Mike Davis on Distance

[gvogel]

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?

 

Rolling back the ball and moving up a set of tees are interconnected. If they roll back the ball, everyone will play a shorter set of tees so that they are hitting just about the same club for their second shots.

 

I will make on point on a shorter ball and shorter golf courses. Before steel shaft, in the 1920's every match in the US Amateur was 36 holes. Every match. Why was that possible? Because the players didn't hit the ball as far (Bobby Jones was an exception) and the courses were shorter.

 

You can play more golf in the same amount of time on a shorter course. Which is the same as saying that you can play a shorter course in less time. IF you are a retired guy, and you don't mind playing 5 hour rounds of golf - well good for you. But on a shorter course, perhaps you could play 27 in 5 hours. Wouldn't this be better?

 

Look, we all like to hit the ball longer, that's fun. But what is really fun is when you hit the ball longer than your playing partners. Distance should be relative, not absolute.

[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.

 

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?

 

they used different tees on different days as we had hugely varying winds - 40mph from the south one day, 20mph from the north the next.

 

but there are no special "tournament tees" that only get used for Big 12, Trans-Miss, NCAA, etc. if they max out the course they use the same tees that we use for club championship etc.

 

and to that effect.....i think one of the most nuanced holes on the course, #11, can play as a 535yd downwind par 4, or it can play at about 440yds from the members "white" tees. the 535yd box that was added maybe 6 years ago or so, has no angle to it at all. the hole is a dogleg left and that box is offset over to the right so that players can rip driver right down the line past the bend and the bunker without much fear of missing right into the gunch. when the big 12 played the hole from original 440yd box, that actually has an angle and brings hazards, shot shape, wind direction, and fairway slopes into play it averaged 4.94. when they played the new box, scoring average was 4.72, 4.34, and 4.7 each round. i believe the key was that there was an opposite north wind on the last round from the 440 box that kept players from carrying the corner.

 

the good drives were ending up in the same spot with a north wind on the short tees as south wind from long tees. the hole SHOULD have played easier with the north wind, as they could more easily hold the green and attack the flag, but what i saw was more players ended up in precarious positions in the gunch and bunker because they now had to also consider shape, slopes, etc.

 

that micro study i think exemplifies what would happen if you dial back the ball and take the game from a caveman bomb-and-gouge game to a more nuanced test of golf.

[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?

 

Rolling back the ball and moving up a set of tees are interconnected. If they roll back the ball, everyone will play a shorter set of tees so that they are hitting just about the same club for their second shots.

 

I will make on point on a shorter ball and shorter golf courses. Before steel shaft, in the 1920's every match in the US Amateur was 36 holes. Every match. Why was that possible? Because the players didn't hit the ball as far (Bobby Jones was an exception) and the courses were shorter.

 

You can play more golf in the same amount of time on a shorter course. Which is the same as saying that you can play a shorter course in less time. IF you are a retired guy, and you don't mind playing 5 hour rounds of golf - well good for you. But on a shorter course, perhaps you could play 27 in 5 hours. Wouldn't this be better?

 

Look, we all like to hit the ball longer, that's fun. But what is really fun is when you hit the ball longer than your playing partners. Distance should be relative, not absolute.

 

I am skeptical that rolling back the ball will cause players to move up to shorter tees and/or make rounds quicker.

 

If you roll back the ball 20% and tees are 20% closer aren't you in the same position with the "hot ball" and existing tees?

[tnord]

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?

 

shorter courses, if nothing else, is less time walking around.

 

shorter courses, absolutely is less labor, equipment, chemical, and water intensive.

 

dialing back the ball, i believe, enables you to soften up the greens, cut them longer, not need to roll as often or at all, and put less demands on manual watering and chemical treatments. greens are the most expensive elements of courses to maintain, and also the most important.

 

right now, there is a LOT of emphasis on green speeds, and the overall difficulty of the green complex. if the ball does not perform as well, you can slow down the greens such that they are easier for regular golfers to navigate. watch old video of Nicklaus/Watson US Opens, Masters, etc....they look like they are POUNDING putts from 10ft that are barely trickling in.

 

most of your time on the course is also spent on and around the greens...if the green complexes become easier to manage....and you're not freaking out over a 3ft downhill putt because it could trickle 5ft past....wouldn't that speed up play?

[North Butte]

The groups I see out there every day could drive their golf carts around a 8,000 yard golf course in easily under two hours. Yet they take 4-1/2 hours to play a 6,800 yard course. Shortening that course to 5,000 yards might shave a few minutes off the total time but unless you shorten it so much (or make it so much easier) that the 90-shooters are shooting 70 then they're going to screw around for 4+ hours no matter how short the flight of the ball or how far they move up.

 

Any combination of rolled-back ball and shorter courses is going to either a) be perfectly balanced so that scoring stays the same in which case the time to play will stay virtually unchanged or b) result in much fewer strokes, which would save time, but now the guys complaining that courses are too short and shooting 69 are going to shoot 59 or whatever.

 

Nobody wants to make the game so much easier that scores go down by 10, 15, 20 strokes and thereby save an hour a round. And if the scores stay the same, the time wasted on "pre shot routines" and general messing about will stay the same as it is now. The average 4-1/2 hour time for a round of golf has very little to do with the total distance covered.

[Full Melt]

"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."

 

"Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?..."

 

 

Solid logic, obviously the right decision is to make another huge change to the golf ball and the golf courses we play lol. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, I just found this kinda funny.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

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?

 

they used different tees on different days as we had hugely varying winds - 40mph from the south one day, 20mph from the north the next.

 

but there are no special "tournament tees" that only get used for Big 12, Trans-Miss, NCAA, etc. if they max out the course they use the same tees that we use for club championship etc.

 

and to that effect.....i think one of the most nuanced holes on the course, #11, can play as a 535yd downwind par 4, or it can play at about 440yds from the members "white" tees. the 535yd box that was added maybe 6 years ago or so, has no angle to it at all. the hole is a dogleg left and that box is offset over to the right so that players can rip driver right down the line past the bend and the bunker without much fear of missing right into the gunch. when the big 12 played the hole from original 440yd box, that actually has an angle and brings hazards, shot shape, wind direction, and fairway slopes into play it averaged 4.94. when they played the new box, scoring average was 4.72, 4.34, and 4.7 each round. i believe the key was that there was an opposite north wind on the last round from the 440 box that kept players from carrying the corner.

 

the good drives were ending up in the same spot with a north wind on the short tees as south wind from long tees. the hole SHOULD have played easier with the north wind, as they could more easily hold the green and attack the flag, but what i saw was more players ended up in precarious positions in the gunch and bunker because they now had to also consider shape, slopes, etc.

 

that micro study i think exemplifies what would happen if you dial back the ball and take the game from a caveman bomb-and-gouge game to a more nuanced test of golf.

 

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

[golfer07840]

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...

 

Courses closing have nothing to do with length. Absolutely zero correlation. Every sport gets more expensive over time.

 

Baseball and Softball equipment are redonkulous. Ask me how I know.....

 

You think Golf is expensive? Try having kids that are into Ice Hockey. Golf is a poor man's sport in comparison.

[jslane57]

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?

 

they used different tees on different days as we had hugely varying winds - 40mph from the south one day, 20mph from the north the next.

 

but there are no special "tournament tees" that only get used for Big 12, Trans-Miss, NCAA, etc. if they max out the course they use the same tees that we use for club championship etc.

 

and to that effect.....i think one of the most nuanced holes on the course, #11, can play as a 535yd downwind par 4, or it can play at about 440yds from the members "white" tees. the 535yd box that was added maybe 6 years ago or so, has no angle to it at all. the hole is a dogleg left and that box is offset over to the right so that players can rip driver right down the line past the bend and the bunker without much fear of missing right into the gunch. when the big 12 played the hole from original 440yd box, that actually has an angle and brings hazards, shot shape, wind direction, and fairway slopes into play it averaged 4.94. when they played the new box, scoring average was 4.72, 4.34, and 4.7 each round. i believe the key was that there was an opposite north wind on the last round from the 440 box that kept players from carrying the corner.

 

the good drives were ending up in the same spot with a north wind on the short tees as south wind from long tees. the hole SHOULD have played easier with the north wind, as they could more easily hold the green and attack the flag, but what i saw was more players ended up in precarious positions in the gunch and bunker because they now had to also consider shape, slopes, etc.

 

that micro study i think exemplifies what would happen if you dial back the ball and take the game from a caveman bomb-and-gouge game to a more nuanced test of golf.

 

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

This is such an unreasonable way to look at it IMO. For one, dialed back for everyone actually helps the shorter hitter as 15% is simply less for shorter hitters. We are not talking bringing down the speed limit, if anything it is increasing the speed limit by making the track shorter...

[North Butte]

BDP5,

 

I think more likely what would happen if USGA/R&A dialed back the ball significantly is there would be wholesale ignoring of their equipment rules. Very few people would quit the game rather than use an 90% scaled version of the current ball. But millions of them would quit buying only balls on the conforming list if they could get the full 100% performance by "illegal" balls.

 

Which of course Mike Davis and USGA know quite well so such a change is never going to happen. But I wouldn't put it past them to try and promulgate some sort of "elite player only" ball and implement specs that can be implemented as a Condition of Competition for the professional Tours and USGA amateur events. I hope they don't because it would cause all sorts of uproar, uncertainty and in the long run would harm whatever unity the game still has across its various levels.

[The Pearl]

The groups I see out there every day could drive their golf carts around a 8,000 yard golf course in easily under two hours. Yet they take 4-1/2 hours to play a 6,800 yard course. Shortening that course to 5,000 yards might shave a few minutes off the total time but unless you shorten it so much (or make it so much easier) that the 90-shooters are shooting 70 then they're going to screw around for 4+ hours no matter how short the flight of the ball or how far they move up.

 

The average 4-1/2 hour time for a round of golf has very little to do with the total distance covered.

 

Yep.

 

As I have argued in numerous slow play threads, the absolute time it takes to play a round and the pace of play of a round are not the same thing. Shortening the courses and rolling back the ball may shorten the absolute time it takes to play, but it won't solve the pace of play problem. The USGA and advocates for this strategy such as Mr. Nicklaus complete ignore this fact for reasons I can't explain. They simply can't be that ignorant to what goes on at your run of the mill muni.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

BDP5,

 

I think more likely what would happen if USGA/R&A dialed back the ball significantly is there would be wholesale ignoring of their equipment rules. Very few people would quit the game rather than use an 90% scaled version of the current ball. But millions of them would quit buying only balls on the conforming list if they could get the full 100% performance by "illegal" balls.

 

Which of course Mike Davis and USGA know quite well so such a change is never going to happen. But I wouldn't put it past them to try and promulgate some sort of "elite player only" ball and implement specs that can be implemented as a Condition of Competition for the professional Tours and USGA amateur events. I hope they don't because it would cause all sorts of uproar, uncertainty and in the long run would harm whatever unity the game still has across its various levels.

 

100% agree. If it got bad enough and they forced the reduced distance ball, then I could even see bifurcation from the USGA and perhaps a new ruling body that formed by manufacturers and amateurs frustrated with the USGA.

[jslane57]

BDP5,

 

I think more likely what would happen if USGA/R&A dialed back the ball significantly is there would be wholesale ignoring of their equipment rules. Very few people would quit the game rather than use an 90% scaled version of the current ball. But millions of them would quit buying only balls on the conforming list if they could get the full 100% performance by "illegal" balls.

 

Which of course Mike Davis and USGA know quite well so such a change is never going to happen. But I wouldn't put it past them to try and promulgate some sort of "elite player only" ball and implement specs that can be implemented as a Condition of Competition for the professional Tours and USGA amateur events. I hope they don't because it would cause all sorts of uproar, uncertainty and in the long run would harm whatever unity the game still has across its various levels.

Which would be an easier tooling process for manufactures, Limiting the current ball by 15%, or making the ball bigger. Bigger is what some are suggesting. I'd think a slightly different plastic would be not hard to do at all with today's technology. Bifurcation wouldn't even change the ball for most, just add another little twist that manufacturing could easily handle.

[tnord]

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

 

i think what's missing here is that the technology advances do not affect everyone equally (remember Ping's proposal of different equipment for different handicaps?). i can't remember where i heard/read this, but it is my understanding that you need ~110mph of swing speed with a driver to get full compression on a modern ball.

 

so basically what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball will affect the elite player with higher speeds much more so than the average player swinging 85-90. also what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball allows you to make the greens much easier for the average player.

 

i'm a bit of a purist, so i admit that i'm personally against bifurcation. Q JFK; I tend to do things not because they are easy but because it is hard. i'm the guy that's going to play the "tournament ball" regardless. but i do recognize that bifurcation may be better for the game overall.

[golfer07840]

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.

 

And to add to this, the PGA and USGA and the Tour were so annoyed with mother nature last year during the PGA Championship with the T-storms, they are thinking of moving the PGA to May.

 

I mean, if the Tour could do it, they would turn the weather slider to "off" like you can do in Tiger Woods EA Golf.

[jslane57]

The groups I see out there every day could drive their golf carts around a 8,000 yard golf course in easily under two hours. Yet they take 4-1/2 hours to play a 6,800 yard course. Shortening that course to 5,000 yards might shave a few minutes off the total time but unless you shorten it so much (or make it so much easier) that the 90-shooters are shooting 70 then they're going to screw around for 4+ hours no matter how short the flight of the ball or how far they move up.

 

The average 4-1/2 hour time for a round of golf has very little to do with the total distance covered.

 

Yep.

 

As I have argued in numerous slow play threads, the absolute time it takes to play a round and the pace of play of a round are not the same thing. Shortening the courses and rolling back the ball may shorten the absolute time it takes to play, but it won't solve the pace of play problem. The USGA and advocates for this strategy such as Mr. Nicklaus complete ignore this fact for reasons I can't explain. They simply can't be that ignorant to what goes on at your run of the mill muni.

I disagree. Shorter tracks and balls would mean fewer lost balls. Shorter distances to find such balls. Fewer bathroom stops. Fewer beverage cart stops. And the list goes on. Many course still walk, and no matter how good a golfer you are, an extra 2000 yards is simply a longer walk. Next time you drive to grandma's house, take a route 20% longer (with the same or more amount of traffic) and see if you can get there faster...

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

 

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

This is such an unreasonable way to look at it IMO. For one, dialed back for everyone actually helps the shorter hitter as 15% is simply less for shorter hitters. We are not talking bringing down the speed limit, if anything it is increasing the speed limit by making the track shorter...

 

As <5 index you are part of the elite. Maybe not the 1% but perhaps 5%. For the rest of us I will tell you that distance isn't a problem. We aren't playing from the back tee's. We don't say the course is too short. We don't say the walk is too long, unless it snakes through a neighborhood. For the rest of us the longest ball hitters are not the best golfers. I've been humbled too many times by the older guy that can't drive the ball 200 yards, but has an incredible short game.

[North Butte]

Thought experiment time.

 

Imagine Gil Hanse and Mike Davis get together with some Daddy Bigbucks to design a very special new golf course. It is 5,200 yards long from the tips, has greens complexes more fascinating than Merion, all sorts of strategic angles in play, exquisite bunkering, fine turf and several holes even have ocean views. It's as nice a course as you'd ever want to play. They offer two scorecards.

 

First scorecard. It can be played as a Par 65 with five Par 3's (ranging from 120 to 220 yards), two Par 5's (425 and 500 yards) and Par 4's of all lengths from a couple at 250 and 270 yards up to one 400-yarder. Even with the tricky greens a big-hitting elite player is going to expect to break 60 on a good day and numbers like 54 are not out of the question. Maybe even lower. Both of the Par 5's are easily reachable, the Par 4's can all be played driver-wedge and the course can just be overpowered.

 

Second scorecard. It is a Par 71 with three of the longest Par 3's being treated as Par 4's and three the three Par 4's being used a Par 5's. However, to use that scorecard you must also use a special ball that only goes 75% as far as a normal ball.

 

How many people who show up and pay a green fee will use the Par 71 card and the reduced-flight ball? Versus how many will just accept the Par 65 card and try to overpower the course?

 

Also how many people write the entire enterprise off as a joke?

 

Bonus question. For you personally, would that course be more fun to play (scorecard aside) with a ProV1 or a Cayman ball?

[golfer07840]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

So we have found someone who is in favor of 8,000 yard courses... got it.

[tnord]

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

This is such an unreasonable way to look at it IMO. For one, dialed back for everyone actually helps the shorter hitter as 15% is simply less for shorter hitters. We are not talking bringing down the speed limit, if anything it is increasing the speed limit by making the track shorter...

 

As <5 index you are part of the elite. Maybe not the 1% but perhaps 5%. For the rest of us I will tell you that distance isn't a problem. We aren't playing from the back tee's. We don't say the course is too short. We don't say the walk is too long, unless it snakes through a neighborhood. For the rest of us the longest ball hitters are not the best golfers. I've been humbled too many times by the older guy that can't drive the ball 200 yards, but has an incredible short game.

 

i think there's an ego element here (i absolutely do this too) that rather than knowing what tees you actually should play, people generally go "one up from the tips" or whatever....regardless of what the tips actually are.

 

i see it all the time with people coming to PD. "it's only 7000yds, the course i play at home is longer than that." then they go shoot 10 over their handicap and play in 4:30. i do the same thing...i'm "confident" that i can play all the way back anywhere - regardless of if i actually should do that my first time on a new track or not.

 

people will only admit that they are some marginal amount worse than the best. my dad is another one....he comes here and says "i know i should be playing this course from the whites and not the blues or golds." well, sorry dad, you really should be playing silvers, but because you're my dad we'll do whatever you want and i'll just keep us moving.

 

if those tips don't have to be quite so long, i believe that to some degree, it will move EVERYBODY up somewhat subconsciously.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

 

i think what's missing here is that the technology advances do not affect everyone equally (remember Ping's proposal of different equipment for different handicaps?). i can't remember where i heard/read this, but it is my understanding that you need ~110mph of swing speed with a driver to get full compression on a modern ball. -- Interesting. If they could limit the ball for fast swings, without impacting the 99%, it might be a viable option without creating a revolt.

 

so basically what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball will affect the elite player with higher speeds much more so than the average player swinging 85-90. also what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball allows you to make the greens much easier for the average player.-- Don't understand how/why greens becoming easier for the average player when the ball is dialed back? As I said previously, venues open to John Q Public aren't doing things to combat distance like tricking out greens and rough unless preparing for a pro tournament. Even then these changes are temporary and limited to relatively small minority of courses.

 

i'm a bit of a purist, so i admit that i'm personally against bifurcation. Q JFK; I tend to do things not because they are easy but because it is hard. i'm the guy that's going to play the "tournament ball" regardless. but i do recognize that bifurcation may be better for the game overall.-- I don't really have an issue with bifurcation if it helps the game for the majority and golf course operators. I'd like to see the USGA spend its energies in helping the game for the majority, whom are the backbone of golf in the USA rather than focusing on the minority. The USGA doesn't seem to wander from Far Hills for anything but pro issues and a global handicap system, which we don't need either.

 

See inline above.

[The Pearl]

The groups I see out there every day could drive their golf carts around a 8,000 yard golf course in easily under two hours. Yet they take 4-1/2 hours to play a 6,800 yard course. Shortening that course to 5,000 yards might shave a few minutes off the total time but unless you shorten it so much (or make it so much easier) that the 90-shooters are shooting 70 then they're going to screw around for 4+ hours no matter how short the flight of the ball or how far they move up.

 

The average 4-1/2 hour time for a round of golf has very little to do with the total distance covered.

 

Yep.

 

As I have argued in numerous slow play threads, the absolute time it takes to play a round and the pace of play of a round are not the same thing. Shortening the courses and rolling back the ball may shorten the absolute time it takes to play, but it won't solve the pace of play problem. The USGA and advocates for this strategy such as Mr. Nicklaus complete ignore this fact for reasons I can't explain. They simply can't be that ignorant to what goes on at your run of the mill muni.

I disagree. Shorter tracks and balls would mean fewer lost balls. Shorter distances to find such balls. Fewer bathroom stops. Fewer beverage cart stops. And the list goes on. Many course still walk, and no matter how good a golfer you are, an extra 2000 yards is simply a longer walk. Next time you drive to grandma's house, take a route 20% longer (with the same or more amount of traffic) and see if you can get there faster...

 

You are simply regurgitating the "time it takes" to play is the same as "pace of play" argument. Other than looking for a lost ball, the rest of your argument does not address the pace of play problem. Even looking for a lost ball is course specific more so than distance specific. Waiting is waiting, regardless of the absolute distance involved. Would you rather drive freely for 10 minutes at 60 mph or sit dead still in the middle of the freeway for 10 minutes? Nobody would pick the latter. Likewise, if absolute time and such things as fewer bathroom and cart beverage breaks were so important than nobody would ever complain if they went out to the local muni to play 9 and it took them 3 hours.

[tnord]

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

 

so basically what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball will affect the elite player with higher speeds much more so than the average player swinging 85-90. also what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball allows you to make the greens much easier for the average player.-- Don't understand how/why greens becoming easier for the average player when the ball is dialed back? As I said previously, venues open to John Q Public aren't doing things to combat distance like tricking out greens and rough unless preparing for a pro tournament. Even then these changes are temporary and limited to relatively small minority of courses.

 

 

See inline above.

 

if the ball doesn't fly as far, and i'm now hitting into greens with 4i where i used to hit a 7i, that green has to be either conditioned differently or the green complex should be different. obviously, you NEED a softer, slower green to reliably accept a 4i shot rather than a 7i.

 

the average player doesn't hit the green anyway, and needs to pitch/chip/putt up to the hole. a softer, slower green makes it easier for the average player to get close to that hole since they can't produce the height and spin of an elite player. when the greens are concrete and running a 13, you have to have a pretty deft touch and steady nerves to get it close to that pin if there's any slope around the green at all. if that green is not so bouncy, and rolling a 9 instead...you can do things like chip a 9i or 7i rather than trying to flop a lob wedge off a tight lie.

 

it happens slowly....so its harder to notice....but there is pressure on ALL courses, ones that host PGA events all the way down to the local muni....to have greens that emulate the ones they see on TV. stimpmeter is a badge of honor unfortunately rather than a tool for a super.

[The Pearl]

You sound reasonable but your views about dialing back the ball seem to be grounded with the capabilities of perhaps 1%. No one will be happy with dialing the ball back and the 99% will probably become angered and some disillusioned by such move. I bet some even leave the game. No one has left the game because huge distance has made the game too easy. Simply put, excess distance is irrelevant to the 99%.

 

I haven't seen a course by me, including those built before the hot ball and equipment, that were compelled to make the course longer, except for 1 PGA venue. Even the PGA venue guards against gouge and bomb with punitive thick rough. Those conditions have no impact on regular golfers because it's only setup that way temporarily for the tournament.

 

so basically what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball will affect the elite player with higher speeds much more so than the average player swinging 85-90. also what i'm saying is that dialing back the ball allows you to make the greens much easier for the average player.-- Don't understand how/why greens becoming easier for the average player when the ball is dialed back? As I said previously, venues open to John Q Public aren't doing things to combat distance like tricking out greens and rough unless preparing for a pro tournament. Even then these changes are temporary and limited to relatively small minority of courses.

 

 

See inline above.

 

if the ball doesn't fly as far, and i'm now hitting into greens with 4i where i used to hit a 7i, that green has to be either conditioned differently or the green complex should be different. obviously, you NEED a softer, slower green to reliably accept a 4i shot rather than a 7i.

 

the average player doesn't hit the green anyway, and needs to pitch/chip/putt up to the hole. a softer, slower green makes it easier for the average player to get close to that hole since they can't produce the height and spin of an elite player. when the greens are concrete and running a 13, you have to have a pretty deft touch and steady nerves to get it close to that pin if there's any slope around the green at all. if that green is not so bouncy, and rolling a 9 instead...you can do things like chip a 9i or 7i rather than trying to flop a lob wedge off a tight lie.

 

it happens slowly....so its harder to notice....but there is pressure on ALL courses, ones that host PGA events all the way down to the local muni....to have greens that emulate the ones they see on TV. stimpmeter is a badge of honor unfortunately rather than a tool for a super.

 

I agree with your general thesis, however, I have not seen the "arms race for faster greens" on courses that cater to the general public. And I do some significant traveling and play a good amount of golf in various areas and at various tracks. The one exception was Streamsong Resort where the greens were very, very fast. The only exceptions I see to amping up green speeds are when one of our local courses is hosting the State Am or if they are having a USGA local qualifier. But this is just my observations, perhaps others could chime in on this.

[golfer07840]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

Sounds to me like you'd have a lot more fun if you made the choice to go back to persimmon and balata. Which is allowed. If you can find balata. If not, just use really old lousy balls.

 

Sounds like to me he should be going to QSchool!

 

:taunt:

[tnord]

i see it at private for SURE, and even i think munis that used to roll like a 6 back in the 60s and 70s are now creeping up to 9 and 10. i can certainly think of a couple "middle tier" tracks in KC - ironhorse, Golf Club of Kansas, that roll pretty quick.

 

just look at old clips of US Opens from that era....those guys HAMMER those putts. i bet those US Open greens were rolling like an 8 when they used to do things like hit 1-2-3i into a green. it only stands to reason that the public courses were slower than that.

 

 

here's an example...watch the way those balls just stop dead the last 3 feet. no where close to modern green speeds.

 

 

look at hogans putt stop dead in its tracks right at the hole when it looks like its going 5 feet by.

 

 

Palmer's chip looks to me like it's going 30yds....but it's probably only 50-60ft.

[QuigleyDU]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

Sounds to me like you'd have a lot more fun if you made the choice to go back to persimmon and balata. Which is allowed. If you can find balata. If not, just use really old lousy balls.

 

Sounds like to me he should be going to QSchool!

 

:taunt:

 

not even close. hitting the ball a decent distance does not equal tour level scores. I competed for a few years in long driver comps so yeah i can hit it pretty far. not always straight.

[North Butte]

Virtually every golfer I know would rather putt on greens Stimping 9 or 10 than greens Stimping 6 or 7. Nothing to do with "defending par", it's simply that putting on slow greens is not as much fun.

[golfer07840]

You know, maybe they should also go back to wearing the old metal spikes, because clearly these guys are too comfortable in their comfortable Sketchers and FootJoys while hitting the ball to the moon in this now easy game we once called golf.

[The Pearl]

i see it at private for SURE, and even i think munis that used to roll like a 6 back in the 60s and 70s are now creeping up to 9 and 10. i can certainly think of a couple "middle tier" tracks in KC - ironhorse, Golf Club of Kansas, that roll pretty quick.

 

just look at old clips of US Opens from that era....those guys HAMMER those putts. i bet those US Open greens were rolling like an 8 when they used to do things like hit 1-2-3i into a green. it only stands to reason that the public courses were slower than that.

 

 

here's an example...watch the way those balls just stop dead the last 3 feet. no where close to modern green speeds.

 

 

look at hogans putt stop dead in its tracks right at the hole when it looks like its going 5 feet by.

 

 

Palmer's chip looks to me like it's going 30yds....but it's probably only 50-60ft.

 

Nicklaus carrying the original bunker designed by 40 yds.