Mike Davis on Distance

[caniac6]

Took an old persimmon driver out the other say. MacGregor Jack Nicklaus VIP with a steel shaft, ProV1x. Looked beautiful, felt terrible! Not too sure I could hit it as far as my Ping G25 three wood. Some guys might pine for the old days, but I want the new balls and clubs.

[Roadking2003]

Time to go back through the thread. Tiger has said that if the tour had the same course as he played [at Augsta] in 1997 when he won, with today's equipment, folks would be shooting in the 50s. Why is this hard to believe? I think it's very true. Average scoring hasn't changed only because the courses have changed to make sure it doesn't. The pro equipment of today group either are fine with changing courses, or wish the courses would stay the same the pros would simply be able to shoot in the 50's. Changing the courses and the equipment is fine too, but compairsons to athletes of the past are simply not valid as the game has completely changed. Which is a problem for a sport that considers tradition to be where it's at...

 

Tiger saying it doesn't make it true. There is no way they would be in the 50s.

 

And now that we have made the "billions" investment (LOL), and scores are NOT dropping, there is no need for a different ball. The cows are out of the barn. The time to change the game was BEFORE investing the "billions", not after. You cannot recover Mike Davis' "Billions". It's spent.

[Matt J]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

Perhaps the clubs have the ego problem.

 

Was is necessary for the club discussed in this thread to set up the course so that the four elite players from WV would shoot a collective 130 over par?

 

The poster claimed the winds were high. Could they not watch the weather forecast and decide the course was too hard after 20 players shot in the 80 and two players shot in the 90s the first round?

 

Why not dial it back? Isn't this supposed to be fun for these college kids?

 

Clubs have a revenue problem. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials choose courses with deep tee boxes. If you can't tip the course out over 7,000 yards then you don't get events. The events generate a lot of revenue.

 

Isolating one course in one event and the layout on one day is a microscopic look at the modern golf landscape. We have a lot of anecdotal outlooks in this thread, and I think if you look at the posters who have a broader perspective on the game you get the picture. The major problems with golf today have a lot to do with length. Courses are simply too long. A "competition ball" that makes courses between 6,600 and 7,000 yards relevant for eternity would slow the "arms race" of longer and longer golf courses.

 

Calm down. You'll still get to play the "hot ball" in your senior club championships from 6,600 yards. Top Am's, college players, and pros are playing a different game. We may call it all "golf" but it's a different game. One that we can't continue to lengthen the playing field to play. At some point it becomes the ball or the game. But, I guess the average WRX'er knows much more about that than Jack or Johnny Miller.

[North Butte]

No, it's the same game with the same rules using the same equipment on the same courses. Some of you guys may be eager to toss away that special aspect of the game just to keep from seeing strong players overpower your favorite old course but I'm not agreeing at all.

 

And it's still ego any way you look at it. If you have a course that certain tournaments are no longer willing to use, what you're asking for is the essential nature of the game (same rules, same equipment, same courses) to sacrificed rather than you losing a tournament that you take pride in hosting. It's only a dollar issue in the sense of it has now become prohibitively expensive to try to keep up in an ego-driven arms race.

 

Elite players are happy with the equipment they are playing today. OK, I ought to say "95% of elite players". And 99.999% of non-elite golfers are happy with the equipment they're playing. The fact that some clubs or courses want to spend themselves into oblivion trying to remain the longest, toughest, baddest course in town doesn't change anything about the game or the equipment.

[Doyle Hargraves]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

Perhaps the clubs have the ego problem.

 

Was is necessary for the club discussed in this thread to set up the course so that the four elite players from WV would shoot a collective 130 over par?

 

The poster claimed the winds were high. Could they not watch the weather forecast and decide the course was too hard after 20 players shot in the 80 and two players shot in the 90s the first round?

 

Why not dial it back? Isn't this supposed to be fun for these college kids?

 

Clubs have a revenue problem. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials choose courses with deep tee boxes. If you can't tip the course out over 7,000 yards then you don't get events. The events generate a lot of revenue.

 

Isolating one course in one event and the layout on one day is a microscopic look at the modern golf landscape. We have a lot of anecdotal outlooks in this thread, and I think if you look at the posters who have a broader perspective on the game you get the picture. The major problems with golf today have a lot to do with length. Courses are simply too long. A "competition ball" that makes courses between 6,600 and 7,000 yards relevant for eternity would slow the "arms race" of longer and longer golf courses.

 

Calm down. You'll still get to play the "hot ball" in your senior club championships from 6,600 yards. Top Am's, college players, and pros are playing a different game. We may call it all "golf" but it's a different game. One that we can't continue to lengthen the playing field to play. At some point it becomes the ball or the game. But, I guess the average WRX'er knows much more about that than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

Ok. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials can collectively, as a group, decide that expanding courses is against the games best interests.

 

As such, those groups should decide, collectively, that no championship may be held at any course over 6999.

 

Courses will be free to set up the championships as they set fit. They can make it playable or a bloodbath like that Kansas course a few years back.

 

Courses that implement cost saving ways to make the course playable, yet challenging will be rewarded.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

Let's not forget the new PGA Tour model is to find courses with big spaces to fit big crowds (thanks WM Open) the days of the tour playing traditional tightly packed courses that can fit 25,000 people at most are over and the days of the boring TPC type space are here. What is good for the tour does not translate to real golf for the average joe. This is why I asked way back at the beginning of the thread if you are having a new course built or renovated why feel the need to get the the mythical 7200+ yardage unless the goal is to host tournaments on the state/national or college level? You are creating a course for the top 2% of the golf world when the 98% are the ones playing it.

 

Same thing happened in F1 older historically great race tracks simply got passed up for safety and space reasons as the cars got faster and faster. Sure it sucks not seeing classic tracks like Imola, Zandvoort, Brands Hatch and Watkins Glen being used. Point being that progress happens and it is not always a bad thing. Yes some historical things may become outdated but that is the case for many things in our day to day lives.

[Roadking2003]

Probably more like for the top .01% of golfers.

[jslane57]

This idea that it is only the top .01 gofers is interesting. The whole game of golf is modeled around excellence. Par, hcps, hole length, etc. While it may be the top .01 golfers that need to be reigned in, it is far bigger than that in actuality as the whole game gets modeled after them.

 

As far as old tracks being outdated and no big deal, I'm fine with that. I'm not against progress. Far from it. But what is not outdated is the desire to walk the course, the desire to play in 4 hours, the courses being local, etc. Sure, build 8500 yard courses, then 9000 yard courses, truly no big deal, as long as you're good with driving an hour to play, never walking, and having golf take 6 hours. This would be an ugly look for golf IMO, and distance is the driving force in all the changes...

[North Butte]

But nobody has to build an 8000 yard course to get me to play there. I don't play with anyone who can't be happy on a 6,700 yard course. There are thousands of walkable golf courses of reasonable length out there and they aren't all going out of business because the NCAA or a professional Tour doesn't play there.

 

And in any case, the only courses built in the foreseeable future are going to be rich-guy retreats or high-$$$ resorts. Or occasional vanity projects like Chambers Bay or Erin Hills. All of which has less to do with the mainstream game of golf than even the PGA Tour does.

[Doyle Hargraves]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

Perhaps the clubs have the ego problem.

 

Was is necessary for the club discussed in this thread to set up the course so that the four elite players from WV would shoot a collective 130 over par?

 

The poster claimed the winds were high. Could they not watch the weather forecast and decide the course was too hard after 20 players shot in the 80 and two players shot in the 90s the first round?

 

Why not dial it back? Isn't this supposed to be fun for these college kids?

 

Clubs have a revenue problem. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials choose courses with deep tee boxes. If you can't tip the course out over 7,000 yards then you don't get events. The events generate a lot of revenue.

 

Isolating one course in one event and the layout on one day is a microscopic look at the modern golf landscape. We have a lot of anecdotal outlooks in this thread, and I think if you look at the posters who have a broader perspective on the game you get the picture. The major problems with golf today have a lot to do with length. Courses are simply too long. A "competition ball" that makes courses between 6,600 and 7,000 yards relevant for eternity would slow the "arms race" of longer and longer golf courses.

 

Calm down. You'll still get to play the "hot ball" in your senior club championships from 6,600 yards. Top Am's, college players, and pros are playing a different game. We may call it all "golf" but it's a different game. One that we can't continue to lengthen the playing field to play. At some point it becomes the ball or the game. But, I guess the average WRX'er knows much more about that than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

Johnny hinted on a broadcast once that alignment lines on golf balls should be banned.

 

Do you agree?

[North Butte]

I think fiddling around for a minute or more trying to get your cheater line pointed correctly ought to be penalized as "undue delay" and there ought to be a Decision to that effect. I'm all for letting people put whatever mark they like on the golf ball but once they replace the ball, they have to step back as soon as it is on the ground and not touch it again until after they putted.

 

Honest to goodness that would save five minutes or more off the average round of golf.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

This idea that it is only the top .01 gofers is interesting. The whole game of golf is modeled around excellence. Par, hcps, hole length, etc. While it may be the top .01 golfers that need to be reigned in, it is far bigger than that in actuality as the whole game gets modeled after them.

 

As far as old tracks being outdated and no big deal, I'm fine with that. I'm not against progress. Far from it. But what is not outdated is the desire to walk the course, the desire to play in 4 hours, the courses being local, etc. Sure, build 8500 yard courses, then 9000 yard courses, truly no big deal, as long as you're good with driving an hour to play, never walking, and having golf take 6 hours. This would be an ugly look for golf IMO, and distance is the driving force in all the changes...

 

The underlying point with the F1 reference is that while not used for F1 the facilities are still used for other racing just outgrown by the top tier of racing. There is no reason why walkable reasonable length courses cannot still be built. Will they host a tour event or major am level tourney? Probably not but is it enough to provide a great course for the overwhelming majority of golfers out there absolutely. Look at Pasatiempo, Fantastic golf course. Short by todays standards at sub 7000 still plenty challenging and walkable. No reason why that model cannot be followed and viable if built today

[tnord]

seems like a bad example.

 

i raced with SCCA for 10 years before picking up golf. smaller local tracks are closing all over the place just like golf courses.

 

the challenges facing amateur level racing and golf are remarkably similar.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

but golf courses are not closing because the ball is going to far

[MtlJeff]

I would love to see actual data on what percentage of courses in the US have back tees over 7000yds, and what percentage of rounds played are over 7000yds. This data doesn't exist but would be remarkable in helping davis analyze the landscape.

 

My guess is the latter in particular is microscopic. I just think the whole course length line of argument is one massive red herring. Like arguing all football courses are too expensive to maintain because of what it costs to maintain Gillette stadium

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I would love to see actual data on what percentage of courses in the US have back tees over 7000yds, and what percentage of rounds played are over 7000yds. This data doesn't exist but would be remarkable in helping davis analyze the landscape.

 

My guess is the latter in particular is microscopic. I just think the whole course length line of argument is one massive red herring. Like arguing all football courses are too expensive to maintain because of what it costs to maintain Gillette stadium

 

Great point! My club plays a shade under 7000 at sea level from the back-back, and nobody plays those tees on a day-to-day basis. The club championship is even played one click up at about 6750.

[golfer07840]

This idea that it is only the top .01 gofers is interesting. The whole game of golf is modeled around excellence. Par, hcps, hole length, etc. While it may be the top .01 golfers that need to be reigned in, it is far bigger than that in actuality as the whole game gets modeled after them.

 

As far as old tracks being outdated and no big deal, I'm fine with that. I'm not against progress. Far from it. But what is not outdated is the desire to walk the course, the desire to play in 4 hours, the courses being local, etc. Sure, build 8500 yard courses, then 9000 yard courses, truly no big deal, as long as you're good with driving an hour to play, never walking, and having golf take 6 hours. This would be an ugly look for golf IMO, and distance is the driving force in all the changes...

 

Welcome to golf here in the mountains of NW New Jersey.

[The Pearl]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

You can spin it anyway you want and "aggregate" the total number of dollars spend over how many years you want. His claim of Billions spent simply does not even pass the basic math sniff test.

 

I addressed 15,000 courses. At $2 Billion, that is $133,333/ course. At $3 Billion, that is $200,000/per course. Over the span of 20 years that is $10,000/yr per each course in the U.S. spent on lengthening the course. EACH YEAR!

 

In aggregate.

 

 

 

I routinely play 20 courses per year in my area and over the last 20 years not a single one of them have lengthened the course. Not one.

 

 

We will all stand by waiting for you to provide some data to support Mr. Davis's claim.

[golfer07840]

I think fiddling around for a minute or more trying to get your cheater line pointed correctly ought to be penalized as "undue delay" and there ought to be a Decision to that effect. I'm all for letting people put whatever mark they like on the golf ball but once they replace the ball, they have to step back as soon as it is on the ground and not touch it again until after they putted.

 

Honest to goodness that would save five minutes or more off the average round of golf.

 

LOL 5 mins..

[jslane57]

This idea that it is only the top .01 gofers is interesting. The whole game of golf is modeled around excellence. Par, hcps, hole length, etc. While it may be the top .01 golfers that need to be reigned in, it is far bigger than that in actuality as the whole game gets modeled after them.

 

As far as old tracks being outdated and no big deal, I'm fine with that. I'm not against progress. Far from it. But what is not outdated is the desire to walk the course, the desire to play in 4 hours, the courses being local, etc. Sure, build 8500 yard courses, then 9000 yard courses, truly no big deal, as long as you're good with driving an hour to play, never walking, and having golf take 6 hours. This would be an ugly look for golf IMO, and distance is the driving force in all the changes...

 

Welcome to golf here in the mountains of NW New Jersey.

Yuck! And people wonder why golf participation is shrinking.

[caniac6]

We had lunch at The Deuce at Pinehurst yesterday, and watched a bunch of groups come through 18. Only one player hit the green. A couple were pin high left, but the vast number were short. I bet those guys wish the ball went longer.

[jslane57]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

You can spin it anyway you want and "aggregate" the total number of dollars spend over how many years you want. His claim of Billions spent simply does not even pass the basic math sniff test.

 

I addressed 15,000 courses. At $2 Billion, that is $133,333/ course. At $3 Billion, that is $200,000/per course. Over the span of 20 years that is $10,000/yr per each course in the U.S. spent on lengthening the course. EACH YEAR!

 

In aggregate.

 

 

 

I routinely play 20 courses per year in my area and over the last 20 years not a single one of them have lengthened the course. Not one.

 

 

We will all stand by waiting for you to provide some data to support Mr. Davis's claim.

Who needs to stand around waiting? LOL. I'm buying the money supporting Mr. Davis's claim. It doesn't have to be exact, after all, he didn't give specific examples. I've seen golf course budgets. Even if that isn't the exact amount spent, you've got to maintain the extra golf course you add. Just adding a few new tee boxes sounds innocent enough if you've got the land, but the cost is in the maintenance. New mowers and extra man power cost. There was a time that a golf course could get away with three mowers, a greens mower, a tees and collars mower, and a gang mower for the rest of the course. Now how many mowers are required?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

You can spin it anyway you want and "aggregate" the total number of dollars spend over how many years you want. His claim of Billions spent simply does not even pass the basic math sniff test.

 

I addressed 15,000 courses. At $2 Billion, that is $133,333/ course. At $3 Billion, that is $200,000/per course. Over the span of 20 years that is $10,000/yr per each course in the U.S. spent on lengthening the course. EACH YEAR!

 

In aggregate.

 

 

 

I routinely play 20 courses per year in my area and over the last 20 years not a single one of them have lengthened the course. Not one.

 

 

We will all stand by waiting for you to provide some data to support Mr. Davis's claim.

Who needs to stand around waiting? LOL. I'm buying the money supporting Mr. Davis's claim. It doesn't have to be exact, after all, he didn't give specific examples. I've seen golf course budgets. Even if that isn't the exact amount spent, you've got to maintain the extra golf course you add. Just adding a few new tee boxes sounds innocent enough if you've got the land, but the cost is in the maintenance. New mowers and extra man power cost. There was a time that a golf course could get away with three mowers, a greens mower, a tees and collars mower, and a gang mower for the rest of the course. Now how many mowers are required?

 

I'd say it would take at least nine more mowers to maintain a 10X15 ft. tee box 40 yards back on a goat trail through the weeds on, say 6 holes. Couple that with having to hire at least three more full time guys to dedicate themselves exclusively to those tee boxes (because we can't expect the existing guys and mowers to go back that far), and we are talking millions per year per course.

[jslane57]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

You can spin it anyway you want and "aggregate" the total number of dollars spend over how many years you want. His claim of Billions spent simply does not even pass the basic math sniff test.

 

I addressed 15,000 courses. At $2 Billion, that is $133,333/ course. At $3 Billion, that is $200,000/per course. Over the span of 20 years that is $10,000/yr per each course in the U.S. spent on lengthening the course. EACH YEAR!

 

In aggregate.

 

 

 

I routinely play 20 courses per year in my area and over the last 20 years not a single one of them have lengthened the course. Not one.

 

 

We will all stand by waiting for you to provide some data to support Mr. Davis's claim.

Who needs to stand around waiting? LOL. I'm buying the money supporting Mr. Davis's claim. It doesn't have to be exact, after all, he didn't give specific examples. I've seen golf course budgets. Even if that isn't the exact amount spent, you've got to maintain the extra golf course you add. Just adding a few new tee boxes sounds innocent enough if you've got the land, but the cost is in the maintenance. New mowers and extra man power cost. There was a time that a golf course could get away with three mowers, a greens mower, a tees and collars mower, and a gang mower for the rest of the course. Now how many mowers are required?

 

I'd say it would take at least nine more mowers to maintain a 10X15 ft. tee box 40 yards back on a goat trail through the weeds on, say 6 holes. Couple that with having to hire at least three more full time guys to dedicate themselves exclusively to those tee boxes (because we can't expect the existing guys and mowers to go back that far), and we are talking millions per year per course.

Thanks for that! I wouldn't have guessed nine more mowers, but maybe you're right. Oh yes, we are on page 16 now...

[Lodestone]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

You can spin it anyway you want and "aggregate" the total number of dollars spend over how many years you want. His claim of Billions spent simply does not even pass the basic math sniff test.

 

I addressed 15,000 courses. At $2 Billion, that is $133,333/ course. At $3 Billion, that is $200,000/per course. Over the span of 20 years that is $10,000/yr per each course in the U.S. spent on lengthening the course. EACH YEAR!

 

In aggregate.

 

 

 

I routinely play 20 courses per year in my area and over the last 20 years not a single one of them have lengthened the course. Not one.

 

 

We will all stand by waiting for you to provide some data to support Mr. Davis's claim.

Who needs to stand around waiting? LOL. I'm buying the money supporting Mr. Davis's claim. It doesn't have to be exact, after all, he didn't give specific examples. I've seen golf course budgets. Even if that isn't the exact amount spent, you've got to maintain the extra golf course you add. Just adding a few new tee boxes sounds innocent enough if you've got the land, but the cost is in the maintenance. New mowers and extra man power cost. There was a time that a golf course could get away with three mowers, a greens mower, a tees and collars mower, and a gang mower for the rest of the course. Now how many mowers are required?

 

I'd say it would take at least nine more mowers to maintain a 10X15 ft. tee box 40 yards back on a goat trail through the weeds on, say 6 holes. Couple that with having to hire at least three more full time guys to dedicate themselves exclusively to those tee boxes (because we can't expect the existing guys and mowers to go back that far), and we are talking millions per year per course.

 

if those tee boxes are for the Super Elite Tournaments, do they have to be mowed with the same frequency as the duffer's tees?

[Lodestone]

I won't play on anything less than a 7000 yard course because I need to look back and see 4 layers of tee boxes behind me, that I will never use.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The USGA already has golf ball distance limits and COR limits on drivers. I believe these limits have been in place for nearly 15 years. According to the USGA driving distance increased significantly between 1995 and 2003, but have somewhat plateaued. A ball is limited to 317 yards when struck by a titanium driver at 120mph in a standardized driving test.

 

I just don't understand the need to change in response to something that has been this way for 15 years. At the risk of being redundant, the golf courses that 99% of us have played for 20 years are still plenty long. I sure haven't seen a drop in indexes as a result of guys supposedly dominating these so-called "short courses."

 

If the usga unwisely decides to take distance away from regular golfers then I see bifurcation in the future. Regular golfers aren't interested in losing distance, many regular golfers still want to use inexpensive recycled balls and companies that sell used golf balls don't want to see their inventory and industry destroyed. However if they can design a ball that works as is for <100 mph and limits benefit of >115mph swing then maybe that could work. But I don't buy the poppycock that a distance limiting ball will make the game faster nor reduced golf course operating expense, because all but a few courses had to lengthen.

[MtlJeff]

Beyond how many rounds per year are played at lengths over 7000yds, and how many courses even have tee boxes that length....and their respective percentages of the total number of rounds and courses.

 

I would also love to see data on what percentage of courses in the US host what we would deem elite amateur tournaments or pro tournaments.

 

-What percentage of courses are longer than 7000 from tips

-What percentage of total rounds played are from tee boxes of 7000+ yds

-What percentage of courses in the US host either elite AM events or pro events

 

I don't see how Davis can make a statement like he did without knowing data like this.

 

If 1-2% of courses in the US host big events, than there is no problem. Those courses can set themselves up for tournament revenue and prestige to help with extra cost. The other 98% can be 6400yds for all anyone cares and that's the vast majority of courses

 

If 1% of players play from 7000+ yds, than the need to design courses like this is pure red herring BS .

 

My god how many times have i heard "We don't make lefty clubs because it's a small percentage of the market".....But courses need to be designed at 7600yds for the what, 1% of people that will use them?

 

I'd love to see data that says even 1/4 of golfers out there are hitting the ball far enough that a 6500yd course is too short

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

I'd say it would take at least nine more mowers to maintain a 10X15 ft. tee box 40 yards back on a goat trail through the weeds on, say 6 holes. Couple that with having to hire at least three more full time guys to dedicate themselves exclusively to those tee boxes (because we can't expect the existing guys and mowers to go back that far), and we are talking millions per year per course.

 

if those tee boxes are for the Super Elite Tournaments, do they have to be mowed with the same frequency as the duffer's tees?

 

Uhh, yeah! And, come to think of it, the courses would absolutely be forced to manicure the 40 yards between the back tees and the second to back tees to make it plush fairway like the rest of the course. One never knows when a super-elite might snap fade one off a tree and have to go D.O. They need good lies when that happens. We might be talking billions here . . .

[golfer07840]

This idea that it is only the top .01 gofers is interesting. The whole game of golf is modeled around excellence. Par, hcps, hole length, etc. While it may be the top .01 golfers that need to be reigned in, it is far bigger than that in actuality as the whole game gets modeled after them.

 

As far as old tracks being outdated and no big deal, I'm fine with that. I'm not against progress. Far from it. But what is not outdated is the desire to walk the course, the desire to play in 4 hours, the courses being local, etc. Sure, build 8500 yard courses, then 9000 yard courses, truly no big deal, as long as you're good with driving an hour to play, never walking, and having golf take 6 hours. This would be an ugly look for golf IMO, and distance is the driving force in all the changes...

 

Welcome to golf here in the mountains of NW New Jersey.

Yuck! And people wonder why golf participation is shrinking.

Not here it isn't. All the courses are packed, hence why a 4 HR round on the weekend is rare.