Mike Davis on Distance

[Ping Player]

Why can't there be different equipment for the pros? No need to change our games, but why can't the PGA Tour have equipment restrictions? I know this is asked all of the time, but really why not?

[new2g0lf]

Why can't there be different equipment for the pros? No need to change our games, but why can't the PGA Tour have equipment restrictions? I know this is asked all of the time, but really why not?

 

Because right now amateurs can play non-conforming equipment if they want to hit the ball longer and most don't. If you produce 2 lines of clubs, pro and non-pro, everyone will want to play pro for the same reason guys today won't use non-conforming clubs and prefer to use clubs that the pro's use even if they aren't the best option.

[SplashShot]

The only sport where amateurs voluntarily use different equipment that I can think of is baseball. Up to the pro level they can use aluminum bats vs pros restricted to wooden bats. But that is primarily for pitcher safety, not home run distance.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The only sport where amateurs voluntarily use different equipment that I can think of is baseball. Up to the pro level they can use aluminum bats vs pros restricted to wooden bats. But that is primarily for pitcher safety, not home run distance.

Also add that a College football is smaller than an NFL ball.

[mark m]

The only sport where amateurs voluntarily use different equipment that I can think of is baseball. Up to the pro level they can use aluminum bats vs pros restricted to wooden bats. But that is primarily for pitcher safety, not home run distance.

 

Sorry but this is incorrect. College baseball changed the bats to have the same COR as wood (0.50) and homeruns went way down. It was done for safety reasons and perhaps other reasons. Games had become high scoring and too long and it made it hard to evaluate players for the pro game. Much better now. Back in the day I used to play softball. I know guys that still play and a pitcher I know that plays elite level uses shins guards and a face mask as the balls and bats are hot.

 

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/NCAA-stats.html

 

We now have an entire generation that have used nothing but modern clubs and balls with standards set back in 2003/2004. It's too late now to go back. People around here complain about Davis and Jack. But they basically have no solutions to the problem - which has been documented numerous times in surveys when people are asked why they don't play golf = the game is too expensive and takes too long to play.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The only sport where amateurs voluntarily use different equipment that I can think of is baseball. Up to the pro level they can use aluminum bats vs pros restricted to wooden bats. But that is primarily for pitcher safety, not home run distance.

 

Sorry but this is incorrect. College baseball changed the bats to have the same COR as wood (0.50) and homeruns went way down. It was done for safety reasons and perhaps other reasons. Games had become high scoring and too long and it made it hard to evaluate players for the pro game. Much better now. Back in the day I used to play softball. I know guys that still play and a pitcher I know that plays elite level uses shins guards and a face mask as the balls and bats are hot.

 

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/NCAA-stats.html

 

We now have an entire generation that have used nothing but modern clubs and balls with standards set back in 2003/2004. It's too late now to go back. People around here complain about Davis and Jack. But they basically have no solutions to the problem - which has been documented numerous times in surveys when people are asked why they don't play golf = the game is too expensive and takes too long to play.

Interesting about the bats and softball pitchers... Crazy dangerous I guess.

 

As for golf, Other than the pros and elite amateurs distance isn't a problem for the 99%. As a 15 index, I don't buy that I would play faster with persimmon woods and balatas.

[tnord]

you guys need to read up on why even if you don't play courses from 7k+ yards, the equipment still costs you time and money.

 

that or you're all republicans are are incredibly adept at sticking your head in the sand and ignoring facts.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

you guys need to read up on why even if you don't play courses from 7k+ yards, the equipment still costs you time and money.

 

I know you've posted some great stuff before and I think you have some points--- but it doesn't translate to reality for the 99% of golfers-- as for time it takes to play, I haven't seen round times increase but rather decrease or stay the same in the 20 years I've played. As for expense, equipment is plentiful and inexpensive if you are willing to buy previous years models or go used... it's actually a real buyers market.

[tnord]

you guys need to read up on why even if you don't play courses from 7k+ yards, the equipment still costs you time and money.

 

I know you've posted some great stuff before and I think you have some points--- but it doesn't translate to reality for the 99% of golfers-- as for time it takes to play, I haven't seen round times increase but rather decrease or stay the same in the 20 years I've played. As for expense, equipment is plentiful and inexpensive if you are willing to buy previous years models or go used... it's actually a real buyers market.

 

don't take it from me, take it from the architects who actually build, redesign, and restore golf courses. the length the ball flies today and resulting course layouts and conditioning cost EVERYBODY time and money, not just the 1%.

[Doyle Hargraves]

you guys need to read up on why even if you don't play courses from 7k+ yards, the equipment still costs you time and money.

 

that or you're all republicans are are incredibly adept at sticking your head in the sand and ignoring facts.

 

Yes, the cost of equipment will obviously come down when a tour ball is researched, designed, and manufactured for use by tour players who don't pay for balls or clubs.

 

That makes perfect sense.

[North Butte]

So 40 years ago golf the time to play a round of golf was shorter than it is today. And yes people hit the ball farther today than 40 years ago. I'll stipulate both of those facts.

 

Hitting the ball farther is not remotely the only thing that has changed in the last 40 years. Are you also going to roll back the "sports psychologists" telling people to slow down and go through ridiculous gyrations before each shot? Maybe require golfers not to be far more obese and out of shape than two generations ago? Do away with all the residential courses that play 6,800 yards but require a 10,000 yard cart ride to play?

 

You're wanting to pick one little element that has changed and make it go back to how it was. Your actual motivation is to make your favorite golf course play like it did in 1970 but you're trying to sell the rest of the world by claiming that one little change will cure everything they don't like about the game. Nobody is buying it, not from you, not from Mike Davis.

[tnord]

the moderation on this board is comical.

 

don't take it from me that length of modern equipment costs everybody time and money, take it from the architects who actually have to build, restore, or refurbish the places.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Why can't there be different equipment for the pros? No need to change our games, but why can't the PGA Tour have equipment restrictions? I know this is asked all of the time, but really why not?

 

Why do you assume there will be tour equipment and non tour equipment if the PGA tour adopts restrictions?

 

The PGA tour implemented a groove rule in 2010 pertaining to wedges. Can I buy non conforming wedges at my local Golf Galaxy?

[North Butte]

Funny. Golf architects weren't complaining during the go-go 90's and early 00's when there was money to be made building new ridiculously long courses (just in case that residential layout down the street from you gets a chance to host the Mid-Am or something) and lengthening existing courses. Now that there are no courses being built and not nearly as much money to be spent on remodels some of them want to see the equipment rules re-jiggered because it has ruined the game. Hey, maybe then people would spend money to built new, shorter courses for the new ball right?

[tnord]

does anyone want to dispute that for the most part, the courses built during the housing boom of the 80s-00s, routed through developments, were in general cookie cutter tripe? aren't those the courses initially pitched and positioned on high level conditioning, "championship layouts" of 7k+ yards, charged $100+ green fees, and are now struggling to survive if not closing?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

the moderation on this board is comical.

 

don't take it from me that length of modern equipment costs everybody time and money, take it from the architects who actually have to build, restore, or refurbish the places.

 

I haven't played one course that has been lengthened or modified because me and the other Charlie Six-Packs (the backbone of golf) are eating up the courses because of modern equipment. I've been playing for about 20 years since and round times are about the same, maybe less, and equipment is very inexpensive if you're willing to buy previous years or used, both of which are in abundant supply.

[tnord]

i may play most of my golf at a highly ranked course today, but i play everywhere. when i went to San Diego, yes I played Torrey Pines, but I also went to a couple local munis that charged ~$30. when I went to Dallas, I played a local muni for $20. this weekend I'm playing in a tournament at our 3 local public courses which charge $20-$50. when i go home to Minneapolis I may play one round at a private high end course, but the others are at your everyday suburban muni.

 

same with when I go back to KC for work. I still go to where I started playing, and played from about 2009-2012 every week (tips at 6400 and 6300) - one of which HAS undergone a redesign and re-route for part of the course.

 

last time we were in Phoenix, two of my rounds were at Orange Tree and Rancho Manana (tips at 6k yards)

 

and yes, our most basic muni, Carey Park, has updated their course recently with an alteration to #1 so i wasn't driveable.

 

I reject your notion that public courses aren't having to adapt to current expectations of length and conditioning. don't try and pigeonhole me into some sort of privileged elite that has only ever known the country club life.

[North Butte]

New golf equipment prices have gone up, on average, a fair bit during the last 20-25 years. Even adjusting for CPI or whatever.

 

But in the 1990's, getting decent equipment on a somewhat tight budget was extremely difficult. Unless you wanted the junk people got rid of at a Play-It-Again type place, you had really two options. Either someone you knew was selling a set and would pass them on at a fair price or else one of the local brick and mortar golf stores just happened to get a good used set (which would generally sell in a matter of days, in-season).

 

The budget equipment shopper is livin' on easy street now compared to then. As is the degenerate club 'ho. I can go online or to eBay today and by early next week have my choice of gear that was expensive and the latest-n-greatest just 3-4 years ago, in good condition, for a third of what somebody paid new. The only reason for anyone to spend $1,000 on a set of irons or $400 on a driver nowadays is they have money burning a hole in their pocket or else they want bragging rights for being the first kid on the block with the newest stuff.

 

Golf has gotten more expensive at resorts or at elite private clubs. But at the local level, the public courses near me are all charging just about exactly the same for a round in 2017 as they did in 1997 and that's in nominal dollars. So in inflation-adjusted terms our local public course rounds are slightly cheaper now than then. My club charges the same monthly dues, the same minimums and a smaller initiation fee than when I joined back in the early 00's. We have to, there's way too many clubs for the number of golfers and anyone jacking up their dues would be doomed.

 

But I'll disagree with BDP5's observation about pace of play. Comparing, let's say, five or six years ago to the 1990's I did not really perceive any slowdown in pace on the courses I normally play. There had always been slow-playing oddballs with too many practice swings or whatever and maybe over time there were more and more of them. But it was still possible to find courses and groups to play with that moved along at a reasonable pace.

 

There has been a marked change in the last five years, everywhere I go. And nobody is suddenly hitting it longer than they did in 2010 or whatever nor have any courses been built or lengthened recently (quite a few have closed though). It's just an epidemic of people literally playing slower with the same equipment on the same courses, mostly the same actual individuals. It is just normal to fiddle around more today than it was even a few years ago.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

i may play most of my golf at a highly ranked course today, but i play everywhere. when i went to San Diego, yes I played Torrey Pines, but I also went to a couple local munis that charged ~$30. when I went to Dallas, I played a local muni for $20. this weekend I'm playing in a tournament at our 3 local public courses which charge $20-$50. when i go home to Minneapolis I may play one round at a private high end course, but the others are at your everyday suburban muni.

 

same with when I go back to KC for work. I still go to where I started playing, and played from about 2009-2012 every week (tips at 6400 and 6300) - one of which HAS undergone a redesign and re-route for part of the course.

 

last time we were in Phoenix, two of my rounds were at Orange Tree and Rancho Manana (tips at 6k yards)

 

and yes, our most basic muni, Carey Park, has updated their course recently with an alteration to #1 so i wasn't driveable.

 

I reject your notion that public courses aren't having to adapt to current expectations of length and conditioning. don't try and pigeonhole me into some sort of privileged elite that has only ever known the country club life.

 

You sir are an elite golfer (and I envy that, but I'm sure you work really hard at it also), but because you are elite, your view is skewed from the rest of use. The public courses by me have been largely unchanged other that fixing drainage or green issues and bunker reno. My regular public course, that is nice but not fancy, has blacks that play at 6700 that I rarely see played. That course was built in the mid 90's which is about when I started playing (97), which I think is well before distance went crazy for pros.

 

Also I know you mentioned a couple w/6K yard tips, but even when I first started playing (97), tips at 6K was still considered short.

 

Distance is an issue at your level and above, so dial back the ball you guys play and leave everyone else alone.

[North Butte]

Even among the scratch-or-better stratum of the game, I do not think there's anything close to a majority consensus in favor of playing a reduced-flight golf ball. And if you were to limit that to scratch-or-better golfers who first started playing golf in the ProV1/Titanium era, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find much support at all.

[tnord]

i may play most of my golf at a highly ranked course today, but i play everywhere. when i went to San Diego, yes I played Torrey Pines, but I also went to a couple local munis that charged ~$30. when I went to Dallas, I played a local muni for $20. this weekend I'm playing in a tournament at our 3 local public courses which charge $20-$50. when i go home to Minneapolis I may play one round at a private high end course, but the others are at your everyday suburban muni.

 

same with when I go back to KC for work. I still go to where I started playing, and played from about 2009-2012 every week (tips at 6400 and 6300) - one of which HAS undergone a redesign and re-route for part of the course.

 

last time we were in Phoenix, two of my rounds were at Orange Tree and Rancho Manana (tips at 6k yards)

 

and yes, our most basic muni, Carey Park, has updated their course recently with an alteration to #1 so i wasn't driveable.

 

I reject your notion that public courses aren't having to adapt to current expectations of length and conditioning. don't try and pigeonhole me into some sort of privileged elite that has only ever known the country club life.

 

You sir are an elite golfer (and I envy that, but I'm sure you work really hard at it also), but because you are elite, your view is skewed from the rest of use. The public courses by me have been largely unchanged other that fixing drainage or green issues and bunker reno. My regular public course, that is nice but not fancy, has blacks that play at 6700 that I rarely see played. That course was built in the mid 90's which is about when I started playing (97), which I think is well before distance went crazy for pros.

 

Also I know you mentioned a couple w/6K yard tips, but even when I first started playing (97), tips at 6K was still considered short.

 

Distance is an issue at your level and above, so dial back the ball you guys play and leave everyone else alone.

 

like i said, you don't have to believe me. but you should put credence in the opinion of people like Tom Doak, on how distance is affecting everyone.

 

and dude, i started playing golf about 8 years ago. it's not like i got to scratch at 14 and never looked back. i played with half a set of clubs i got from my grandfather when i was 13/14 at munis in minneapolis where jr's paid $10 for all day. then i never played again until about 2009, where i used that same half set of clubs from when i was 13 to shoot a smooth ~114 not counting penalty strokes. i sliced the s*** out of everything until about 3 years ago, at which point i sliced half my shots. it's not like i don't know what it's like to be a 20+ index and hit it just like every other average joe. most sundays i play from the whites with a group of 10-20 handicaps. my scores may be lower now, but i have not lost perspective.

[Roadking2003]

Is Davis on crack? A two hour round of golf if we make the ball fly shorter and go back to building courses on 70 acres.In your dreams

 

Tech has improved, the game has evolved. I like my ball and I like my driver. I like watching DJ crank one 350 plus.

 

Live with it Davis. Ya let's make the game real exciting and go back to gutter percha balls and hickory shafts. Davis you and Nicklaus are dinosaurs. This is the 21st century. get with the times

 

Guess we know where you stand.

 

Guess you also don't mind 5-1/2 hour rounds of golf.

 

Silly post. Nobody likes 5.5 hour rounds of golf. If you want really fast golf, go to your local Putt Putt.

[Roadking2003]

I was reading in Golf Digest that the average 60+ year old drives the ball 196 yards, and the average golfer 215 yards. The only thing that needs to be dialed back is the USGA.

 

Yes, and golf is in a great place today. There is no reason to change it. Short courses still challenge the pros and winning scores are not getting lower. Davis is looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

[Roadking2003]

The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

 

I don't agree with that at all. I enjoy playing courses that host tour events quite often. None of them are too hard for amateurs to play.

[Roadking2003]

Why can't there be different equipment for the pros? No need to change our games, but why can't the PGA Tour have equipment restrictions? I know this is asked all of the time, but really why not?

 

There can be, but why do you want to? What problem are you trying to solve?

[Roadking2003]

People around here complain about Davis and Jack. But they basically have no solutions to the problem - which has been documented numerous times in surveys when people are asked why they don't play golf = the game is too expensive and takes too long to play.

 

The solution for those who think it costs too much and takes too long is Top Golf and Putt Putt. Both are cheaper and quicker.

[North Butte]

I think the root of the argument for a lot of people is this. If guys are hitting it longer than Jack did then something is messed up because nobody is greater than Jack.

 

The pie in the sky stuff about pace of play and expense is just sales pitch.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

i may play most of my golf at a highly ranked course today, but i play everywhere. when i went to San Diego, yes I played Torrey Pines, but I also went to a couple local munis that charged ~$30. when I went to Dallas, I played a local muni for $20. this weekend I'm playing in a tournament at our 3 local public courses which charge $20-$50. when i go home to Minneapolis I may play one round at a private high end course, but the others are at your everyday suburban muni.

 

same with when I go back to KC for work. I still go to where I started playing, and played from about 2009-2012 every week (tips at 6400 and 6300) - one of which HAS undergone a redesign and re-route for part of the course.

 

last time we were in Phoenix, two of my rounds were at Orange Tree and Rancho Manana (tips at 6k yards)

 

and yes, our most basic muni, Carey Park, has updated their course recently with an alteration to #1 so i wasn't driveable.

 

I reject your notion that public courses aren't having to adapt to current expectations of length and conditioning. don't try and pigeonhole me into some sort of privileged elite that has only ever known the country club life.

 

You sir are an elite golfer (and I envy that, but I'm sure you work really hard at it also), but because you are elite, your view is skewed from the rest of use. The public courses by me have been largely unchanged other that fixing drainage or green issues and bunker reno. My regular public course, that is nice but not fancy, has blacks that play at 6700 that I rarely see played. That course was built in the mid 90's which is about when I started playing (97), which I think is well before distance went crazy for pros.

 

Also I know you mentioned a couple w/6K yard tips, but even when I first started playing (97), tips at 6K was still considered short.

 

Distance is an issue at your level and above, so dial back the ball you guys play and leave everyone else alone.

 

like i said, you don't have to believe me. but you should put credence in the opinion of people like Tom Doak, on how distance is affecting everyone.

 

and dude, i started playing golf about 8 years ago. it's not like i got to scratch at 14 and never looked back. i played with half a set of clubs i got from my grandfather when i was 13/14 at munis in minneapolis where jr's paid $10 for all day. then i never played again until about 2009, where i used that same half set of clubs from when i was 13 to shoot a smooth ~114 not counting penalty strokes. i sliced the s*** out of everything until about 3 years ago, at which point i sliced half my shots. it's not like i don't know what it's like to be a 20+ index and hit it just like every other average joe. most sundays i play from the whites with a group of 10-20 handicaps. my scores may be lower now, but i have not lost perspective.

Tnord, is there a link to a particular article that Tom Doak has written about distance impacting everyone? I'd be curious to read it. As I've said before, I just don't see how distance of the mid capper (the fat part of the bell curve) is an issue with current ball and equipment. But I'm willing to learn, which is why I'd like to read the article.

Thank you

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I think the root of the argument for a lot of people is this. If guys are hitting it longer than Jack did then something is messed up because nobody is greater than Jack.

 

The pie in the sky stuff about pace of play and expense is just sales pitch.

 

There is so much truth to this it's silly. You don't have to cap distance, you don't have to lengthen courses to make sure 72 is a good number, you don't have to preserve "classic" layouts, and you certainly don't have to preserve scoring records. A bunch of old dudes in New Jersey and some retired players seem like Uncle Rico on this stuff. Move on, and embrace the game for what it is and what it will become, or take up tennis and complain about rackets being more forgiving than they used to be.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

Steve Kerr sarcastically on the comparison of generations in the NBA. A lot of what he is saying can hold true to this discussion

http://nypost.com/2017/06/09/steve-kerr-gets-sarcastic-nba-greats-would-all-kill-us/

 

“They’re all right. They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. The players are less talented than they used to be,” Kerr said Friday morning. “The guys in the ’50s would have destroyed everybody. It’s weird how human evolution sort of goes in reverse in sports. Players get weaker, small and less skilled. I can’t explain it.”