Mike Davis on Distance

[Bubb]

Look at it a different way. If this issue had been nipped in the bud, all of the courses that were built over the last 20 years would have been 6500 yards and not 7200. The result would have been cheaper greens fees and increased participation. Instead, we've had inordinately increased greens fees and reduced participation. Not complicated. Golf as a whole would be much better off if the USGA would have tackled this issue decades ago instead of now.

 

To continue down this current path would be ludicrous given what we know the consequences are. I give the USGA credit for at least acknowledging the obvious, albeit late in the game.

 

Its done. Unless you have a time machine. Been said before here but length alone is not requisite to test tour pros. Lengthening the courses are purely a course prerogative. Harbour Town?

Of course the past is done, but we don't have to continue down the same path. When someone builds a course, they want it to stand the test of time and not be obsolete within a few years. When course owners and builders notice that pros can now hit fairway woods approaching 400 yards, as Koepka did on the 72nd hole, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

What are green fees going to look like in 20 years if courses built between now and then average 8000-8500 yards? The cost of acquiring and maintaining all of that extra land is going to make the game even less accessible. Mike Davis and Jack Nicklaus are on the right track.

[North Butte]

Nobody is building 8000 yard courses except for rich guys feeding their own egos. Didn't you read the article about the guy going broke who built Erin Hills?

 

There are virtually zero golf courses being built in the USA today. A handful of them open each year, mostly "destination" courses of, by and for rich people. Worrying about how much land new golf courses take or how expensive they are to play is pointless because the people building them aren't concerned in the least about being affordable or even practical.

[Bubb]

Nobody is building 8000 yard courses except for rich guys feeding their own egos. Didn't you read the article about the guy going broke who built Erin Hills?

 

There are virtually zero golf courses being built in the USA today. A handful of them open each year, mostly "destination" courses of, by and for rich people. Worrying about how much land new golf courses take or how expensive they are to play is pointless because the people building them aren't concerned in the least about being affordable or even practical.

It would be difficult for you to not have noticed that golf courses keep getting longer and longer. I played a 5600 yard course in the 1970's and the course I played today was over 7700 yards long. That didn't need to happen.

 

Your theory as to whether this is ego-driven is completely immaterial. It's real and undeniable and the consequences have been detrimental to the game.

[North Butte]

I play an under-7,000 yard course that's the same length (give or take a couple of way-back tee boxes we mow down for big tournaments) as it was when built in the 1960's. We've got no money to build a longer course if we wanted to.

 

People or clubs who have money of course like to have the longest courses in town. That's ego, not need. They play PGA Tour events on courses under 7,000 yards even today. Why on earth would a local club need a 7,700 yard course for their members? They don't need it, they want bragging rights. That's what I mean by "ego".

[TheYipS]

Agree with the above. I still will never understand why the ball needs to be shorter so shorter courses can be built. Build shorter courses if that is what you want. So, maybe a 10 handicap has a wedge in instead of a nine iron? Mmmkay. Seriously, I hope balls and clubs allow the average player to hit it 300 yards someday. Guess what, the tour pro will then hit it 400 yards. Great players will still be better than average ones. I hope -30 wins a U.S. Open someday, and I don't give a baker's f*ck if they never play the "classic layouts" ever again. There will always be a club, a ball, and a hole. The best will always be the best. Don't mess with it just because you think you know what people want.

 

Agreed....The preservation of history gets a little much sometimes both in the way of scores and layouts. Golf is a beatable game at the end of the day. There's no defense, no human can prevent you from doing something. One day a guy could come along that drives long and straight, has a great short game and putts incredibly well (think a modern , better 2000 Tiger). Guess what? That guy might shoot -25, -30 in a US open. Then what? Cancel golf? Have 300yd water carries, 3yd wide fairways? Just have a guy punch him in the face on the 17th hole?

 

There's a belief in golf, unlike pretty much every other single sport, that humans can't evolve and get better. That the standard was set sometime around 1970 and anything beyond that is the fault of horrible equipment. Golf is a beatable game that over time, someone or many will come along that are just remarkably accurate and can shoot low scores. Look at the athletic progress we have seen in so many other sports....it was bound to happen. It's not feasible to build 13000yd courses to preserve holy par. You might just have to let it happen for the 0.1% of guys who can do stuff like that. When the USGA sets up a 280yd par 3 in the US open, they are the champions of the "par is just a number" brigade. But when someone shoots -20 to win the US Open, suddenly it's armageddon

 

No one tackled Michael Johnson when he ran a 19.32 back in Atlanta in the 200M that shattered the record. Just let pros be pros and don't bother the 99%

 

His argument is in relation to the preservation of resources rather than the preservation of history and with the state of climate change and the wastage of resources it's an inevitable change that less water will be allowed to be used on golf courses and that's pretty reasonable given the alternative uses for it such as survival wouldn't you say?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Agree with the above. I still will never understand why the ball needs to be shorter so shorter courses can be built. Build shorter courses if that is what you want. So, maybe a 10 handicap has a wedge in instead of a nine iron? Mmmkay. Seriously, I hope balls and clubs allow the average player to hit it 300 yards someday. Guess what, the tour pro will then hit it 400 yards. Great players will still be better than average ones. I hope -30 wins a U.S. Open someday, and I don't give a baker's f*ck if they never play the "classic layouts" ever again. There will always be a club, a ball, and a hole. The best will always be the best. Don't mess with it just because you think you know what people want.

 

Agreed....The preservation of history gets a little much sometimes both in the way of scores and layouts. Golf is a beatable game at the end of the day. There's no defense, no human can prevent you from doing something. One day a guy could come along that drives long and straight, has a great short game and putts incredibly well (think a modern , better 2000 Tiger). Guess what? That guy might shoot -25, -30 in a US open. Then what? Cancel golf? Have 300yd water carries, 3yd wide fairways? Just have a guy punch him in the face on the 17th hole?

 

There's a belief in golf, unlike pretty much every other single sport, that humans can't evolve and get better. That the standard was set sometime around 1970 and anything beyond that is the fault of horrible equipment. Golf is a beatable game that over time, someone or many will come along that are just remarkably accurate and can shoot low scores. Look at the athletic progress we have seen in so many other sports....it was bound to happen. It's not feasible to build 13000yd courses to preserve holy par. You might just have to let it happen for the 0.1% of guys who can do stuff like that. When the USGA sets up a 280yd par 3 in the US open, they are the champions of the "par is just a number" brigade. But when someone shoots -20 to win the US Open, suddenly it's armageddon

 

No one tackled Michael Johnson when he ran a 19.32 back in Atlanta in the 200M that shattered the record. Just let pros be pros and don't bother the 99%

 

His argument is in relation to the preservation of resources rather than the preservation of history and with the state of climate change and the wastage of resources it's an inevitable change that less water will be allowed to be used on golf courses and that's pretty reasonable given the alternative uses for it such as survival wouldn't you say?

 

That still does nothing to explain why courses must be longer, unless, of course, people are worried about records being shattered.

[TheYipS]

Sorry by he I meant Mike Davis only meant to quote the first post.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I know some people talk about the need for 7k+ yard courses and perhaps they are needed for pros and perhaps not. However the world that 99% of golfers live in play in the ~5800-6200 yards just as they have for decades before metal woods and hot balls. We have a few RTJ and Ross courses in our region that were designed and built in the mid 1900's, and they remain largely unchanged to this date and are still popular and challenging.

 

I simply don't buy into the notion about all this extra land, water and maintenance when most courses are mostly the same as they have been for decades before the hot ball and metal woods.

 

Perhaps they have a problem at the near pro level and above, but not for the rest of us.

[North Butte]

Here's a thought. Almost everyone you see talking on television or quoted in the print or online media is going to be associated in some way with televised golf entertainment (i.e the pro Tours) and/or the sorts of "destination" courses that spend money to market themselves expensively.

 

Most of those people, and I'm including Mike Davis or anyone else working for USGA, are not be disingenuous by representing only that high-end perspective. It is probably all they know.

 

It's highly annoying to hear people who've made a career out off the money generated by millionaire Tour pros and rich-guy clubs and resorts whining about how expensive it is to keep feeding the egos of millionaire Tour pros and rich-guy clubs and resorts. Kind of like when some corporate CEO has his paid PR flacks trying to convince the public that the CEO is getting a raw deal in the media.

 

This whole kerfuffle is not a First World Problem. It's a First World 1-Percenter problem!

[Roadking2003]

His argument is in relation to the preservation of resources rather than the preservation of history and with the state of climate change and the wastage of resources it's an inevitable change that less water will be allowed to be used on golf courses and that's pretty reasonable given the alternative uses for it such as survival wouldn't you say?

 

No.

[new2g0lf]

His argument is in relation to the preservation of resources rather than the preservation of history and with the state of climate change and the wastage of resources it's an inevitable change that less water will be allowed to be used on golf courses and that's pretty reasonable given the alternative uses for it such as survival wouldn't you say?

 

No.

Why is it that in these gloom and doom scenarios that no one considers that technology will progress so that desalinization becomes more feasible on larger scales and that fresh water won't be an issue. If all these icebergs are actually melting then there will be plenty of water to be desalinized for keeping our golf courses nice and green.

[MaddMaxx]

Longer courses means more building lots with fairway frontage and higher prices.

[sekrah]

Tighter Fairways+Penal First Cut Rough+Smaller, Protected Greens >>>>> Longer courses.

 

The courses don't need to be bigger and no halt in technology needed, just tighten the noose! Reward guys who can combine both length and accuracy. When will the USGA quit being stupid? Inaccuracy off the tee needs to be punished. If you want to hit wedges into every green, you have to earn it off the tee.

 

You can make the courses 9,000 yards, it's meaningless if you don't punish inaccuracy. Why even tee off, just give them the option to drop the ball 340 yards away in the fairway or short-cut rough. That'll speed up play atleast.

 

These courses spend a fortune growing their courses, all they need to grow their grass.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Longer courses means more building lots with fairway frontage and higher prices.

Of course it does but it's a red herring that courses need to be made longer except perhaps those that want to host events for elite golfers.

 

See other comments in above posts.

[North Butte]

Longer courses means more building lots with fairway frontage and higher prices.

 

I'd day longer courses MEANT more building lots with fairway frontage and higher prices.

 

There are no significant numbers of residential housing development courses being built in USA today.

[new2g0lf]

Longer courses means more building lots with fairway frontage and higher prices.

 

Other than those on the pro circuit I don't see courses being extended. Courses in my area haven't been lengthened in my area, the last time Bethpage Black was lengthened (additional 230 yards) was 1998. Seems Jack and Davis want to make changes to the game using environmental concerns but less than 1% of the courses are actually impacted by the distances of todays equipment.