Mike Davis on Distance

[ConcentricDimples]

Local golf courses haven't gotten longer. And courses that have installed new tee boxes do not even set up tees on those boxes for daily play.

 

They could design courses such that distance advantages are absent; such as tree-lined doglegs, etc.

 

Or, they could not lengthen courses at all and see what happens.

 

Or, they could have pros using wooden drivers like MLB players use wooden bats.

[playa]

As a serious golfer not too far away from 50, the ideas od dialling back technology or lengthening courses doesn't appeal to me, and quite frankly from what I see is not necessary for ams.

Why not compromise? Leave the length of courses as they are for us mortals, and just add tiger tees for tournaments. If you just left the ground between the members tees and the back tees as is, maintenance would be minimal as you would only have to periodically maintain the back tees between tournaments. It could also be a selling point by having a monthly am event from the back tees, charging extra but putting up better prizes. You wouldn't even need to add back tees on every hole, just the holes that play easy for long hitters.

I get that you still need the extra space, but with some thought and creativity most courses could find spots for tiger tees.

[The Pearl]

The logical fallacy of making the ball shorter so shorter courses can be built so a round can be played in two hours makes me want to split my head open with my gap wedge. After reading Mike Davis's drivel, I am convinced that nobody from the USGA has actually left Far Hills, NJ and visited an a muni golf course in about 20 years.

[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.

[MtlJeff]

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%

[tannyhoban]

It's about time a leader of golf has said this out loud. Spot on. But yes, you can put the genie back in the bottle. They did it with anchoring. And if they took little steps, they could do so with the ball and clubs too. And who knows about the business of golf, all this technology, and the game is still shrinking, so clearly the current may not be the right answer either...

 

So you feel like the courses you play need to be lengthened? Are they?

 

I cant think of one layout around here that has been compelled to do so due to the prodigious lengths of amateurs.

 

How about we leave the game be and just play it.

No, I don't see too many going out of their way to lengthen. Instead they simply close. And newer ones with greater length open, but are too long to walk due to many factors. And the time it takes to play, and the cost to play just get higher and higher. If this was truly progress, the game wouldn't be suffering...

 

Yep...our club closed. They did a renovation for length in '08 before I moved here, some members went elsewhere during the renovation, it didn't draw new members and with the debt never was able to get the club to at least break even. The renovation made walking the course borderline practical, which had always been a major draw for members. 6 other courses in my mid-size city have or will close by fall 2018...yes 6. That may be unusual but this added acreage has put real pressure on golf up here.

 

I'd counter that your situation had nothing to do with length, it was a course destined to fail or sale. Many operators face that reality.

We've had courses close here as well with more to come I'm sure. Several are 2nd or 3rd generation owners who are getting out while they can. That real estate is precious to other developers as our suburbs commercialize.

 

We still have plenty, but thats the reality of the golf market. It way overbuilt until the crash.

[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%

 

So true. When Vince Carter basically dunked a ball with his armpit, I'm pretty sure nobody asked Bill Russell if he thought the hoop should be raised. Your example of the 280 yard par three, and the U.S.G.A.'s defense of it is so spot on.

[The Pearl]

In terms of the professional game, one issue never discussed in terms of the "distance debate is that the primary "factor" almost never present in the professional game, that is prevalent for the rest of us, is weather. The elements are essential to golf. The pro tour has all but eliminated them. The first day of Masters when the wind blew with some gusto, you would have thought the players were navigating the beaches of Normandy under heavy German machine gun fire. How many rounds in a season do the pro's play in less than perfect weather? The tour schedule is designed to avoid the weather we all play in on a daily basis, sans July and August.

 

Play the U.S. Open at Erin Hills in April and we will see what happens to driving distance.

 

Granted, I am using a bit of hyperbole here, but the tour with it's perfect weather, perfect greens, and firm and fast fairways has essentially created a game that is played in a dome.

[The Pearl]

Why doesn't Mr. Davis and the USGA simply suggest that the longest club in the bag be the equivalent of today's 5 iron? Make the tour cut down their driver's by about 6 inches. That will do it.

[Titleist 670]

You are probably correct that for the higher handicap it doesnt make uch difference.. But in distance for the low cap or plus it does .....

 

Let me ask this.. if it makes no difference..why do so many rail against it?

 

I think they're close to maxing out. With all of the workout crazes, new balls, new tech between 2011 and this year, DJ is averaging a whopping 2 yards more off the tee. And this is a guy who has increased is emphasis on fitness, is #1 in the world right now, and has access to all of the best custom stuff available. 2 yards. 6 feet. That's it. People knock Titleist drivers, but Rory, who went on a fitness binge for so many years, averaged more off the tee in 2012 than 2016.

 

Everyone acts like distance increases 20% every year - in my eye, it's been more or less the same for quite a while - more fit guys are coming on Tour who can hit it longer, but it's not because of the ball.

 

And iron lofts getting juiced up does not mean tech is improving - some of the lofts on the irons they have now are an absolute joke.

[green.tea]

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%

 

lmao

[Couples1]

Who cares what Mike Davis has to say

[Sean2]

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%

 

So true. When Vince Carter basically dunked a ball with his armpit, I'm pretty sure nobody asked Bill Russell if he thought the hoop should be raised. Your example of the 280 yard par three, and the U.S.G.A.'s defense of it is so spot on.

 

But, if you purchase the Brand "X" sneaker you will jump 17 more inches...

[Roadking2003]

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

Pure bunk.

 

The best iron players have always won the most tournaments and always will.

 

BTW, short hitting Harmon (122nd in distance) just won.

[Roadking2003]

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

 

Par is just a number and only the USGA is worried about it. I don't care if the winner is 20 under or 20 over par.

[new2g0lf]

Courses on the PGA Tour (except for Majors) are usually set up to benefit the long hitters because that's what people want to see. If I want to watch pro golfers drive the ball the same distance as I do, I watch the LPGA or Champions Tour, When I want to see the best of the best hit it 350 yards, I watch the PGA or European Tour.

[Liquid_A_45]

He's talking about 1% of 1% of players. That's what's frustrating. They claim to be looking out for everyone but how many people do we all know who are upset about how far they hit it? Probably none. How many players need a 7000yd course to challenge them? 1% of players?

 

As was posted, they got so offended at the scores Tiger might shoot that they spent "billions" altering courses, creating the very style of play they now lament. And they continue to use the massive courses because you can also get more attendance. Rather than tree lined courses where setting up grandstands is harder. The USGA and tournament committees are responsible for creating the distance chase, but they blame the equipment companies.

 

Players also train to hit the ball far. They do this because they have to. It's a barrier to entry BECAUSE of the USGA

 

If all food in the world was on 10 foot shelves. In 20 years do you think humans vertical leap will be higher on average? Of course it will, because you can either jump that high, train yourself to jump that high, or you'll die.

 

I couldn't care less for his crocodile tears. And find his lack of touch with the 99% of people that play the game concerning. Because "billions" never needed to be spent for them. And was only spent on the pro game out of protection of a number they saw as holy

 

So much this ^^^^^^

 

I mean look at sports in general. NFL now has linemen that run in the 40 in high 4.5 to 4.6 range, The best shooters in the NBA were not pulling up from 30+ feet 15-20 years ago and making them. I mean I swing around 100mph and outside my WRX buddies I play with it is not very often some random pairing will hit it by me and I am not long by any WRX means. I dont know how rolling back the ball is going to make the average guy enjoy golf more.

 

You two reflected my feelings 100%. Some members are commenting about watching thr pros and "it doesn't even resemble the same game". Duh, it's not the same game! No pro sports are the same game. When I watch nba, it's not the same as my rec league games. Neither is hockey, soccer, football, tennis, racing, running, etc.

[Doyle Hargraves]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

[jslane57]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

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

[Lodestone]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

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

 

I have to agree with you here. No question it's easier. Where I disagree with Mike Davis is in his assumption that "easier" is a bad thing for the game.

[new2g0lf]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

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

In ten years the average driving distance on all drives went from 302.1 (John Daly) to 304.6 (Bubba Watson). There were 3 pro's that averaged over 300 yards in 2007 and there are 4 pro's averaging over 300 yards in 2017. Where is all this distance that's being gained? You guys are freaking about about 2.5 yards gained over 10 years?

[jslane57]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

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

In ten years the average driving distance on all drives went from 302.1 (John Daly) to 304.6 (Bubba Watson). There were 3 pro's that averaged over 300 yards in 2007 and there are 4 pro's averaging over 300 yards in 2017. Where is all this distance that's being gained? You guys are freaking about about 2.5 yards gained over 10 years?

Go back a little more...Like to when there were wound golf balls and wooden drivers.

[new2g0lf]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

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

In ten years the average driving distance on all drives went from 302.1 (John Daly) to 304.6 (Bubba Watson). There were 3 pro's that averaged over 300 yards in 2007 and there are 4 pro's averaging over 300 yards in 2017. Where is all this distance that's being gained? You guys are freaking about about 2.5 yards gained over 10 years?

Go back a little more...Like to when there were wound golf balls and wooden drivers.

C'mon, let's rewind baseball back to when they played bare handed and football when they wore leather helmets too. In 1997 Daly still averaged 302.

[mark m]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

[jslane57]

 

Go back a little more...Like to when there were wound golf balls and wooden drivers.

C'mon, let's rewind baseball back to when they played bare handed and football when they wore leather helmets too. In 1997 Daly still averaged 302.

If you're not going to go back to before technology changed, why even bother.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

This thread is exactly how I would imagine the thread in an F1 forum talking about the new v6 turbo engines vs the V8/V10/V12 engines of old would go

[llewol007]

That's why they are called professionals. Same can be said about the street baller basketball 3 on 3 tournament champ who can't sniff making in the NBA let alone even get a workout by the team. Distance don't matter if the average tour guys hit it a long ways anyways. It's only an advantage if the next guy can't. These guys are so good they hit it closer with their ling irons than most do with their wedges.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

In ten years the average driving distance on all drives went from 302.1 (John Daly) to 304.6 (Bubba Watson). There were 3 pro's that averaged over 300 yards in 2007 and there are 4 pro's averaging over 300 yards in 2017. Where is all this distance that's being gained? You guys are freaking about about 2.5 yards gained over 10 years?

Go back a little more...Like to when there were wound golf balls and wooden drivers.

 

Go back a little more, like when there were wooden shafts and featherys.

[gioguy21]

mike davis is a constant reminder that even a broken clock is right at least once a day.

[new2g0lf]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment