Mike Davis on Distance

[jslane57]

I always thought it was stupid from day 1 when I heard of 'Tiger proofing' Augusta by making it longer. The only holes that would potentially help shorter hitters is if the par-5's were not likely reachable. Other than that, it provides a huge advantage to a bomber. Why they thought differently is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

RH

t was about preserving par, and keeping Tiger from breaking every record ever established in golf. And it worked. Tiger will not break Jack's record. Par still is a good score in the majors.

 

Which is why it was stupid. Gotta love it when a bunch of carb-faced "protectors of the game" say, "Hey, Tiger, you're too good. You might break Nicklaus's records, and we can't have that, so we're gonna trick this bi**h out to try to make it harder for you to break all the records. Mmmkay? See you out there, sport!"

Right. But that seems to be the ugly truth. Like RH said, it seemed stupid at the time as it kept the short hitters out of the show, what wasn't evident at the time was they were Tiger proofing the record books...

[mark m]

It was Barzini all along

[North Texas]

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?

 

I would bet the pros themselves will tell you that there's a significant gain in the past 10 years. Much more than 2.5 yards.

[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?

 

I would bet the pros themselves will tell you that there's a significant gain in the past 10 years. Much more than 2.5 yards.

The stats are on PGA Tour, individuals may have gained more but the #1 guy in the field overall has only averaged 2.5 yards more.

[North Texas]

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?

 

http://www.pgatour.c...t.101.2017.html

 

In 2017, there are 26 players averaging over 300. In 2007, 18 did.

In 2017, there are 103 players averaging over 290. In 2007, 87 did.

[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?

 

http://www.pgatour.c...t.101.2017.html

 

In 2017, there are 26 players averaging over 300. In 2007, 18 did.

In 2017, there are 103 players averaging over 290. In 2007, 87 did.

I used Driving distance All Drives.

[b.helts]

Too many quotes! @new2g0lf: do you think if the ball was going farther that more players would be playing less club off some (many) tees?

 

I know that if 10 years ago I had to bust driver to have five iron in on a long, tight par 4 but now it's 3 wood six iron, I'd probably pull 3 wood a lot more often.

 

Food for thought.

[tannyhoban]

distance is a problem...for us anyways.

 

original bunkering and doglegs were meant for drives of about 250yds. we've added length to bring some of those back in play ~2005, and there's some momentum building for adding more length yet again. i watched every day of the big 12 championship we hosted this year, most of the 2014 NCAA Championship, and some of the hazards and intended approach areas are no longer in play.

 

our defense is our greens, and the wind. but the greens have to be kept firm and fast enough that if there's more than about a 25mph wind, the balls risk rolling. some of the pin placements become impossible to get to, even with lob wedges, and play gets to be "marginal."

 

to me, one measure of a good test of golf, and a good golf course, is it requires you to hit every club in your bag. I believe it was MacKenzie that said a golfer should have to hit at least one wood as an approach to a green every round (not on a par 5).

 

Holes that used to be approached with mid-irons are now being approached with wedges. bunkering that used to force you to lay up or shape your tee shot are now just a target line to carry.

 

yes, you absolutely can make a new 6500yd golf course challenging for anyone, but that's starting with a clean slate. i think it would be a better game - and less expensive - if the courses were smaller, and not cut and rolled to within an inch of its life. i think the game would be more rewarding and enjoyable if you did something other than driver wedge driver wedge. i think the short game for average players that don't hit many GIRs would also become more manageable if they weren't concrete runways rolling a 13.

 

greens would also be less costly to maintain.

 

yes...i know that 99% of golfers don't even hit it 250....but 75% of those golfers that don't, think they do, and play too far back because they don't want to move too far forward of those tournament tees designed for the 1%. just like the weekend duffer emulates the pros with their pace of play, the duffer also wants to play as similar of a golf course to the pros as well. so don't think that if they could dial back the ball so that 7000yds for pros was "enough" that the weekend player (with a different ball that travels better) wouldn't feel better about playing 6k-6500.

 

yes, i know nobody is going to shed one single tear for the elite player or the elite golf course, but I'm with Jack - dial back the ball.

 

 

There is no defense or offense in golf. Only par. We used to play late in the day at my home course (still a pga stop) making holes up by playing off the tee of one hole and playing to the green of another.. it was a blast. Did Robt Trent Jones design the course that way?

 

Who gives a sh*t what the designer intended. All this talk of defending is funny, somebody will always figure out a better way to beat the mouse trap.

[jslane57]

Too many quotes! @new2g0lf: do you think if the ball was going farther that more players would be playing less club off some (many) tees?

 

I know that if 10 years ago I had to bust driver to have five iron in on a long, tight par 4 but now it's 3 wood six iron, I'd probably pull 3 wood a lot more often.

 

Food for thought.

Why? The driver goes straighter too. And now you've got 9-iron in. It is the whole "I'd lay up" theory that has disappeared...

[jslane57]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

[MtlJeff]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

 

The courses today are also longer to compensate for this and already exist. Thousands of them exist that can handle any kind of amateur, and several hundred exist that can handle the pro game

 

Of course equipment has helped distance, as has training to hit the ball further (how else to explain that max distance hasn't really changed in 15 years but more guys are hitting it further)

 

It's a combination of the two right? But the courses already exist

 

So let's shorten the ball to build more overpriced condos?

[new2g0lf]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

Average height of basketball players is higher than it was 25 years ago. More baseball pitchers throw it over 95 mph than 25 years ago and likely more HR's if not for the steroid era. Football players are bigger, faster and stronger than 25 years ago. Track and field records are broken almost annually and we know what Phelps did to swimming records.

 

Athletes are bigger, stronger and better than they were 25 years ago. Tiger made golfers want the distance because he was winning with it, the rest of the field has adapted and caught up. Yes technology has played a role as well but you're wrong to give it all the credit.

[jslane57]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

Average height of basketball players is higher than it was 25 years ago. More baseball pitchers throw it over 95 mph than 25 years ago and likely more HR's if not for the steroid era. Football players are bigger, faster and stronger than 25 years ago. Track and field records are broken almost annually and we know what Phelps did to swimming records.

 

Athletes are bigger, stronger and better than they were 25 years ago. Tiger made golfers want the distance because he was winning with it, the rest of the field has adapted and caught up. Yes technology has played a role as well but you're wrong to give it all the credit.

The same basketball player is not growing 25 years later. The same baseball pitcher is not throwing faster 25 years later. Phelps will not be swimming faster in 20 more years. Athletes are good, no doubt about it, but that is besides the point, when the same person 25 years past their hay days is 20 yards longer...It's the equipment.

[b.helts]

Too many quotes! @new2g0lf: do you think if the ball was going farther that more players would be playing less club off some (many) tees?

 

I know that if 10 years ago I had to bust driver to have five iron in on a long, tight par 4 but now it's 3 wood six iron, I'd probably pull 3 wood a lot more often.

 

Food for thought.

Why? The driver goes straighter too. And now you've got 9-iron in. It is the whole "I'd lay up" theory that has disappeared...

 

Maybe 3 wood was a bad hypothetical. But guys hit driving irons on 480 yard par 4s. My only point is that, and this is a guess, guys are hitting less drivers off the tees and that affects the driving distance- all drives versus 10 years ago.

 

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

[new2g0lf]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

Average height of basketball players is higher than it was 25 years ago. More baseball pitchers throw it over 95 mph than 25 years ago and likely more HR's if not for the steroid era. Football players are bigger, faster and stronger than 25 years ago. Track and field records are broken almost annually and we know what Phelps did to swimming records.

 

Athletes are bigger, stronger and better than they were 25 years ago. Tiger made golfers want the distance because he was winning with it, the rest of the field has adapted and caught up. Yes technology has played a role as well but you're wrong to give it all the credit.

The same basketball player is not growing 25 years later. The same baseball pitcher is not throwing faster 25 years later. Phelps will not be swimming faster in 20 more years. Athletes are good, no doubt about it, but that is besides the point, when the same person 25 years past their hay days is 20 yards longer...It's the equipment.

It's the equipment and the courses, courses are optimized for distance, fairways are shorter than they used to be etc. Equipment is at it's theoretical limits right now so any distance gains are not going to be equipment related it's going to be athlete and course related.

[OrangeGravy]

Stop trying to protect par. Par is an arbitrary number. It doesn't matter if people are even par or 20 under it. Conditions and course setup dictate the relation to par. They all play the same course. I for one like to witness greatness. And I can't stand watching the US open watching bogey after bogey. If I wanna see a 72-80 posted I'll go watch my golf group play.

 

And if you wanna shrink the game real fast. Take 20 yards off the golf ball. Nothing would infuriate golfers more than having just spent 500$ on a driver and have to watch his 250 yard drive now go 230. That ship has sailed. Golf is hard enough as it is.

 

Dial back technology. We all just witnessed Nike exit hard goods. It would be the single biggest decline for any manufacturer. Hmm i can hear Jim Nantz now. "The all new pro-v1. Sure it's shorter than last years. But you are great and you don't need that 10 yards anyway!"

 

I totally agree with this. We don't add weights to the NFL football so that it's harder for the pros to throw, or put lead in their shoes so they don't run too fast (just because their game is so far beyond the average joe). Let the pros play to -20 in a tourney. But don't stifle innovation more than already is being done.

 

I love my long-bomb driver and easy to hit irons. Leave me alone .....

 

The NFL football is larger than college/high school ball. Albeit not much larger, but it's significant enough to give QB with smaller hands issues.

[OrangeGravy]

People expect to be able to do what pros do in golf for reasons I don't understand. The average person, even if they are a good athlete, can't throw a fastball as fast as a MLB pitcher throws a slow curve. What percentage of people can throw a fastball 75mph? That's a slow curve in the pro game.

 

What percentage of people can hit 45/50 three pointers, any decent shooting guard will do that in the gym every day practicing

 

How fast do you run the 100m dash in?

 

people shouldn't be surprised pros carry driver 280 when they carry it 230. That's proportional to other sports

 

I would guess until the last couple decades people looked at pro golfers as better at getting the ball in the hole, but not necessarily physically superior to the average golfer. Now it's both like the separation that most other sports have always had at the upper levels

[playa]

6000 yards is plenty for us average players. You know you are not supposed to hit driver on every par 4 and par 5. The old courses were designed to test every part of your game.

As sir Nick said on tv last week. Driver wedge is boring golf. Where are the ball strikers that can hit a long iron? For that matter when is the last time you saw long irons?

I dont have anything against hybrids but pros shouldn't have to use forgiving clubs. They have no pride in their ball striking.

You think Hogan would have used a hybrid?

Hogan spent half his career trying to rid himself of the hooks. No way does he use a hybrid.

[Golfjack]

Well easy way to make it no fun and all ball striking is to take away all metal woods (including hybrids and driving irons) for pro's. Most can hit their 3 iron over 220 anyway. Then they can all play from the white tees and know our pain lol. Make them all play blades. No CBs at all (or T-MBs for that matter). Even pro's have their limits.

[Lodestone]

I always thought it was stupid from day 1 when I heard of 'Tiger proofing' Augusta by making it longer. The only holes that would potentially help shorter hitters is if the par-5's were not likely reachable. Other than that, it provides a huge advantage to a bomber. Why they thought differently is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

RH

t was about preserving par, and keeping Tiger from breaking every record ever established in golf. And it worked. Tiger will not break Jack's record. Par still is a good score in the majors.

 

Which is why it was stupid. Gotta love it when a bunch of carb-faced "protectors of the game" say, "Hey, Tiger, you're too good. You might break Nicklaus's records, and we can't have that, so we're gonna trick this bi**h out to try to make it harder for you to break all the records. Mmmkay? See you out there, sport!"

Right. But that seems to be the ugly truth. Like RH said, it seemed stupid at the time as it kept the short hitters out of the show, what wasn't evident at the time was they were Tiger proofing the record books...

 

This makes no sense at all. None of this was done to protect Jack's record. It was done because the carb faced old farts didn't want to see Driver-Wedge par 5s. Whatever they did to the courses affected ALL of the players, not just TW. And for the 10 years AFTER they "Tiger-proofed" Augusta, TW did just fine. It wasn't until his body gave out that TW stopped wining majors.

[Lodestone]

6000 yards is plenty for us average players. You know you are not supposed to hit driver on every par 4 and par 5. The old courses were designed to test every part of your game.

As sir Nick said on tv last week. Driver wedge is boring golf. Where are the ball strikers that can hit a long iron? For that matter when is the last time you saw long irons?

I dont have anything against hybrids but pros shouldn't have to use forgiving clubs. They have no pride in their ball striking.

You think Hogan would have used a hybrid?

Hogan spent half his career trying to rid himself of the hooks. No way does he use a hybrid.

 

If he found a way to use them more effectively than the butter-knife blades he was using, he would have. And he probably would have figured it out, especially if he started losing tournaments to less talented players because THEY were using them.

[Lodestone]

http://www.businessi...distance-2017-4

 

Read this article. Fred Couples at age 57 averaged 21 yards farther than when he won The Masters in 1992. Look up any Senior Tour player and then their driving distance from 25 years ago. Are they longer? 21 yards is plenty from when he was known as Boom Boom. Now look at any other sport. Does Ken Griffey Jr. hit his home runs farther today than in his prime? Does Carl Lewis jump longer than when he was in his prime. Does Michael Jordan jump higher than in his prime. The technology is the deal, not the "athletes" of today. Maybe it will stay at bay and 57 year old Dustin Johnson won't hit it 21 yards farther than Dustin Johnson of today. Mabye...

 

The courses today are also longer to compensate for this and already exist. Thousands of them exist that can handle any kind of amateur, and several hundred exist that can handle the pro game

 

Of course equipment has helped distance, as has training to hit the ball further (how else to explain that max distance hasn't really changed in 15 years but more guys are hitting it further)

 

It's a combination of the two right? But the courses already exist

 

So let's shorten the ball to build more overpriced condos?

 

You can fit more overpriced condos on a longer course. Juice the ball, man!!

[Lodestone]

distance is a problem...for us anyways.

 

original bunkering and doglegs were meant for drives of about 250yds. we've added length to bring some of those back in play ~2005, and there's some momentum building for adding more length yet again. i watched every day of the big 12 championship we hosted this year, most of the 2014 NCAA Championship, and some of the hazards and intended approach areas are no longer in play.

 

our defense is our greens, and the wind. but the greens have to be kept firm and fast enough that if there's more than about a 25mph wind, the balls risk rolling. some of the pin placements become impossible to get to, even with lob wedges, and play gets to be "marginal."

 

to me, one measure of a good test of golf, and a good golf course, is it requires you to hit every club in your bag. I believe it was MacKenzie that said a golfer should have to hit at least one wood as an approach to a green every round (not on a par 5).

 

Holes that used to be approached with mid-irons are now being approached with wedges. bunkering that used to force you to lay up or shape your tee shot are now just a target line to carry.

 

yes, you absolutely can make a new 6500yd golf course challenging for anyone, but that's starting with a clean slate. i think it would be a better game - and less expensive - if the courses were smaller, and not cut and rolled to within an inch of its life. i think the game would be more rewarding and enjoyable if you did something other than driver wedge driver wedge. i think the short game for average players that don't hit many GIRs would also become more manageable if they weren't concrete runways rolling a 13.

 

greens would also be less costly to maintain.

 

yes...i know that 99% of golfers don't even hit it 250....but 75% of those golfers that don't, think they do, and play too far back because they don't want to move too far forward of those tournament tees designed for the 1%. just like the weekend duffer emulates the pros with their pace of play, the duffer also wants to play as similar of a golf course to the pros as well. so don't think that if they could dial back the ball so that 7000yds for pros was "enough" that the weekend player (with a different ball that travels better) wouldn't feel better about playing 6k-6500.

 

yes, i know nobody is going to shed one single tear for the elite player or the elite golf course, but I'm with Jack - dial back the ball.

 

I don't doubt one word of what you say about the course you describe, watching the NCAA tournaments. But, those ARE elite players. Maybe not elite PGA players, but to make the game less fun for the rest of us, by dialing the ball back, in order to make the game more challenging for the elite players of the NCAA doesn't make sense to me. It's not "their" game, it's "our" game.

 

As you said, if protecting par has to be done by tricking up the greens, then that's a bogus gimmick. That is no truer to the essence of the game than the fact that hazards once strategically placed are bombed over. But even if that choice is made, it should be only for the time of the tournament, not for the other 51 weeks of the year when Joe Average is playing it.

 

If the elite competitors are bombing over the original bunkers, things can be done to challenge them. Fairways pinched, rough grown long. If a guy can hit it 325 and place it into a 15 yard slot, he deserves a short club in. If he tries, and lands in 6 inches of thick rough, he has been appropriately penalized. Then, when the tournament is over and guys like me need a place for that 2nd shot to land, you unpinch the fairway, and cut down the rough.

 

It ain't rocket science, AND it's more fun to hit the ball farther for the average player who pays most of the bills.

[TheInfidel]

MD is a day late and a billion dollars short. His points are valid, but only if you're not looking right at the a** of the horse that's just bolted. You have to lead the wave, not get hit by it and then wonder what happened.

[tnord]

I don't doubt one word of what you say about the course you describe, watching the NCAA tournaments. But, those ARE elite players. Maybe not elite PGA players, but to make the game less fun for the rest of us, by dialing the ball back, in order to make the game more challenging for the elite players of the NCAA doesn't make sense to me. It's not "their" game, it's "our" game.

 

As you said, if protecting par has to be done by tricking up the greens, then that's a bogus gimmick. That is no truer to the essence of the game than the fact that hazards once strategically placed are bombed over. But even if that choice is made, it should be only for the time of the tournament, not for the other 51 weeks of the year when Joe Average is playing it.

 

If the elite competitors are bombing over the original bunkers, things can be done to challenge them. Fairways pinched, rough grown long. If a guy can hit it 325 and place it into a 15 yard slot, he deserves a short club in. If he tries, and lands in 6 inches of thick rough, he has been appropriately penalized. Then, when the tournament is over and guys like me need a place for that 2nd shot to land, you unpinch the fairway, and cut down the rough.

 

It ain't rocket science, AND it's more fun to hit the ball farther for the average player who pays most of the bills.

 

i think that's a bad solution, because pinching it in and growing the rough makes the game harder for everyone, not just the elite. if i go to the original tee boxes, there are two holes that were originally designed as driver PW/9i or so. now, they're 3w putter.

 

as MacKenzie suggested, one of our holes was designed to be driver to the corner of a dogleg with a bunker on the inside, then some sort of long-long iron or fairway wood. the green is even situated in a spot where the fairway wood was meant to land short, catch the backside of a hill, and roll onto the green. from that original box, even good amateurs can just rip driver over that bunker and dogleg to hit wedge in.

 

if you narrow the fairway and grow the rough up, the regular weekender 15-20hdcp has no chance on that hole as they don't hit the fairway, can't hit it 200yds in the air, and can't hold a firm green from that distance much less carry it from the rough. so now they're short of the green in the long rough again trying to get a wedge up in the air and spinning enough from 80yds to hold the green. not-happening.

 

dial back the ball, bring the hazards back into play for the elite, put longer clubs into their hands, but slow down the greens so that they're more manageable for the average player.

 

faster pace, lower cost, and elevate the ability of the average player while challenging the elite. at least that's my perspective at this point in time. i'm willing to be convinced otherwise though....

 

with regard to other sports and athletes getting better - sprinters are breaking records 100% on their own training and ability, there's not technology change driving that. the basketball is still the same, it doesn't have some gyroscope in it to improve balance and rotation, the court is still 94'x40' a football field is still 100yds long.

[Go_Blue!]

I'm glad Mike Davis isn't running my business. That is all.

[Doyle Hargraves]

I don't doubt one word of what you say about the course you describe, watching the NCAA tournaments. But, those ARE elite players. Maybe not elite PGA players, but to make the game less fun for the rest of us, by dialing the ball back, in order to make the game more challenging for the elite players of the NCAA doesn't make sense to me. It's not "their" game, it's "our" game.

 

As you said, if protecting par has to be done by tricking up the greens, then that's a bogus gimmick. That is no truer to the essence of the game than the fact that hazards once strategically placed are bombed over. But even if that choice is made, it should be only for the time of the tournament, not for the other 51 weeks of the year when Joe Average is playing it.

 

If the elite competitors are bombing over the original bunkers, things can be done to challenge them. Fairways pinched, rough grown long. If a guy can hit it 325 and place it into a 15 yard slot, he deserves a short club in. If he tries, and lands in 6 inches of thick rough, he has been appropriately penalized. Then, when the tournament is over and guys like me need a place for that 2nd shot to land, you unpinch the fairway, and cut down the rough.

 

It ain't rocket science, AND it's more fun to hit the ball farther for the average player who pays most of the bills.

 

i think that's a bad solution, because pinching it in and growing the rough makes the game harder for everyone, not just the elite. if i go to the original tee boxes, there are two holes that were originally designed as driver PW/9i or so. now, they're 3w putter.

 

as MacKenzie suggested, one of our holes was designed to be driver to the corner of a dogleg with a bunker on the inside, then some sort of long-long iron or fairway wood. the green is even situated in a spot where the fairway wood was meant to land short, catch the backside of a hill, and roll onto the green. from that original box, even good amateurs can just rip driver over that bunker and dogleg to hit wedge in.

 

if you narrow the fairway and grow the rough up, the regular weekender 15-20hdcp has no chance on that hole as they don't hit the fairway, can't hit it 200yds in the air, and can't hold a firm green from that distance much less carry it from the rough. so now they're short of the green in the long rough again trying to get a wedge up in the air and spinning enough from 80yds to hold the green. not-happening.

 

dial back the ball, bring the hazards back into play for the elite, put longer clubs into their hands, but slow down the greens so that they're more manageable for the average player.

 

faster pace, lower cost, and elevate the ability of the average player while challenging the elite. at least that's my perspective at this point in time. i'm willing to be convinced otherwise though....

 

with regard to other sports and athletes getting better - sprinters are breaking records 100% on their own training and ability, there's not technology change driving that. the basketball is still the same, it doesn't have some gyroscope in it to improve balance and rotation, the court is still 94'x40' a football field is still 100yds long.

 

You seem like a open minded person. I appreciate that.

 

Let me ask you this...how is rolling back the ball going to speed up play and lower the cost?

 

Wouldn't playing from the front tees accomplish the same thing?

 

Is there some objective evidence (other than USGA propaganda) that the "hot ball" has caused an increase in cost to the average player?

[The Pearl]

I don't doubt one word of what you say about the course you describe, watching the NCAA tournaments. But, those ARE elite players. Maybe not elite PGA players, but to make the game less fun for the rest of us, by dialing the ball back, in order to make the game more challenging for the elite players of the NCAA doesn't make sense to me. It's not "their" game, it's "our" game.

 

As you said, if protecting par has to be done by tricking up the greens, then that's a bogus gimmick. That is no truer to the essence of the game than the fact that hazards once strategically placed are bombed over. But even if that choice is made, it should be only for the time of the tournament, not for the other 51 weeks of the year when Joe Average is playing it.

 

If the elite competitors are bombing over the original bunkers, things can be done to challenge them. Fairways pinched, rough grown long. If a guy can hit it 325 and place it into a 15 yard slot, he deserves a short club in. If he tries, and lands in 6 inches of thick rough, he has been appropriately penalized. Then, when the tournament is over and guys like me need a place for that 2nd shot to land, you unpinch the fairway, and cut down the rough.

 

It ain't rocket science, AND it's more fun to hit the ball farther for the average player who pays most of the bills.

 

i think that's a bad solution, because pinching it in and growing the rough makes the game harder for everyone, not just the elite. if i go to the original tee boxes, there are two holes that were originally designed as driver PW/9i or so. now, they're 3w putter.

 

as MacKenzie suggested, one of our holes was designed to be driver to the corner of a dogleg with a bunker on the inside, then some sort of long-long iron or fairway wood. the green is even situated in a spot where the fairway wood was meant to land short, catch the backside of a hill, and roll onto the green. from that original box, even good amateurs can just rip driver over that bunker and dogleg to hit wedge in.

 

if you narrow the fairway and grow the rough up, the regular weekender 15-20hdcp has no chance on that hole as they don't hit the fairway, can't hit it 200yds in the air, and can't hold a firm green from that distance much less carry it from the rough. so now they're short of the green in the long rough again trying to get a wedge up in the air and spinning enough from 80yds to hold the green. not-happening.

 

dial back the ball, bring the hazards back into play for the elite, put longer clubs into their hands, but slow down the greens so that they're more manageable for the average player.

 

faster pace, lower cost, and elevate the ability of the average player while challenging the elite. at least that's my perspective at this point in time. i'm willing to be convinced otherwise though....

 

with regard to other sports and athletes getting better - sprinters are breaking records 100% on their own training and ability, there's not technology change driving that. the basketball is still the same, it doesn't have some gyroscope in it to improve balance and rotation, the court is still 94'x40' a football field is still 100yds long.

 

Tnord,

 

What tees did the Big 12 Tourney play? Are they the regular member's back tees or have special tees been implemented for such a tournament?

[darredondo09]

For all the distance talk - the scoring average leader last year was DJ at 69.172. In 1980 it was Lee Trevino at 69.73. I understand that this is influenced by many things, including course renovations some people felt were necessary to counteract technology. But the numbers speak for themselves, golf is more than just distance.

[The Pearl]

Why does this issue have to be all encompassing as it applies to the am's and the pro's? You can have the Tour use standardized equipment without total bifurcation. Leave the clubs and the balls at current specs and be done with all of this nonsense.