.

[North Butte]

You can't go back because not 0.0001% of golfers have any interest in going back.

 

If there were any groundswell among typical golfers for hitting the ball shorter, it could happen at the stroke of a pen. USGA simply says "As of January 1, 2022 the overall distance standard will be 15% less than it is today and all golf balls used under the Rules of Golf after that date must meet the new standard".

 

The result would be a handful of people jumping up and down for joy while the rest of the golfing world gives the USGA the finger on the way out the door and ceases to care what USGA says or does.

[new2g0lf]

Those who complain equipment seem to have this expectation that if we roll back the ball and drivers for the pro's that all the golf courses in America can start to shrink their courses by the 10% or 20% those claim they have expanded. I don't see it happening, at Bethpage players have the option of playing 5 different courses of different lengths, yet they only line up for the longest, the Black course.

 

Courses could save money by shrinking the greens and fairways while growing out the rough to make it tougher for the long hitters as well. They could fill in sand traps with grass, there are a lot of cost cutting measures courses could take the wouldn't impact the equipment. I've never heard a fellow golfer tell me that they aren't playing a course because it's too short.

[jslane57]

What ability is Dustin Johnson's equipment "masking"?

 

30 years ago anyone swinging their driver harder than about 110-115mph were basically wasting effort. The crummy golf balls they used made swinging harder than that a fool's errand of giving up huge amounts of control in return for a tiny bit of extra distance.

 

Now a guy who swings it (with amazingly good techique) at 125mph gets better results than the guy swinging at 120mph. And when a guy comes along one day who can swing at 140mph he'll get better results still.

 

No, it was the equipment YOU grew up playing that "masked" the sort of athletic ability we take for granted today. There are kids in college who put a more athletic move on the ball than Nicklaus ever did, at least in part because the scoring advantages of hitting it harder than Nicklaus did with the equipment of the day were hardly existent.

 

What you're proposing is that since freakish athletic talent is letting elite golfers overpower very long golf courses we ought to make them (and only them) use a golf ball that keeps that talent from being evident. The old equipment (mid-late 20th century) was crap, ill-suited to the purpose of either elite golfers or hacks like me. Eventually it was supplanted with far, far better equipment and we've reached the point where superior athletic ability pays off almost without limit as long as you have the technique and the consistency to match the raw ability. That's a good thing.

I appreciate this argument. It is stated far better than others. But there is more to golf than what DJ does. There is the game aspect to golf. The time and land aspect to golf. And the equipment has masked all of that. Your argument would imply that baseball pros should be using carbon bats. Killing pitchers, and double sized baseball stadiums should be the norm. I just don't buy it when it comes to the overall game of golf...

[jslane57]

Those who complain equipment seem to have this expectation that if we roll back the ball and drivers for the pro's that all the golf courses in America can start to shrink their courses by the 10% or 20% those claim they have expanded. I don't see it happening, at Bethpage players have the option of playing 5 different courses of different lengths, yet they only line up for the longest, the Black course.

 

Courses could save money by shrinking the greens and fairways while growing out the rough to make it tougher for the long hitters as well. They could fill in sand traps with grass, there are a lot of cost cutting measures courses could take the wouldn't impact the equipment. I've never heard a fellow golfer tell me that they aren't playing a course because it's too short.

Didn't you just say that players only want the longest course on Bethpage? Those lines are telling you that they are not playing shorter courses because exactly that. They need no words when their actions speak. Unfortunately their words are just complaining about pace of play and how long it takes to play. Dots connected...

[North Butte]

The logic just doesn't pan out. If my course, which has been in place and largely unchanged for over half a century, were to be reconfigured in a 15% smaller form to suit a 15% rolled-back ball it isn't like we can just close some holes and sell the land. The land is long since paid for in any case but the "savings" would take the form of various holes getting 30 yards shorter here, 80 yards there and unless we want to spend millions building new greens it all has to be accomplished by moving or re-purposing tee boxes.

 

So now we have more than a dozen little chunks of an acre or two each that we no longer need. Of course to get from one green to the next tee you still have to walk or ride past the now-unused space. And you can't be selling houses in groups of two or three in the middle of the course's core routing. In act the members would have a cow if you even quit mowing and fertilizing that space because it would go to weeds in a summer or two.

 

Nobody is building new golf courses in this country to suit the current ball. And they sure as heck aren't going to start building them to suit a shorter ball. Most of the "savings" exist only in that alternative reality where existing courses were built from the ground up to suit a smaller-scale game. It's Utopian thinking. To make it happen today most courses and clubs would have to actually SPEND money to accommodate the brave new world of the shorter ball. And in the case of my club, we don't have money to lengthen the course anyway so we darned sure couldn't come up with any to shorten it.

[b.helts]

North Butte, how long is your club from the longest tees now?

[North Butte]

Around 6,800 (Par 72) from the longest tees you could go out and actually play today. If we mow and spruce up a handful way-back tournament tees we can get it up over 7,100 but I can't think of any time in the past year or so we've done that. And honestly those are typically not very well thought out from an architectural perspective IMO, just stuck back in a convenient but much longer spot.

[new2g0lf]

Those who complain equipment seem to have this expectation that if we roll back the ball and drivers for the pro's that all the golf courses in America can start to shrink their courses by the 10% or 20% those claim they have expanded. I don't see it happening, at Bethpage players have the option of playing 5 different courses of different lengths, yet they only line up for the longest, the Black course.

 

Courses could save money by shrinking the greens and fairways while growing out the rough to make it tougher for the long hitters as well. They could fill in sand traps with grass, there are a lot of cost cutting measures courses could take the wouldn't impact the equipment. I've never heard a fellow golfer tell me that they aren't playing a course because it's too short.

Didn't you just say that players only want the longest course on Bethpage? Those lines are telling you that they are not playing shorter courses because exactly that. They need no words when their actions speak. Unfortunately their words are just complaining about pace of play and how long it takes to play. Dots connected...

My not so obvious point is that non-pro's want to experience similar challenges to the pro's regardless of the length of the course. Pace of play is often worst on the black course but it's still the most popular because of that's the one the pro's play on.

[Doyle Hargraves]

You can't go back because not 0.0001% of golfers have any interest in going back.

 

If there were any groundswell among typical golfers for hitting the ball shorter, it could happen at the stroke of a pen. USGA simply says "As of January 1, 2022 the overall distance standard will be 15% less than it is today and all golf balls used under the Rules of Golf after that date must meet the new standard".

 

The result would be a handful of people jumping up and down for joy while the rest of the golfing world gives the USGA the finger on the way out the door and ceases to care what USGA says or does.

 

I like the cut of your jib.

 

The sooner we are rid of the USGA the better.

 

Nothing pained me more than having the USGA charge my credit card last month fro US Open tickets. Barf......

[Auditor_Kevin]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

[b.helts]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

 

Dude. Go try to buy a new balata ball.

[Doyle Hargraves]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

 

I hear ya man. Some of the comments in this thread are real head scratchers.

 

The "hot ball" is causing tee boxes to be dangerously close to greens.

 

The "hot ball" is forcing courses to maintain 540 yard tee boxes on par fours.

 

Rolling back the "hot ball" will make the game easier...Or wait, was it the "hot ball" is making the game too easy.

 

I can't keep all of this straight.

[b.helts]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

 

I hear ya man. Some of the comments in this thread are real head scratchers.

 

The "hot ball" is causing tee boxes to be dangerously close to greens.

 

The "hot ball" is forcing courses to maintain 540 yard tee boxes on par fours.

 

Rolling back the "hot ball" will make the game easier...Or wait, was it the "hot ball" is making the game too easy.

 

I can't keep all of this straight.

 

lol!!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Lodestone]

:facepalm:

 

i knew it'd get to this point. but i tried.

 

Hey, man, don't worry. You can't always get everyone on board. Thank you so, so very much for trying to help us all. Maybe tell those who think they hit it too far around your course to leave the driver in the trunk. I'd probably also walk down the range and give everyone swing tips to help some more.

 

what you and others are not processing is that i'm trying to help you and every single golfer out there with faster pace, cheaper green fees, and an easier game.

 

but whatever....call me an elitist if you want.

 

what you are not processing is the problems your solution causes. Just to illustrate one: The 17 year old hot shot who has learned the game with the "amateur " ball, and is progressing to a point where he might be considered NCAA Div. I material. Maybe trying to qualify for his state Am. All he's played with is the hotter ball, now he has a decision to make, while still competing at the high school level: what do I do? practice with the dead ball? Compete with the "live" ball? Do I not compete with my pals in friendly matches anymore?

 

To say the transition would be "awkward", is grossly understating it. And why go through this? Because courses don't play the way they played 30 years ago?

 

grow the grass, pinch the fairways, rut the traps, may not be perfect answers, but they are better answers than messing with the ball, or worse yet, having two different rules for balls depending upon skill level.

[golfer07840]

:facepalm:

 

i knew it'd get to this point. but i tried.

 

Hey, man, don't worry. You can't always get everyone on board. Thank you so, so very much for trying to help us all. Maybe tell those who think they hit it too far around your course to leave the driver in the trunk. I'd probably also walk down the range and give everyone swing tips to help some more.

 

what you seem incapable of processing is that i'm trying to help you and every single golfer out there with faster pace, cheaper green fees, and an easier game.

 

but whatever....call me an elitist if you want.

Just maybe some that "seem incapable of processing" just disagree with your premise? When you state things as absolute truths but then also post that "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. "

 

why would you first say you would not want to maintain a tee box but then also state that it's not long enough. Statements like that lead the rest to face palm.

 

I can see both sides of this issue but the seemingly purposeful ignoring or misunderstanding of some of tnord's posts is remarkable.

 

It's plainly clear that tnord is saying that IF the ball was rolled back, they would stop maintaining the 540 yard tee box. As it stands now, with the current ball, that tee box plays as only a short-medium length par 4 for the players that play that tee box in the tournaments hosted there.

 

I totally get what you're saying here. However, you are talking about a small handful of people IN THE WORLD who should be playing from back there.

 

99% of golfers have no business playing from a tee box that measures 540 yards for a PAR 4.

 

So why have all the ball manufacturers roll back the ball to penalize the best players who can play from back there?

[Doyle Hargraves]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

 

I hear ya man. Some of the comments in this thread are real head scratchers.

 

The "hot ball" is causing tee boxes to be dangerously close to greens.

 

The "hot ball" is forcing courses to maintain 540 yard tee boxes on par fours.

 

Rolling back the "hot ball" will make the game easier...Or wait, was it the "hot ball" is making the game too easy.

 

I can't keep all of this straight.

 

lol!!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

Here you go. Right from this thread. It's all right there.

 

 

Billions of dollars altering courses, check. A golf ball that is both a distance ball and a spin ball does require less skill, check. Golf divers twice the size and even more forgiving as years ago, check. I understand loving the game the way it is today, but to say it's not easier is simply false...

 

 

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.

 

 

Maintaining 20% more course increases overhead, slow play decreases revenue due to less tee times and more people leaving the game, and pieces of property are stretched to their limit to add deeper tee boxes resulting in longer walks and sometimes dangerous locations too close to other holes.

 

 

It's plainly clear that tnord is saying that IF the ball was rolled back, they would stop maintaining the 540 yard tee box. As it stands now, with the current ball, that tee box plays as only a short-medium length par 4 for the players that play that tee box in the tournaments hosted there.

[golfer07840]

Any thread that gets to page 12 is in "facepalm" territory regardless of the side of the debate you choose. But that doesn't mean the points are lost. Far from it. Yes, less course equals less maintained. Less course equals shorter distance covered. Less course simply saves time and money. How do you make less course relevant? Have the equipment produce shorter shots. These are all very sensible solutions. The problem is money and ego isn't it. The manufactures want money, and distance sells. If you're looking at this game through a lens of longevity and relevance to years past, it is clear that the changes in the last couple decades have gone too far. If you only care about how far your drives go, you're happy. Surprisingly to me, many folks participating in an online forum about golf really are not into protecting the game at all, only bettering themselves in relation an unknown. The basketball references and such are not relevant as the ball didn't change, nor did the hoop height, but rather the athletes truly got bigger. You simply can't say that about golf as the equipment/technology has masked the athlete's abilities...

 

Are you kidding me? These guys today are built so much more like athletes than 25 years ago it's ridiculous.

[djmohab2]

What's next? Durant's required to wear weighted shoes so he can't dunk over fools or has to throw it down on a special 12-foot basket? Power hitters in baseball have to use balsa wood bats or hit it out over 600 foot walls instead of the existing boundaries?

 

Newsflash. Bigger, stronger athletes given equal skill will be better than their shorter, weaker counterparts. No sport has ever been socialistic in nature. Why do we expect golf to be?

[tnord]

durant doesn't drop 50 because he's using flubber. he does it because he's good.

 

DJ hits it 330 because he's good AND he's using flubber.

 

not the same thing at all. they didn't lower the hoop to 8ft in the NBA so that 5-foot-nothings at the YMCA can dunk.

[jslane57]

Any thread that gets to page 12 is in "facepalm" territory regardless of the side of the debate you choose. But that doesn't mean the points are lost. Far from it. Yes, less course equals less maintained. Less course equals shorter distance covered. Less course simply saves time and money. How do you make less course relevant? Have the equipment produce shorter shots. These are all very sensible solutions. The problem is money and ego isn't it. The manufactures want money, and distance sells. If you're looking at this game through a lens of longevity and relevance to years past, it is clear that the changes in the last couple decades have gone too far. If you only care about how far your drives go, you're happy. Surprisingly to me, many folks participating in an online forum about golf really are not into protecting the game at all, only bettering themselves in relation an unknown. The basketball references and such are not relevant as the ball didn't change, nor did the hoop height, but rather the athletes truly got bigger. You simply can't say that about golf as the equipment/technology has masked the athlete's abilities...

 

Are you kidding me? These guys today are built so much more like athletes than 25 years ago it's ridiculous.

You're telling me that Ricky and Spieth are built more than an athlete than Jack, Arnie, or Norman were? I don't believe it for a second. Maybe they act more like an athlete, but that's it. That again is besides the point. Are you telling me that 57 year old Fred Couples is a better athlete than when he was Boom Boom? 20 yards better an athlete? It's the equipment. Both, but certainly not just the athlete...

[golfer07840]

Any thread that gets to page 12 is in "facepalm" territory regardless of the side of the debate you choose. But that doesn't mean the points are lost. Far from it. Yes, less course equals less maintained. Less course equals shorter distance covered. Less course simply saves time and money. How do you make less course relevant? Have the equipment produce shorter shots. These are all very sensible solutions. The problem is money and ego isn't it. The manufactures want money, and distance sells. If you're looking at this game through a lens of longevity and relevance to years past, it is clear that the changes in the last couple decades have gone too far. If you only care about how far your drives go, you're happy. Surprisingly to me, many folks participating in an online forum about golf really are not into protecting the game at all, only bettering themselves in relation an unknown. The basketball references and such are not relevant as the ball didn't change, nor did the hoop height, but rather the athletes truly got bigger. You simply can't say that about golf as the equipment/technology has masked the athlete's abilities...

 

Are you kidding me? These guys today are built so much more like athletes than 25 years ago it's ridiculous.

You're telling me that Ricky and Spieth are built more than an athlete than Jack, Arnie, or Norman were? I don't believe it for a second. Maybe they act more like an athlete, but that's it. That again is besides the point. Are you telling me that 57 year old Fred Couples is a better athlete than when he was Boom Boom? 20 yards better an athlete? It's the equipment. Both, but certainly not just the athlete...

 

Also helps his back isn't as bad as it used to be. He's not as long as he used to be btw. Just seems that way since he plays shorter courses on the Champions Tour.

[golfer07840]

Any thread that gets to page 12 is in "facepalm" territory regardless of the side of the debate you choose. But that doesn't mean the points are lost. Far from it. Yes, less course equals less maintained. Less course equals shorter distance covered. Less course simply saves time and money. How do you make less course relevant? Have the equipment produce shorter shots. These are all very sensible solutions. The problem is money and ego isn't it. The manufactures want money, and distance sells. If you're looking at this game through a lens of longevity and relevance to years past, it is clear that the changes in the last couple decades have gone too far. If you only care about how far your drives go, you're happy. Surprisingly to me, many folks participating in an online forum about golf really are not into protecting the game at all, only bettering themselves in relation an unknown. The basketball references and such are not relevant as the ball didn't change, nor did the hoop height, but rather the athletes truly got bigger. You simply can't say that about golf as the equipment/technology has masked the athlete's abilities...

 

Are you kidding me? These guys today are built so much more like athletes than 25 years ago it's ridiculous.

You're telling me that Ricky and Spieth are built more than an athlete than Jack, Arnie, or Norman were? I don't believe it for a second. Maybe they act more like an athlete, but that's it. That again is besides the point. Are you telling me that 57 year old Fred Couples is a better athlete than when he was Boom Boom? 20 yards better an athlete? It's the equipment. Both, but certainly not just the athlete...

 

I think we have found the real problem.

 

You still think it's 1984.

[new2g0lf]

If old equipment and terrible golf balls are so much fun, why aren't the advocates in this thread using it now while teeing off from the lady's tee?? Wallah - you're right back to 1980's yardage and equipment.

 

And yet......none of the advocates are walking the walk. Just talking the talk. This reminds me of an Onion headline, something like "95% of Commuters Favor Public Transportation....For Other People".

Exactly, it's like those celebrities that claim taxes need to be raised but never opt to write the Dept of Treasury a check to ease their conscience. I'm always suspect of people that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

[golfer07840]

Any thread that gets to page 12 is in "facepalm" territory regardless of the side of the debate you choose. But that doesn't mean the points are lost. Far from it. Yes, less course equals less maintained. Less course equals shorter distance covered. Less course simply saves time and money. How do you make less course relevant? Have the equipment produce shorter shots. These are all very sensible solutions. The problem is money and ego isn't it. The manufactures want money, and distance sells. If you're looking at this game through a lens of longevity and relevance to years past, it is clear that the changes in the last couple decades have gone too far. If you only care about how far your drives go, you're happy. Surprisingly to me, many folks participating in an online forum about golf really are not into protecting the game at all, only bettering themselves in relation an unknown. The basketball references and such are not relevant as the ball didn't change, nor did the hoop height, but rather the athletes truly got bigger. You simply can't say that about golf as the equipment/technology has masked the athlete's abilities...

 

Are you kidding me? These guys today are built so much more like athletes than 25 years ago it's ridiculous.

You're telling me that Ricky and Spieth are built more than an athlete than Jack, Arnie, or Norman were? I don't believe it for a second. Maybe they act more like an athlete, but that's it. That again is besides the point. Are you telling me that 57 year old Fred Couples is a better athlete than when he was Boom Boom? 20 yards better an athlete? It's the equipment. Both, but certainly not just the athlete...

 

Also helps his back isn't as bad as it used to be. He's not as long as he used to be btw. Just seems that way since he plays shorter courses on the Champions Tour.

 

I'm going to correct myself here. Fred Couples in 2017 at the age of 57 is, on average, 18 yards longer than he was in 1992 when he won the Masters with the old Boom Boom Paralax driver (I still have mine btw).

 

Now, is that 18 yards ALL because of the ball? Or does that factor in the ball, a better driver and the way they maintain fairways for events? I'd say it's all 3. And I think the way they maintain the fairways is a bigger deal than a lot of people think it is.

 

These guys get anywhere between 40 to 75 yards of roll now. I don't recall in 1995 when I first started watching, the balls getting that much roll in the fairways.

[Lodestone]

I'm watching The Players on PGA Streaming and Rory and DJ just missed the fairway with 300 yard drives. They are in the rough. I can see the ball. Not bad at all.

I guarantee you the the rough is nastier on my munie.

 

Justin Thomas just tried to hit the green in 2 on a par 5. He missed. He's in a bunker. That bunker has been groomed to a "T", although the ball settled somewhat. He hit a pedestrian bunker shot, and made the putt for birdie. Basically there was no penalty for trying and missing. Because that's the way the PGA wants it.

 

But it's not the way it has to be.

There is a lot that could be done to make the big boys "pay for their sins", but they don't want to.