When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[EKELLY]

DJ notably remarked how hard it was to hit it offline with the M4 and the twist face.

 

It's almost like Taylormade pays him millions of dollars to say stuff like that.

They DO, just like Rory's rant about the ball he WAS playing......I laughed until I shed a tear.....Money talks!.....

[pinestreetgolf]

Yep. Kind of painful to listen to at the end when she actuallly gets him in person. He's optimistic. Yet somehow sounded like a shell of what could have been.

 

Some people can't let go, it's like gambling. I came across a guy back in 2002, he had been trying for years, 30k in debt. He was a good player (played in the Open a couple of times) he kept going for a few more years but never made it.

 

Very sad, let's hope it works out for him.

 

Totally. Why doesn't he just get some modern equipment to cover up his deficiencies and easily make the tour? Odd. Seems like that would be the best move. Its just pitch and putt after all.

 

 

 

Couldn't resist.

[Bye]

Yep. Kind of painful to listen to at the end when she actuallly gets him in person. He's optimistic. Yet somehow sounded like a shell of what could have been.

 

Some people can't let go, it's like gambling. I came across a guy back in 2002, he had been trying for years, 30k in debt. He was a good player (played in the Open a couple of times) he kept going for a few more years but never made it.

 

Very sad, let's hope it works out for him.

 

Totally. Why doesn't he just get some modern equipment to cover up his deficiencies and easily make the tour? Odd. Seems like that would be the best move. Its just pitch and putt after all.

 

 

 

Couldn't resist.

 

You mean drive, pitch and putt. You still have to be the best at it.

 

It's all gravey at the top, fairly brutal for the guys scratching a living at the bottom.

 

No worries.

[bladehunter]

Yep. Kind of painful to listen to at the end when she actuallly gets him in person. He's optimistic. Yet somehow sounded like a shell of what could have been.

 

Some people can't let go, it's like gambling. I came across a guy back in 2002, he had been trying for years, 30k in debt. He was a good player (played in the Open a couple of times) he kept going for a few more years but never made it.

 

Very sad, let's hope it works out for him.

 

Totally. Why doesn't he just get some modern equipment to cover up his deficiencies and easily make the tour? Odd. Seems like that would be the best move. Its just pitch and putt after all.

 

 

 

Couldn't resist.

 

Touché ..... it’s a circular argument for sure. I don’t know what he’s hitting. Maybe the techyest tech techeroos There are. I’d say his story starts and stops between the ears.

 

 

Per chance did you catch the recent story about dj and his m3 Driver ? ( yes I know he hit m4 at Kapalua ). Apparently they got him all set up and fitted and ended up with both weights dead center front. During some sort of demo day or clinic he was asked to adjust his weights and show everyone how the flight changed. He flat refused. Said something to the effect of “ if i move these weights and then move them back and it doesn’t perform the same I’m going to be mad “. Then made them go get him a different m3 all together to hit and show the adjustability.

 

To me this points to how the tech helps even the very best when it’s setup properly. I agree he could pound anything . But he has to believed that the Head was optimized at that setting and believed it to be magic of some sorts ( I am also superstitious lol. So I understand ). Sure weight can be added via hotmelt etc to any old head. But still. Was pretty obvious he had found a tool even bettter than the one he had been hitting. These guys aren’t just playing the latest Driver because they are paid to. In the past guys played older drivers forever. Why ? Things didn’t change much . Now they are seeing gains. Jail break. Twisty faces. They are seeing ball speed jumps.

[A.Princey]

Personally, I think most people's quest for the latest and greatest is hitting a wall. Like most have said, for the average to above average player, the increases are not all that significant seeing as we're not grinding out a living with said equipment anyway. I do agree with the idea that equipment is still progressing, but not enough for me, with my inconsistencies, to fully realize. I've got some new and some slightly older, and I feel that having a good mix of alternate choices will quell the urge to find the latest and greatest. I mean, some days we just flat out lose our swings and the clubs aren't to fault, but having a few options in the holster to fight the swing demons away is all I need going forward. Couple sets of irons, couple drivers, and few extras here and there is my mantra going forward.

 

My only quest now is for the best feeling clubs I can assemble in one bag, and much of this is done by altering the clubs I already own, ie. shafts, grips, weight, etc. When a club truly wears out, then it's time stoke the fires and begin the search again. I know, I know, give it a day and I'll be drooling over the BST like an addict again, but say what you will, I've found some good stuff now, and none of it is dramatically better than anything else from past history.

 

Edit: Last but not least, I don't think I've gamed much lately that's held a spot in the bag long enough for me to feel truly comfortable with it. I want that "can't miss" feel again, but since WRX has corrupted me, it's been a revolving door of out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new. I think it's high time to groove some wear marks in these damn things!!

[Pepperturbo]

For the most part, the OP posted some valid questions and I especially agree with his last thought. But would add, there are too many tours, too much individual money in the game, and too much sponsor influence.

 

Combined, its allowing people that would never get remotely close to top rankings, hang on and make exorbitant money beyond what they would ever make comparatively in corporate America.

Improved equipment is playing its part in watering down fields. It was said the game was driven by what's between the ears and natural skill. Now, we're less likely to know who the worlds best-skilled players really are. Listen to what D. Johnson has been recently saying about how new technology in his fancy new driver has changed his long game misses. Aside from SS influence, new equipment has made it easier for him to hit driver all the time. Though there's some marketing pitch to his comments, his previous driver troubles were obvious to everyone that paid attention. However, new equipment bears witness to a pivotal change of his mindset.

 

Do you watch a lot of the lower tour players/top ams or play against them?

 

I would never characterize them as "hanging on and making exorbitant money" because equipment is making up for their poor skill.

 

They're incredible.

 

Yes, I have watched them, played with some, even put my money where my mouth is and been a sponsor of sorts. Amazing how you took my words out of context of the thread topic. The exorbitnat money remark was not tied to mini tour players either.

[rawdog]

Cool. So let's see how DJ's strokes-gained off the tee fares in 2018.

[new2g0lf]

Yep. Kind of painful to listen to at the end when she actuallly gets him in person. He's optimistic. Yet somehow sounded like a shell of what could have been.

 

Some people can't let go, it's like gambling. I came across a guy back in 2002, he had been trying for years, 30k in debt. He was a good player (played in the Open a couple of times) he kept going for a few more years but never made it.

 

Very sad, let's hope it works out for him.

 

Totally. Why doesn't he just get some modern equipment to cover up his deficiencies and easily make the tour? Odd. Seems like that would be the best move. Its just pitch and putt after all.

 

 

 

Couldn't resist.

 

Touché ..... it's a circular argument for sure. I don't know what he's hitting. Maybe the techyest tech techeroos There are. I'd say his story starts and stops between the ears.

 

 

Per chance did you catch the recent story about dj and his m3 Driver ? ( yes I know he hit m4 at Kapalua ). Apparently they got him all set up and fitted and ended up with both weights dead center front. During some sort of demo day or clinic he was asked to adjust his weights and show everyone how the flight changed. He flat refused. Said something to the effect of " if i move these weights and then move them back and it doesn't perform the same I'm going to be mad ". Then made them go get him a different m3 all together to hit and show the adjustability.

 

To me this points to how the tech helps even the very best when it's setup properly. I agree he could pound anything . But he has to believed that the Head was optimized at that setting and believed it to be magic of some sorts ( I am also superstitious lol. So I understand ). Sure weight can be added via hotmelt etc to any old head. But still. Was pretty obvious he had found a tool even bettter than the one he had been hitting. These guys aren't just playing the latest Driver because they are paid to. In the past guys played older drivers forever. Why ? Things didn't change much . Now they are seeing gains. Jail break. Twisty faces. They are seeing ball speed jumps.

 

What does this prove? I have read books on Ben Hogan that discuss how fanatical he was with his clubs. He learned how to build clubs from scratch just so they would be built exactly to his specifications and tinkered with them constantly.

 

Just about every golfer since the early days of the sport has sought out an edge from equipment and in most cases the edge is nothing more than the confidence it offers between the ears.

[Uhit]

So this really is all about what you guys want to see on TV. It’s not a “problem” for golf per se but for the televised entertainment product.

 

That said, do you really think if every Tour golfer started hitting it 30 yards shorter overnight then TV golf ratings would actually improve? Seems a long shot, so to speak.

 

I’m not sure how many people start playing golf because they have seen it on TV but I’m guessing it must be a high proportion. If golf on TV is boring, the game will start to regress and go back to the elitist game that it was when I started playing in the early 1980s as the youth of today won’t pick the game up. The Senior section at my home club is very strong, junior section is non-existent.

 

Kids may be blown away by seeing DJ smash it 300 yards, but when they realise that they ‘need’ a £500 driver and a ball that costs nearly £5 each, the game is out of reach for most before they start. Golf used to be taught from the green back to the tee. You could start with a 9-iron and putter on a par 3 course and learn the fundamentals pretty quickly. The modern game has flipped that on it’s hèad actually making the game harder to learn. I see kids smashing the ball on the range and then walking off after 9 holes on the course because they’ve lost most of the balls they’ve spent their pocket money on. Then they give up. The obsession with distance is killing the game at grass roots level.

 

Interesting how you could observe what kids in general do in the non-existent junior section of your club...

 

In our club, the junior section is very strong, and the men's and the women's club champions are below 20 years of age.

 

I'm glad, that I observed different things in regard of the youth, than you did.

 

Maybe it is because the kids in our club know, that they can start playing with borrowed, or used clubs, and lake balls with next to no cost.

And we have in addition a sponsorship facility for promoting the youth.

 

-

 

Have you already thought about this one:

 

Maybe the youth is rather fed up with narrow minded opinions from the past?

 

-

 

Disclaimer:

 

I'm older than Tiger Woods...

 

It would be interesting to see what got your juniors into the game...perhaps we can learn something over here. I’m not aware of any sponsorship deals promoting grass roots golf over here. Perhaps it’s time for the OEMs to start contributing to the growth of the game rather than squeezing the life out of it?

 

For me, the game has always been multi-faceted and every part of the game has had equal bearing on scoring well. Nowadays distance is king because it is easier to sell a driver at £500 and make huge profits - particularly when it only costs £20-£50 to make one (2008 data).

 

This is where golf is narrow-minded - everything is predicated around distance to the detriment of the rest of the game.

 

A important part seems to be, that they get the chance to meet other juniors in a group.

 

This is partly achieved by the sponsored training lessons with our pros.

(Things like donations and the lake balls that are recovered by divers from our club, contribute to that sponsorship money, OEMs are not involved at that level, as far as I know.)

 

As soon as the junger are able to compete in the team of our club, they can hit range balls for free, and get additional help.

(However, the best players I know of, have also a family, which is addicted to the game, and to the success of the youngsters.)

 

The youngsters also love to hit it hard and long...

(I also love to hit a bunch of shots as hard as I can, just to loosen up, and to get exhausted as a welcomed side effect.)

 

...which is no surprise, because they want to see, where the limits are, and simply because it is fun to watch a ball fly.

 

They also know, that a par 4 should be reached in 2, and they want to measure themselves with no less, than the best.

 

The youngsters, that are good enough to win tournaments, try to become the "Rookie of the year", and are able to throttle their swing speed, and play tactical.

(one of them convinced me last year to try to win tournaments again, and not just bashing balls)

 

-

 

That a brand new driver has about 10 times the price at announcement, than the cost to make one, is nothing special...

...because this is more, or less, the factor of most goods you buy - except of food, or on the other end, drugs.

 

-

 

If someone wants to play golf, he should be aware, that it is not miniature golf, where distance is not so important...

 

...the main concept of golf is:

 

 

to bring the ball, over a given distance, to his home - with as few strokes as possible.

 

 

Simple as that!

 

 

If you want to reach a certain distance, with as few strokes as possible, you have to be as long as possible, or at least as long as necessary (on a par 3 etc.).

[new2g0lf]

But stop the bait & switch of 'wow, DJ hit it 419, if I get an M3, I could too.".

 

There is literally nobody who actually thinks this, just like there is nobody who thinks they can average 24 points in the NBA and make threes consistently from 32 feet in the NBA finals if they buy the Nike Kyrie Version 4.

 

I think (without coming across as offensive, hopefully) virtually everyone arguing the tour is too "easy" isn't a tournament player at a significant level. Its hard as h*ll and I only play the usual middle age decent am tournaments (regional, zurich monday when its in town, mid am, state am, etc...). The guys are supremely, incredibly talented. You guys are way off in your evaluation of how much the equipment makes the player. These guys are f*ing good, period. I was paired with a guy in the State am who didn't even sniff the tour after trying for four years (D1 player) and he was insanely good, shooting 69 in a cyclone on a 7300 yard course. I guess it was just his M2 though. *eye roll* The event was played in tough conditions, so straight was bad on almost every hole. With wind, drivers that force straight can actually be a handicap to you.

 

It just seems that we are in a basic disagreement about reality. The idea that PGA Tour players are marginal golfers who can hit it far because of today's equipment and the game has become somehow not challenging is just insane to me.

 

 

It's all about relativity. Sure they don't think they can go 420. But they do think thy can go 25 more than their best. Which is the same thing. It's a lie. Period. And I agree with him.

 

As to the pros who do rely on tech. That's relative too. Sure each and everyone are great players relative to the earths population. But some are reliant on tech for a job. It's pretty easy to pick out the putter yips guy. He's the one with the broomstick or armlock or giant mallet. The guy who needs a huge wide sole in an iron or the guy who hits Driver near every hole and is still short. That guy doesn't survive if the driver head is small and the ball spins. Right or wrong there are some out there that tech has provided an avenue. Or bandaid

 

All that is neither here nor there. But let's dont pretend it isn't a fact.

 

But the point I'm making is that its exactly the same in every single other sport and you don't care.

 

Under Armor has a commercial where a super-fast middle linebacker that has a nondescript helmet and is high school size screams "I MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE", shoots the gap in the line while being twice as fast as literally every other player, and slams the running back to the ground while wearing under-armor padding and compression sleeves.

 

Addidas has a commercial where James Harden is playing pickup (not an NBA game, pickup) and just dominates random pick-up looking dudes with euro steps and step back three pointers over a music montage. The implication is clear - get these shoes and do this in a pickup game.

 

There is a commercial that runs during premier league games for the "Viper" soccer cleats that shows a premiere league defensive midfielder dominating random guys and the screen constantly morphs him into and back a high school soccer player. Implying that with the Vipers you will dominate the midfield at your high school soccer game.

 

Do you really think golfers are so stupid that they are more susceptible to this stuff than any other sport?

 

There are zero players on the PGA Tour who "need" a wide sole iron to be a good iron player. They don't exist. Your idea that marginal pros are able to stay on tour because of tech is ridiculous. Call them out. Give me some names. Who has managed to stay on tour because of tech? Scott used a long putter, he's fine with a short one - still on tour.

 

I've played next to these guys on a few occasions, as have (I know for a fact) some on this board. They are absolutely incredible with or without tech.

 

Who is this wide-sole iron player whose a mainstay on tour but wouldn't be there without the wide soles because they are a marginal ball striker? Name a few.

 

EDIT

I mean, this post is just so full of it. You can tell the guy with the yips because he uses an arm lock is what you said. Right. The year before Kuchar switched to Arm Lock (2012), he won the player's championship and was number 5 in the OWGR. Yeah, he had the yips and had to switch to arm lock to compete.

 

 

I'm not going to name names and toot my horn. My opinion IS based on 1st hand accounts. I'm not going off tv watching. Maybe " keeping their card " is a large gap to bridge. But to say there aren't some who have fallen or would fall for their Normal standing is incorrect.

You can what if this to death. But the ones using the crutches are not switching for a reason. Evidence says it's a dependency. Your thoughts are based on guess. No evidence there . Circumstantial evidence is better than none at all. Just look at the small stature guys who are hitting long irons and woods into par 4. Can you honestly say that guy competes with older tech ? Not unless we shorten the courses too or they get good at Driver off the deck.

 

It's also true that some great ball strikers have fallen and or not reached their potential because of a failure to except change. Look at some of the veteran web.com guys that's have exceptional iron play and either struggle with Driver or putter or both. Yet they enjoyed huge success early on .

 

As for other sports. I don't care ? Sure I do. Most sport had been ruined to some degree by juicing " athletes " and $. You name the sport. I'll name why it's worse than 20 yeas ago. NFL is unwatchable for me. As is nascar. Baseball I can tolerate until they start instant replaying it all. And pro basketball. Is a joke. I agree with you on the 80s- 90s and. NIKe and mj. Pure genius . But they jumped the shark. One guy dominating etc is cool. I.e tiger. When every player is like that. It's nonsense. It used to be that's athletes were born. Now they are built.

 

 

I'm basing my opinion off of many conversations with tour coaches on the subject. But also my own findings.

I'm playing a bag of tech currently. And have been for about 4 months. And I've learned the way of the high straight ball with all clubs except Driver. And I'm dead After that one too. Personal best round in tournament play happened a few weeks ago. (65). Couple guys here know this is true . So I've seen both sides of the coin. It's rediculously easy to hit your spots with a properly fitted forgiving iron and a ball that wants to go straight. My 4 iron feels like a pw. We just can't act as if the new stuff doesn't help. It does when you figure it out. Sure most of it is still me. But wouldn't a true traditionalist like myself scurry back to my blades if it didn't matter ? Again I'm not comparing my self to tv guys. But I know that there are A B and even C ball strikers ( relative to the pro tour game) with tour cards. Just no way to dispute that. If you still think that's false answer this. If nobody would struggle if you shortened the ball. Shrank the Driver. Outlawed all appearances of anchoring and forced a blade iron down their throats. Then why is everyone so against it ? If no change would occur then why the pushback ?

 

 

I mean no harm. By the way. I can see all sides of this. But for arguments sake it drives me mad that people straddle this forgiveness fence. One minute I'm an idiot for not learning new ways. Now we are saying that it makes no difference .

 

Did you ever consider that your obvious distaste for current equipment has created a mental bias that you're not aware of when it comes to new technology, especially drivers? Subconsciously you may not want to hit a new high tech driver as well as the older tech because you personally have more respect for those who aren't tech dependent and that is why you have difficultly hitting it well i.e. you're sabotaging yourself.

 

I do not say this to offend or troll but as a potential explanation as to why you struggle with new drivers.

[Shilgy]

But stop the bait & switch of 'wow, DJ hit it 419, if I get an M3, I could too.".

 

There is literally nobody who actually thinks this, just like there is nobody who thinks they can average 24 points in the NBA and make threes consistently from 32 feet in the NBA finals if they buy the Nike Kyrie Version 4.

 

I think (without coming across as offensive, hopefully) virtually everyone arguing the tour is too "easy" isn't a tournament player at a significant level. Its hard as h*ll and I only play the usual middle age decent am tournaments (regional, zurich monday when its in town, mid am, state am, etc...). The guys are supremely, incredibly talented. You guys are way off in your evaluation of how much the equipment makes the player. These guys are f*ing good, period. I was paired with a guy in the State am who didn't even sniff the tour after trying for four years (D1 player) and he was insanely good, shooting 69 in a cyclone on a 7300 yard course. I guess it was just his M2 though. *eye roll* The event was played in tough conditions, so straight was bad on almost every hole. With wind, drivers that force straight can actually be a handicap to you.

 

It just seems that we are in a basic disagreement about reality. The idea that PGA Tour players are marginal golfers who can hit it far because of today's equipment and the game has become somehow not challenging is just insane to me.

 

 

It’s all about relativity. Sure they don’t think they can go 420. But they do think thy can go 25 more than their best. Which is the same thing. It’s a lie. Period. And I agree with him.

 

As to the pros who do rely on tech. That’s relative too. Sure each and everyone are great players relative to the earths population. But some are reliant on tech for a job. It’s pretty easy to pick out the putter yips guy. He’s the one with the broomstick or armlock or giant mallet. The guy who needs a huge wide sole in an iron or the guy who hits Driver near every hole and is still short. That guy doesn’t survive if the driver head is small and the ball spins. Right or wrong there are some out there that tech has provided an avenue. Or bandaid

 

All that is neither here nor there. But let’s dont pretend it isn’t a fact.

Are we talking old or new! Snead putted croquet style then side saddle. As I recall Arnie at times anchored a bit on his though (and endorsed an illegal Cor driver). Sarazen invented the sand wedge. That's celebrated today but if a player actually did it today he'd be dq'd for modifying his club illegally.

Some act as if any player that does not play 1960 era Hogan blades 1-56° would be a weekend hacker without a set of(gasp!) cavity backs. Players on tour are not missing the sweet spot by an inch or more like the weekend player. Even when they do miss the sweet spot the tend to do so with a relatively square face. Guys on tour hit 300 yard 3 woods and some post as if the pros could not hit a sub 400cc driver. Why is it we watch in awe as Stanton and Judge hit 500 foot bombs but if a pro golfer hits it over 300 yards it's gotta be the tech?

[Nard_S]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

[augustgolf]

Are you guys sure the ProV1 wasn’t involved in the Kennedy assassination? Lord knows you’re dragging in everything else except the kitchen sink.

 

After Trump had many of the files released on the assassination, I saw one memo mentioning a ProV was found on the grassy knoll.

 

And while Ollie North "couldn't recall" anything about selling arms for cocaine to arm Contras and Afghans....he did have a slip of the tongue, mentioning ProV1 (x, I believe) at one time.

 

I gotta go review the transcripts......

[new2g0lf]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

[pinestreetgolf]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

 

Great post, new2golf. His post is just silly.

 

Why do you care if the winning score at August is -25?

 

In 1974, the Boston Celtics played the Bucks in the finals (I took a random year, they are almost all like this). Two of six games went over 100 points, and both had to go to OT to do it. The average score was 97-94. Last year, every game each team broke 105 and usually 110, including 132, 137, 129, etc... It doesn't "effect the history of the game" - nobody looks at those two scores next to each other and thinks "man, Bob Cousey SUCKED." They understand (Because they're smart) that games change over time, and that history still judges Bill Russell (on most ballots) as either the 3rd or 4th best player of all time. This doesn't "effect" golf history, just like 120+ scores in the NBA finals arn't a "threat" to basketball history.

 

Over time people get better at the sports they play. This is inescapable and unavoidable. You may as well try to damn the ocean as to keep Augusta's winner at even par. They'll find a way, even if you cut the ball back. Its what humans do - we look at what other humans do and make it better.

 

There is no difference between golf and the NBA (well, except to a very small percent I don't understand who care that August doesn't yield a big score) - the winning scores go down (or up) over time. Rather than try to artificially make Augusta hard, just celebrate it for what it is.

 

There can be a classic NBA finals won with average scores in the 115s, and there can be a classic Masters duel at -20 versus -19. It makes you uncomfortable because you arn't used to it, but its fine.

 

Finally, your entire post is contradictory. If the winning score at Augusta is going lower and lower, the margin for error is also going lower and lower. You can't tell me out of one side of your mouth that Augusta is going to be won at -19 and its a travesty and then tell me that they are "walking a 4x4". The margin is identical because the score is going lower - there is less room for errors because the score required to place is so much better. Its one or the other. Either the score isn't dropping and margin for error is increasing, or the score is dropping and therefore margin for error cannot increase.

 

1995 isn't coming back guys. And we shouldn't want it to!

 

Henrick Stenson set the all-time record at the open at -20 when he dueled Phil. It was by far the most exciting major of the year and arguably the decade. Then Spieth shoots -5 in 4 or whatever the next year and that was great too! Low. Scores. Are. Fun! Imagine if that was six guys with a restricted ball at even par not attacking, just hoping to be not the guy who makes a mistake. SO much worse!

[tannyhoban]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

 

Great post, new2golf. His post is just silly.

 

Why do you care if the winning score at August is -25?

 

In 1974, the Boston Celtics played the Bucks in the finals (I took a random year, they are almost all like this). Two of six games went over 100 points, and both had to go to OT to do it. The average score was 97-94. Last year, every game each team broke 105 and usually 110, including 132, 137, 129, etc... It doesn't "effect the history of the game" - nobody looks at those two scores next to each other and thinks "man, Bob Cousey SUCKED." They understand (Because they're smart) that games change over time, and that history still judges Bill Russell (on most ballots) as either the 3rd or 4th best player of all time. This doesn't "effect" golf history, just like 120+ scores in the NBA finals arn't a "threat" to basketball history.

 

Over time people get better at the sports they play. This is inescapable and unavoidable. You may as well try to damn the ocean as to keep Augusta's winner at even par. They'll find a way, even if you cut the ball back. Its what humans do - we look at what other humans do and make it better.

 

There is no difference between golf and the NBA (well, except to a very small percent I don't understand who care that August doesn't yield a big score) - the winning scores go down (or up) over time. Rather than try to artificially make Augusta hard, just celebrate it for what it is.

 

There can be a classic NBA finals won with average scores in the 115s, and there can be a classic Masters duel at -20 versus -19. It makes you uncomfortable because you arn't used to it, but its fine.

 

Finally, your entire post is contradictory. If the winning score at Augusta is going lower and lower, the margin for error is also going lower and lower. You can't tell me out of one side of your mouth that Augusta is going to be won at -19 and its a travesty and then tell me that they are "walking a 4x4". The margin is identical because the score is going lower - there is less room for errors because the score required to place is so much better. Its one or the other. Either the score isn't dropping and margin for error is increasing, or the score is dropping and therefore margin for error cannot increase.

 

1995 isn't coming back guys. And we shouldn't want it to!

 

Henrick Stenson set the all-time record at the open at -20 when he dueled Phil. It was by far the most exciting major of the year and arguably the decade. Then Spieth shoots -5 in 4 or whatever the next year and that was great too! Low. Scores. Are. Fun! Imagine if that was six guys with a restricted ball at even par not attacking, just hoping to be not the guy who makes a mistake. SO much worse!

 

And that sums it up. The game is still golf.

[Nard_S]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

[Sean2]

Are you guys sure the ProV1 wasn’t involved in the Kennedy assassination? Lord knows you’re dragging in everything else except the kitchen sink.

 

After Trump had many of the files released on the assassination, I saw one memo mentioning a ProV was found on the grassy knoll.

 

And while Ollie North "couldn't recall" anything about selling arms for cocaine to arm Contras and Afghans....he did have a slip of the tongue, mentioning ProV1 (x, I believe) at one time.

 

I gotta go review the transcripts......

 

Mmmm. I wonder if the ProV1 testing takes place at Area 51. :-)

[mahonie]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

 

Great post, new2golf. His post is just silly.

 

Why do you care if the winning score at August is -25?

 

In 1974, the Boston Celtics played the Bucks in the finals (I took a random year, they are almost all like this). Two of six games went over 100 points, and both had to go to OT to do it. The average score was 97-94. Last year, every game each team broke 105 and usually 110, including 132, 137, 129, etc... It doesn't "effect the history of the game" - nobody looks at those two scores next to each other and thinks "man, Bob Cousey SUCKED." They understand (Because they're smart) that games change over time, and that history still judges Bill Russell (on most ballots) as either the 3rd or 4th best player of all time. This doesn't "effect" golf history, just like 120+ scores in the NBA finals arn't a "threat" to basketball history.

 

Over time people get better at the sports they play. This is inescapable and unavoidable. You may as well try to damn the ocean as to keep Augusta's winner at even par. They'll find a way, even if you cut the ball back. Its what humans do - we look at what other humans do and make it better.

 

There is no difference between golf and the NBA (well, except to a very small percent I don't understand who care that August doesn't yield a big score) - the winning scores go down (or up) over time. Rather than try to artificially make Augusta hard, just celebrate it for what it is.

 

There can be a classic NBA finals won with average scores in the 115s, and there can be a classic Masters duel at -20 versus -19. It makes you uncomfortable because you arn't used to it, but its fine.

 

Finally, your entire post is contradictory. If the winning score at Augusta is going lower and lower, the margin for error is also going lower and lower. You can't tell me out of one side of your mouth that Augusta is going to be won at -19 and its a travesty and then tell me that they are "walking a 4x4". The margin is identical because the score is going lower - there is less room for errors because the score required to place is so much better. Its one or the other. Either the score isn't dropping and margin for error is increasing, or the score is dropping and therefore margin for error cannot increase.

 

1995 isn't coming back guys. And we shouldn't want it to!

 

Henrick Stenson set the all-time record at the open at -20 when he dueled Phil. It was by far the most exciting major of the year and arguably the decade. Then Spieth shoots -5 in 4 or whatever the next year and that was great too! Low. Scores. Are. Fun! Imagine if that was six guys with a restricted ball at even par not attacking, just hoping to be not the guy who makes a mistake. SO much worse!

 

PSG, for me a major part of the attraction of golf is the challenge of playing against the course...it’s unique in sport and behind the very essence of the game. DJ doesnt play against Spieth...he doesn’t have to counter a high-kicking serve like Nadal in tennis... it’s just him, his equipment and the course. If the course is no longer a challenge you’re taking a major part of the game away - even for the elite golfers.

 

We’re fast approaching the time when the history and heritage of Augusta for example, no longer means anything special, it will just be another tournament. Majors are already becoming watered down as they largely follow the PGA Tour blueprint. With the exception of Spieth, I am struggling to remember who won the other Majors last year...that could be age of course ;-)

[pinestreetgolf]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges.

 

Exactly! Whose better, Bob Cousey or Chris Paul? Kobe or West or Gervin or Barkley or Drexler? Wilt or Shaq?

 

These are interesting conversations because there *is* no answer. If you dropped Kevin Durant into the 1974 finals he'd score 60 and dominate. If you dropped Stenson with modern tech into Jack/Tom's duel in the sun, he'd beat them by 15. But we don't do that. Because that isn't how sports work.

 

You don't get spoon fed a "correct" answer about whose better. That is why its interesting that sports progress over time, and why it would suck to roll the ball back. Because looking at a spreadsheet with equalized conditions to figure out whose the best ever sucks.

 

The inability to easily compare eras is a feature not a bug. The tradition of golf is fair play, never quit, don't cheat, the Masters dinner, the green jacket, the plaid jacket, the claret jug, etc... etc... The tradition of golf is NOT the amount of compression core a ball is allowed to have. That isn't romantic at all. Golf is mystic and wonderful because its rooted in things other than the Co-Efficient of Resistance. Those are the historic things worth protecting. Not COR ratings.

 

Evolution and change makes history history. If there was no evolution or change history wouldn't exist - it would just be The Way Its Always Been. Change creates history. Is it your position that basketball has no "history, integrity and tradition" because it has evolved so much over the years?

[pinestreetgolf]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

 

Great post, new2golf. His post is just silly.

 

Why do you care if the winning score at August is -25?

 

In 1974, the Boston Celtics played the Bucks in the finals (I took a random year, they are almost all like this). Two of six games went over 100 points, and both had to go to OT to do it. The average score was 97-94. Last year, every game each team broke 105 and usually 110, including 132, 137, 129, etc... It doesn't "effect the history of the game" - nobody looks at those two scores next to each other and thinks "man, Bob Cousey SUCKED." They understand (Because they're smart) that games change over time, and that history still judges Bill Russell (on most ballots) as either the 3rd or 4th best player of all time. This doesn't "effect" golf history, just like 120+ scores in the NBA finals arn't a "threat" to basketball history.

 

Over time people get better at the sports they play. This is inescapable and unavoidable. You may as well try to damn the ocean as to keep Augusta's winner at even par. They'll find a way, even if you cut the ball back. Its what humans do - we look at what other humans do and make it better.

 

There is no difference between golf and the NBA (well, except to a very small percent I don't understand who care that August doesn't yield a big score) - the winning scores go down (or up) over time. Rather than try to artificially make Augusta hard, just celebrate it for what it is.

 

There can be a classic NBA finals won with average scores in the 115s, and there can be a classic Masters duel at -20 versus -19. It makes you uncomfortable because you arn't used to it, but its fine.

 

Finally, your entire post is contradictory. If the winning score at Augusta is going lower and lower, the margin for error is also going lower and lower. You can't tell me out of one side of your mouth that Augusta is going to be won at -19 and its a travesty and then tell me that they are "walking a 4x4". The margin is identical because the score is going lower - there is less room for errors because the score required to place is so much better. Its one or the other. Either the score isn't dropping and margin for error is increasing, or the score is dropping and therefore margin for error cannot increase.

 

1995 isn't coming back guys. And we shouldn't want it to!

 

Henrick Stenson set the all-time record at the open at -20 when he dueled Phil. It was by far the most exciting major of the year and arguably the decade. Then Spieth shoots -5 in 4 or whatever the next year and that was great too! Low. Scores. Are. Fun! Imagine if that was six guys with a restricted ball at even par not attacking, just hoping to be not the guy who makes a mistake. SO much worse!

 

PSG, for me a major part of the attraction of golf is the challenge of playing against the course...it’s unique in sport and behind the very essence of the game. DJ doesnt play against Spieth...he doesn’t have to counter a high-kicking serve like Nadal in tennis... it’s just him, his equipment and the course. If the course is no longer a challenge you’re taking a major part of the game away - even for the elite golfers.

 

We’re fast approaching the time when the history and heritage of Augusta for example, no longer means anything special, it will just be another tournament. Majors are already becoming watered down as they largely follow the PGA Tour blueprint. With the exception of Spieth, I am struggling to remember who won the other Majors last year...that could be age of course ;-)

 

Right. I don't get your point. The scores are going lower. Its even more of a challenge, if anything. Is it harder to shoot -4 or -20 at Royal Troon? I don't know, but those are both winning scores from different eras. So, the course isn't "becoming easy" because the scores are sliding ever more down. That's the piece you're missing.

 

If every single guy was shooting 54-58 I'd agree with you. But that isn't happening. Its pretty challenging to shoot -20 in the swirling wind at a lengthened Royal Troon. I just think your conclusion that they are "not challenging" now is ridiculous in light of the winning scores. It may not be challenging to shoot under par, but when half the field beats -3 that isn't good enough.

 

As far as Augusta goes, its by far the highest rated golf tournament, and it rises every year. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that it will "soon" (not just someday, soon) be just another tournament? All objective evidence would point exactly opposite of that.

 

If you honestly think shooting -5 each day for four straight days in weather at a 7200 yard Troon on worldwide TV "isn't challenging" then I don't know what to tell you.

[Nard_S]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges.

 

Exactly! Whose better, Bob Cousey or Chris Paul? Kobe or West or Gervin or Barkley or Drexler? Wilt or Shaq?

 

These are interesting conversations because there *is* no answer. If you dropped Kevin Durant into the 1974 finals he'd score 60 and dominate. If you dropped Stenson with modern tech into Jack/Tom's duel in the sun, he'd beat them by 15. But we don't do that. Because that isn't how sports work.

 

You don't get spoon fed a "correct" answer about whose better. That is why its interesting that sports progress over time, and why it would suck to roll the ball back. Because looking at a spreadsheet with equalized conditions to figure out whose the best ever sucks.

 

The inability to compare eras is a feature not a bug.

 

Is it your position that basketball has no "history, integrity and tradition" because it has evolved so much over the years?

 

Evolution and change makes history history. If there was no evolution or change history wouldn't exist - it would just be The Way Its Always Been. Change creates history.

 

No. Because they altered the rules of play to change nature of the game. But the arena and any tech is pretty much 1950. Every other sport is mano a mano. Golf is unique in that design and elements are part of battle. Always has been true but no doubt the technology has neutered/mitigated both in significant fashion over last 20 years and left it with mano a mano. You can cheer that, I never will. I am not looking to go back, I'm looking that there is a tomorrow and from what I see there is narrow chance that it does not devolve where duffers predominantly play on simulators and Pro game becomes as banal as NASCAR or silly ice sport where they sweep a puck to a circle.

[new2g0lf]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

[Nard_S]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

[mahonie]

The great hitters of past could swing just as hard as anyone today, problem was the the equipment had them walking a tight rope over a ravine of risk/reward. It is now a 4''x4'' board they walk on.

 

Looks great but a reality is that course design for the pillars of major championship history is backed to a wall over the advancement. When someone shoots -25 at Augusta or The Open this issue will be pursued in earnest. I have little doubt it will happen.

 

Golf is unique in that the arena matters as much and that it is so integral to the challenge presented. Pete Dye saw the future and his designs really have stood up to it. Augusta was designed in the hickory era. They have re-tooled it many a time but the essence of the original is there and it is iconic and epic. The Open circuit is even older and nature can put some real teeth into them but both are wilting. Outside of Stenson/ Mickelson dogfight, neither has been compelling in many many years.

 

I understand enthusiasts wanting every edge possible but when those edges cut in to what defines history of the game, is it really worth it? Athletes are better trained and conditioned, agronomy is much better compared to even 20 years ago, the ball rolls truer because of solid core and yet we are hung up on the eye candy of bombed drives. Why? To sell clubs? To replicate the the juice that Tiger or Jack brought on? Maybe, but looking around not a one has it comprehensibly bottled. Golf talks of tradition and history but it is by far the most hypocritical of sports when doing so. So at the very least, it should stop with it.

 

The PGA Tour represents approximately 190 of the best golfers in the world, yet not all of them average 300 yards, in fact only 43 averaged over 300 yards in 2017 and 45 averaged less than 285 yards. If the equipment was as easy to hit as some of you claim shouldn't a higher percentage of the best golfers in the world be able to average over 300 yards?

 

Great post, new2golf. His post is just silly.

 

Why do you care if the winning score at August is -25?

 

In 1974, the Boston Celtics played the Bucks in the finals (I took a random year, they are almost all like this). Two of six games went over 100 points, and both had to go to OT to do it. The average score was 97-94. Last year, every game each team broke 105 and usually 110, including 132, 137, 129, etc... It doesn't "effect the history of the game" - nobody looks at those two scores next to each other and thinks "man, Bob Cousey SUCKED." They understand (Because they're smart) that games change over time, and that history still judges Bill Russell (on most ballots) as either the 3rd or 4th best player of all time. This doesn't "effect" golf history, just like 120+ scores in the NBA finals arn't a "threat" to basketball history.

 

Over time people get better at the sports they play. This is inescapable and unavoidable. You may as well try to damn the ocean as to keep Augusta's winner at even par. They'll find a way, even if you cut the ball back. Its what humans do - we look at what other humans do and make it better.

 

There is no difference between golf and the NBA (well, except to a very small percent I don't understand who care that August doesn't yield a big score) - the winning scores go down (or up) over time. Rather than try to artificially make Augusta hard, just celebrate it for what it is.

 

There can be a classic NBA finals won with average scores in the 115s, and there can be a classic Masters duel at -20 versus -19. It makes you uncomfortable because you arn't used to it, but its fine.

 

Finally, your entire post is contradictory. If the winning score at Augusta is going lower and lower, the margin for error is also going lower and lower. You can't tell me out of one side of your mouth that Augusta is going to be won at -19 and its a travesty and then tell me that they are "walking a 4x4". The margin is identical because the score is going lower - there is less room for errors because the score required to place is so much better. Its one or the other. Either the score isn't dropping and margin for error is increasing, or the score is dropping and therefore margin for error cannot increase.

 

1995 isn't coming back guys. And we shouldn't want it to!

 

Henrick Stenson set the all-time record at the open at -20 when he dueled Phil. It was by far the most exciting major of the year and arguably the decade. Then Spieth shoots -5 in 4 or whatever the next year and that was great too! Low. Scores. Are. Fun! Imagine if that was six guys with a restricted ball at even par not attacking, just hoping to be not the guy who makes a mistake. SO much worse!

 

PSG, for me a major part of the attraction of golf is the challenge of playing against the course...it’s unique in sport and behind the very essence of the game. DJ doesnt play against Spieth...he doesn’t have to counter a high-kicking serve like Nadal in tennis... it’s just him, his equipment and the course. If the course is no longer a challenge you’re taking a major part of the game away - even for the elite golfers.

 

We’re fast approaching the time when the history and heritage of Augusta for example, no longer means anything special, it will just be another tournament. Majors are already becoming watered down as they largely follow the PGA Tour blueprint. With the exception of Spieth, I am struggling to remember who won the other Majors last year...that could be age of course ;-)

 

Right. I don't get your point. The scores are going lower. Its even more of a challenge, if anything. Is it harder to shoot -4 or -20 at Royal Troon? I don't know, but those are both winning scores from different eras. So, the course isn't "becoming easy" because the scores are sliding ever more down. That's the piece you're missing.

 

If every single guy was shooting 54-58 I'd agree with you. But that isn't happening. Its pretty challenging to shoot -20 in the swirling wind at a lengthened Royal Troon. I just think your conclusion that they are "not challenging" now is ridiculous in light of the winning scores. It may not be challenging to shoot under par, but when half the field beats -3 that isn't good enough.

 

As far as Augusta goes, its by far the highest rated golf tournament, and it rises every year. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that it will "soon" (not just someday, soon) be just another tournament? All objective evidence would point exactly opposite of that.

 

If you honestly think shooting -5 each day for four straight days in weather at a 7200 yard Troon on worldwide TV "isn't challenging" then I don't know what to tell you.

 

If scores are getting lower, how can it be more challenging? That doesn’t make sense.

 

It’s interesting that you pick Royal Troon which has only been lengthened by 145 yards since 1962. Scores haven’t changed that much over that time taking variable weather into account (Palmer won on -12 in 1962) but links courses like Troon are not PGA Tour stadium courses set up to suit the bombers. Playing Troon is still a real challenge and the Stenson/Mickelson duel is the best golf I’ve ever witnessed. Didn’t Mickelson play the week without a driver too? Stenson played 3-wood all week?

 

Regarding Augusta, Iirc the peak viewing figures on Sky for the Masters last year was 250,000 - a few more than your typical PGA Tour event but nowhere near the 1.1m that watched the Open.

[new2g0lf]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

[Nard_S]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

[Nard_S]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

[new2g0lf]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

 

But what about all the great tech that's available today, surely the scores should be much lower than Tigers in '97.

[tannyhoban]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

 

Tiger is getting to the "get off my lawn" stage of his life. I will never understand the hysteria over all of this. Golf in general played by the vast majority has not changed. Period.