Mike Davis on Distance

[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".

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.

 

I wonder what ball and driver Mike Davis play?

 

Does he refuse to play with 2017 golf balls and driver because, in doing so, he would be adding to the problem of the necessity that billons of dollars must spent by golf courses to combat the "hot ball?"

 

I have my doubts.

[Doyle Hargraves]

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.

 

I know. Remove the sand from bunker and replace it with that crab grass growing in my lawn.

 

That stuff is indestructible, requires no water, and would be impossible to play out of.

[golfer07840]

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.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about the score. All about that precious Par. Ricky Fowler leads the Tour this year in scoring avg with a 69.992 avg. 20 years ago, in 1997, Nick Price led in Scoring avg with a 68.984. Now Price only played 62 rounds, 2nd behind him was Tiger, with a much larger sample size of 81 rounds, and had a scoring avg of 69.100

 

Basically, scoring wise, nothing has changed.

 

So what exactly is the problem here people?

[Lodestone]

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.

 

I still think it's 1974. Gotta go buy another dozen Blue Max golf balls.

[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.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about the score. All about that precious Par. Ricky Fowler leads the Tour this year in scoring avg with a 69.992 avg. 20 years ago, in 1997, Nick Price led in Scoring avg with a 68.984. Now Price only played 62 rounds, 2nd behind him was Tiger, with a much larger sample size of 81 rounds, and had a scoring avg of 69.100

 

Basically, scoring wise, nothing has changed.

 

So what exactly is the problem here people?

 

Although I don't agree with tnord's "solution" of dialing back the ball, I do agree with the point he makes when he says that the way they preserve par is by speeding up the greens like crazy, and that there is no trouble in the landing areas the way the big boys hit it. So they just bomb it out there right over all of Alistair Mackenzie's precious bunkers. So some folks don't like that. Me? I see the point, but I see easier, less intrusive solutions than dialing back the ball.

[new2g0lf]

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.

 

I still think it's 1974. Gotta go buy another dozen Blue Max golf balls.

I found a nice branch on my tree that will make a great shaft for my Cleek

[b.helts]

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.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about the score. All about that precious Par. Ricky Fowler leads the Tour this year in scoring avg with a 69.992 avg. 20 years ago, in 1997, Nick Price led in Scoring avg with a 68.984. Now Price only played 62 rounds, 2nd behind him was Tiger, with a much larger sample size of 81 rounds, and had a scoring avg of 69.100

 

Basically, scoring wise, nothing has changed.

 

So what exactly is the problem here people?

 

Gah!!! What's changed is the playing field! All these analogies about basketball and baseball don't make sense. The scoring average is similar because the golf course are not!

 

Tiger said in his book if players were playing the Augusta National he won at in 1997 with today's equipment someone would break 60!!

 

For the love of Pete. Obtuse is being generous!

[North Butte]

Dr. MacKenzie was years dead before Pete Dye ever started digging bunkers in this particular piece of Florida swampland.

[b.helts]

Dr. MacKenzie was years dead before Pete Dye ever started digging bunkers in this particular piece of Florida swampland.

 

Is this in response to "for the love of Pete" and ANGC references?

 

If so, bravo and lol! If not carry on, I have no idea what you're talking about!

[North Butte]

No it was to the guy talking about flying over MacKenzie's bunkers when a comment had just been made about TPC Sawgrass.

[b.helts]

No it was to the guy talking about flying over MacKenzie's bunkers when a comment had just been made about TPC Sawgrass.

 

Thanks! You are hard to follow along.

[golfer07840]

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.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about the score. All about that precious Par. Ricky Fowler leads the Tour this year in scoring avg with a 69.992 avg. 20 years ago, in 1997, Nick Price led in Scoring avg with a 68.984. Now Price only played 62 rounds, 2nd behind him was Tiger, with a much larger sample size of 81 rounds, and had a scoring avg of 69.100

 

Basically, scoring wise, nothing has changed.

 

So what exactly is the problem here people?

 

Gah!!! What's changed is the playing field! All these analogies about basketball and baseball don't make sense. The scoring average is similar because the golf course are not!

 

Tiger said in his book if players were playing the Augusta National he won at in 1997 with today's equipment someone would break 60!!

 

For the love of Pete. Obtuse is being generous!

 

Breaking 60? I highly doubt it. Sensationalism on Tiger's part.

[Lodestone]

Dr. MacKenzie was years dead before Pete Dye ever started digging bunkers in this particular piece of Florida swampland.

 

Wow, no kidding. My reference to MacKenzie was an obscure response to tnord's reference to MacKenzie in post 142.

[RobertBaron]

USGA/R&A/Tour are either going to have to put a hard limit on equipment as it is now a la MLB or NASCAR or accept the fact that some courses will eventually become obsolete or some pale bastardization of its original state and design. simple as that.

[Doyle Hargraves]

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

 

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

 

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

 

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

 

it's been covered fifty times already in this thread, its been publicized in print, tv, internet, etc.

 

i'm not delusional....i've stood there and watched the big 12 championship, NCAA championship, and hopefully will get a loop for the trans-miss this year, where players are blowing it past a bunker 340yds from the tee. the original championship tee and a prevailing wind results in a hole that was designed as a driver/fairway or long iron play as driver/wedge because they just fly the corner.

 

i watched an oklahoma kid go iron/wedge to a 450yd par 4. he went iron/~7i to a 530yd par 5.

 

and it's NOT just the elite of the elite....the better club members do the same thing. just because it doesn't happen in your corner of the golf world doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

 

I am interested in this player. Please provide the kids name, the tournament, course and which round this occurred.

 

I want to see where this kid ended up.

[North Butte]

There is a limit on balls and drivers and has been for more than a decade. All this moaning is over the 25-yard jump in distance when USGA decided to ignore the urethane ball for 3-4 years after it was obvious to everyone but then that there was going to be a big increase.

 

The only way distance has increased since the mid-2000's is the normal gradual improvement in strength and technique that has always happened.

 

That said, if it not the end of the world if some particular course is deemed too easy for modern players. There are plenty of courses that still challenge them. Not every major championship needs to be a replay of the 1932 US Open.

[tnord]

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

 

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

 

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

 

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

 

it's been covered fifty times already in this thread, its been publicized in print, tv, internet, etc.

 

i'm not delusional....i've stood there and watched the big 12 championship, NCAA championship, and hopefully will get a loop for the trans-miss this year, where players are blowing it past a bunker 340yds from the tee. the original championship tee and a prevailing wind results in a hole that was designed as a driver/fairway or long iron play as driver/wedge because they just fly the corner.

 

i watched an oklahoma kid go iron/wedge to a 450yd par 4. he went iron/~7i to a 530yd par 5.

 

and it's NOT just the elite of the elite....the better club members do the same thing. just because it doesn't happen in your corner of the golf world doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

 

I am interested in this player. Please provide the kids name, the tournament, course and which round this occurred.

 

I want to see where this kid ended up.

 

http://www.big12sports.com/pdf9/5374108.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

Rylee Reinertson. T9.

[The Pearl]

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.

 

Coore and Crenshaw completely overhauled Pinhurst #2. It took a year long process. Cost, $2.5 Million Dollars. "Billions" as Davis claims means at least more than $1Billion.

 

At $1 Billion dollars that is a complete overhaul of 400 courses at the 2011 Coore and Crenshaw price for overhauling Pinehurst #2.

At $2 Billion (Billions as Davis said), is a complete overhaul of 800 courses.

 

OK, let's cut Mr. Davis some slack and adjust for inflation and put a complete course overhaul at $3 Million. At $2 Billion, that is an overhaul of 667 courses.

 

We are not talking tweeking by moving a bunker here or adding a tee here. We are talking a significant overhaul.

 

Goodness, lets get even more outlandish and say a semi-overhaul now costs $5 Million in today's dollars. That is a semi-overhaul of over 400 courses!!!!

 

 

Let's invert the issue. At $2 Billion dollars, and given there are about 15,000 golf courses in the U.S., by Davis's own claims, that is the equivalent of EACH COURSE in the U.S. overhauling their course to the tune of $133,333.

 

 

How many courses across the country hold Tour Events and/or USGA events? 20? 30? 50? Screw it, let's do 100. That means at $2Billion, 100 courses over whatever time span Mr. Davis has decided to reminisce about, have overhauled their courses to the tune of $20 Million Dollars EACH!

 

Never ever believe anything anybody in power make a claim unless they can back it up with data and than check the data and double check the data. Experts and people in leadership positions pontificate all the time because they have zero fear of being challenged. He is simply full of crap.

[golfer07840]

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

 

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

 

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

 

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

 

it's been covered fifty times already in this thread, its been publicized in print, tv, internet, etc.

 

i'm not delusional....i've stood there and watched the big 12 championship, NCAA championship, and hopefully will get a loop for the trans-miss this year, where players are blowing it past a bunker 340yds from the tee. the original championship tee and a prevailing wind results in a hole that was designed as a driver/fairway or long iron play as driver/wedge because they just fly the corner.

 

i watched an oklahoma kid go iron/wedge to a 450yd par 4. he went iron/~7i to a 530yd par 5.

 

and it's NOT just the elite of the elite....the better club members do the same thing. just because it doesn't happen in your corner of the golf world doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

 

I am interested in this player. Please provide the kids name, the tournament, course and which round this occurred.

 

I want to see where this kid ended up.

 

http://www.big12sports.com/pdf9/5374108.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

Rylee Reinertson. T9.

So all that cutting the corner and playing drive and gouge and he shoots 15 over par.

 

The way you made it sound he was going to shoot -15.

 

I don't care how far you hit it. Still comes down to inside 100 yards.

[tnord]

as i've mentioned a million times, the issue and implications are deeper than a kiddie pool. i'm not going to dragged into this again, just know that the wind was blowing 40mph on round 1, 15-20 on 2 and 3, and it was 40deg for round 4. the score is irrelevant in this case. if you were there actually watching how they were playing the course, as i was on all 4 rounds, you'd gather far more insight.

 

and fwiw, this is not a revelation of mine after watching this tournament, i've been a proponent of dialing back the ball for probably 5 years or more......back when i was probably a 7-10 index.

[green.tea]

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

 

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

 

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

 

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

 

it's been covered fifty times already in this thread, its been publicized in print, tv, internet, etc.

 

i'm not delusional....i've stood there and watched the big 12 championship, NCAA championship, and hopefully will get a loop for the trans-miss this year, where players are blowing it past a bunker 340yds from the tee. the original championship tee and a prevailing wind results in a hole that was designed as a driver/fairway or long iron play as driver/wedge because they just fly the corner.

 

i watched an oklahoma kid go iron/wedge to a 450yd par 4. he went iron/~7i to a 530yd par 5.

 

and it's NOT just the elite of the elite....the better club members do the same thing. just because it doesn't happen in your corner of the golf world doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

 

I am interested in this player. Please provide the kids name, the tournament, course and which round this occurred.

 

I want to see where this kid ended up.

 

http://www.big12spor...DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

Rylee Reinertson. T9.

 

His distance made the course so easy he finished T9?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Looks like that course protected (ten over) par, even with the supersonic golf balls.

[Lodestone]

as i've mentioned a million times, the issue and implications are deeper than a kiddie pool. i'm not going to dragged into this again, just know that the wind was blowing 40mph on round 1, 15-20 on 2 and 3, and it was 40deg for round 4. the score is irrelevant in this case. if you were there actually watching how they were playing the course, as i was on all 4 rounds, you'd gather far more insight.

 

and fwiw, this is not a revelation of mine after watching this tournament, i've been a proponent of dialing back the ball for probably 5 years or more......back when i was probably a 7-10 index.

 

I disagree with your conclusion (that the solution is a different ball), but I appreciate your arguments and your thoughts on the subject. No question that par can be protected by speeding up the greens, and I agree with you that over-relying on that has changed the nature of the game, and not always to my liking.

[Doyle Hargraves]

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

 

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

 

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

 

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

 

it's been covered fifty times already in this thread, its been publicized in print, tv, internet, etc.

 

i'm not delusional....i've stood there and watched the big 12 championship, NCAA championship, and hopefully will get a loop for the trans-miss this year, where players are blowing it past a bunker 340yds from the tee. the original championship tee and a prevailing wind results in a hole that was designed as a driver/fairway or long iron play as driver/wedge because they just fly the corner.

 

i watched an oklahoma kid go iron/wedge to a 450yd par 4. he went iron/~7i to a 530yd par 5.

 

and it's NOT just the elite of the elite....the better club members do the same thing. just because it doesn't happen in your corner of the golf world doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

 

I am interested in this player. Please provide the kids name, the tournament, course and which round this occurred.

 

I want to see where this kid ended up.

 

http://www.big12spor...DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

Rylee Reinertson. T9.

 

I think the integrity of the game would be in tact if your committee would have made the collective decision to close the back tees and play up.

 

Based upon the scores that were posted in this tournament (the average four round score was 20+ over par), in my opinion, the course was playing too hard.

 

Sorry, I can't agree that the "hot ball" forced your club to maintain a 540 yard tee box on a par 4 for this tournament. Certainly that was case after the first round where there were 20 rounds in 80s and 2 rounds in the 90s by "elite" players.

[tnord]

take your blinders off....it was blowing 40+ mph in the first round. balls were rolling off the greens but officials decided to keep playing anyway.

 

and since you really want to get into it....the 540 box actually played easier in round one than the 450 box did on the same hole in round 4.

 

i have the scoring averages by hole for each four rounds, and unless you're aware of the wind speeds and directions, you can't determine anything from that data.

[Doyle Hargraves]

as i've mentioned a million times, the issue and implications are deeper than a kiddie pool. i'm not going to dragged into this again, just know that the wind was blowing 40mph on round 1, 15-20 on 2 and 3, and it was 40deg for round 4. the score is irrelevant in this case. if you were there actually watching how they were playing the course, as i was on all 4 rounds, you'd gather far more insight.

 

and fwiw, this is not a revelation of mine after watching this tournament, i've been a proponent of dialing back the ball for probably 5 years or more......back when i was probably a 7-10 index.

 

This is of interest to me. Why is the score irrelevant in a thread about whether the golf ball should be rolled back?

[Roadking2003]

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

 

Yes (used to take customers to Pebble for meetings). I've played Spyglass many times and I love it. I didn't care for Spanish Bay as much.

 

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.

 

I agree. It would be interesting to get those statistics.

[North Butte]

take your blinders off....it was blowing 40+ mph in the first round. balls were rolling off the greens but officials decided to keep playing anyway.

 

and since you really want to get into it....the 540 box actually played easier in round one than the 450 box did on the same hole in round 4.

 

i have the scoring averages by hole for each four rounds, and unless you're aware of the wind speeds and directions, you can't determine anything from that data.

 

Obviously you understand the club and the course and we're only speculating second-hand. But from what you're described I think your club is sort of a poster child for the way many clubs have dealt with things these past couple decades.

 

Is it fair to say your club feels it is in an arms race of sorts with the players and the equipment? And that you place a lot of importance on preserving what the magazine course raters (god love 'em) call "Shot Values"?

 

If so, that's a fairly common point of view among clubs with a long history of hosting big tournaments. And until very recently I think USGA viewed things much the same. I think USGA is slowly coming around to the realization that it's reached the point where that "arms race" can't be won without taking course lengths and setups to such an extreme it just gets ugly.

 

If a really great player won a big tournament 30-40 years ago by playing the toughest hole on the course with driver and 4-iron then making a tricky, breaking 15-footer for birdie it's gotta be hard to watch some long-hitting but not particularly great young guy today hit a 2-iron then 9-iron to six feet and stop it on a dime, even though you've moved the tees back as far as they can go. It just doesn't seem like the same course if an almost impossible hole can be easily overpowered.

 

Hence things like Par 4 holes playing longer than some Par 5's and playing 100 yards longer than when the course was designed. At some point I think most clubs will realize the cure is worse than the disease. If you distort the course by making some holes just off-the-charts long you might force players to hit similar clubs to what were used 40 years ago but they really aren't playing the same hole, are they?

[cRaSh2K1]

Golf equipment has not "de-skilled" the game. This is simply a false narrative.

[Doyle Hargraves]

take your blinders off....it was blowing 40+ mph in the first round. balls were rolling off the greens but officials decided to keep playing anyway.

 

and since you really want to get into it....the 540 box actually played easier in round one than the 450 box did on the same hole in round 4.

 

i have the scoring averages by hole for each four rounds, and unless you're aware of the wind speeds and directions, you can't determine anything from that data.

 

Obviously you understand the club and the course and we're only speculating second-hand. But from what you're described I think your club is sort of a poster child for the way many clubs have dealt with things these past couple decades.

 

Is it fair to say your club feels it is in an arms race of sorts with the players and the equipment? And that you place a lot of importance on preserving what the magazine course raters (god love 'em) call "Shot Values"?

 

If so, that's a fairly common point of view among clubs with a long history of hosting big tournaments. And until very recently I think USGA viewed things much the same. I think USGA is slowly coming around to the realization that it's reached the point where that "arms race" can't be won without taking course lengths and setups to such an extreme it just gets ugly.

 

If a really great player won a big tournament 30-40 years ago by playing the toughest hole on the course with driver and 4-iron then making a tricky, breaking 15-footer for birdie it's gotta be hard to watch some long-hitting but not particularly great young guy today hit a 2-iron then 9-iron to six feet and stop it on a dime, even though you've moved the tees back as far as they can go. It just doesn't seem like the same course if an almost impossible hole can be easily overpowered.

 

Hence things like Par 4 holes playing longer than some Par 5's and playing 100 yards longer than when the course was designed. At some point I think most clubs will realize the cure is worse than the disease. If you distort the course by making some holes just off-the-charts long you might force players to hit similar clubs to what were used 40 years ago but they really aren't playing the same hole, are they?

 

I think his club, like the USGA, takes a certain degree of pride in humiliating players.

 

14 players were 30 over or more for four rounds in this tournament. College kids nonetheless. Not tour pros who get paid to play golf.

 

Why not back of and let them have some fun? Was it really necessary to set up the course so the WV team would shot 130 over? What's good about that?