Rolling back the ball

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

Your amazing well thought out response is ....." so what "!?

 

Yeah. I don't see why "classic" courses can't still host majors, and I don't see why we should care if scores might be lower.

I don't see a whole lot more to this debate when it's distilled.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

 

Cute vid, but it doesn't get your position out of the pretzel. I think you're smart enough to know that.

[knock it close]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

 

Cute vid, but it doesn't get your position out of the pretzel. I think you're smart enough to know that.

How so? You are grossly misrepresenting my argument in order to make yours sound right. The fact that you need to resort to that might mean you're the one in the pretzel

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

 

Cute vid, but it doesn't get your position out of the pretzel. I think you're smart enough to know that.

How so? You are grossly misrepresenting my argument in order to make yours sound right. The fact that you need to resort to that might mean you're the one in the pretzel

 

Really? How many videos did I post?

What is your argument? All I've seen so far is that players aren't "tested" unless they hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours.

I think players are tested on how many strokes it takes to get around a course. So, what we have is:

 

(a) Players are only tested if they have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours; and

(b) Players are always tested on how many strokes it takes to get around a course (regardless of clubs hit into par fours).

 

I'll stand by (b).

[tnord]

i know you like to poke fun at me for doing such archaic things as “reading” ashley, but try going back a few pages and doing just that. you’re categorizing the argument for your own convenience, which is either ignorant or a flat out lie.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

i know you like to poke fun at me for doing such archaic things as "reading" ashley, but try going back a few pages and doing just that. you're categorizing the argument for your own convenience, which is either ignorant or a flat out lie.

 

So, why don't you want the ball to go as far as it does?

[clevited]

I didn't even know Ashley was replying to a post with that q&a dialogue, but it made all the sense in the world. The other point of view is completely illogical in my opinion. In my experience, those that say they need to be tested are jealous of what these players can do. They down play the skill required to do it. That skill level SHOULD and will break records. Only reason they haven't so easily is because they keep making course conditions more and more difficult imo.

[tnord]

try reading. and i mean more than just the internet echo chamber.

[North Butte]

try reading. and i mean more than just the internet echo chamber.

 

You mean like Shack’s site?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

try reading. and i mean more than just the internet echo chamber.

 

I know yours was always the real property issue of making courses longer, maintenance, expense, etc. to protect scoring.

I don't think courses need to be longer at all.

I guess we're at an impasse.

[tnord]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

And I will echo (chamber?) that sentiment to invite anyone to refer me to logical material regarding why the ball NEEDS to do anything different than what it does right now, and why that makes people think golf would be a better game.

[North Butte]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

I don’t think it needs to go farther. As I’ve said the current performance is fine by me.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

I don’t think it needs to go farther. As I’ve said the current performance is fine by me.

 

Ed Zachary.

[knock it close]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

 

Cute vid, but it doesn't get your position out of the pretzel. I think you're smart enough to know that.

How so? You are grossly misrepresenting my argument in order to make yours sound right. The fact that you need to resort to that might mean you're the one in the pretzel

 

Really? How many videos did I post?

What is your argument? All I've seen so far is that players aren't "tested" unless they hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours.

I think players are tested on how many strokes it takes to get around a course. So, what we have is:

 

(a) Players are only tested if they have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours; and

(b) Players are always tested on how many strokes it takes to get around a course (regardless of clubs hit into par fours).

 

I'll stand by (b).

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

 

Seems like you are fine with the way things are now. Me, too. IDK why they would have to roll the ball back, or lengthen courses, then.

[clevited]

Many if not most players do have to use a variety of shots am I right? Only the long bombers, the long SURGICAL bombers with amazing scrambling skills are making some of these courses seem small. I would also bet that every single golfer has amazing skill with each club, so rolling back a ball will just piss a lot of people off and accomplish very little. Long bombers will still do just as well. Tiger did just fine.

[Shilgy]

 

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

[knock it close]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

But that's just making the score arbitrarily harder, sometimes it works and makes sense be cause of the hole design (Pebble 2, Oakmont 9) but other times its a bastardization of the design. I just don't see how you take that out of my post.

[rangersgoalie]

try reading. and i mean more than just the internet echo chamber.

 

You mean like Shack’s site?

 

Coming up next, the ball goes too far and is ruining the game

By GEOFF SHACKELFORD

sponsored by Callaway golf, maker of the longest bestest stuff ever!!!

 

I know, I know, it pays the bills!!

[rangersgoalie]

Heck, make it a par 65 and shorten things with morepar threes to test these guys who do t know ow to play properly!!

Shorter rounds huzzahs all around!!!

[BNGL]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open? My ball roll back take is less on player progression and evolution and more for wanting great historic venues to be able to host events, and hell if you could lengthen all the courses to adequately challenge the players I'd be all for it but unfortunately you run out of land and you increase your maintenance budget in doing so.

 

Personally I am not. It's the next step in the game, your prototype US Opens of the future have been played on the past few years (Chambers Bay and Erin Hills i.e. Big courses that are long with,in Erin Hills case flat greens to get ridiculously fast). Did they get the setup right? No they didn't but that doesn't mean they won't.

 

That's not to say they cannot host another event, a prime example is Canterbury GC in Cleveland? They've had a smashing success the past two seasons, imo at least, on the web. Maybe there's a chance courses of yesterday make an appearance with something different.

[BNGL]

 

Nope. All straw man arguments. I'm saying don't change. Don't buy more land. Please read.

What would happen if #13 and #15 at ANGC were effectively turned into two-shot, par four holes? Would the player who played the best not still win?

 

Average score on #15 last year was 4.935. That would be a brutal par four, but par is just a number.

 

BTW, #2 at 575 yards was a lot lower at 4.671. There is a lot more to golf than long drives and yardage.

 

Full disclosure this may sound dumb and I get it this is just my opinion.

 

I have never played the Masters but have played Augusta quite a bit. If 15 was a par 4, I'd layup every time. It's such a difficult shot though, it really is, shorts water, longs water, right isn't great. BUT a good tee shot puts you on top of the hill (fairly flat) and you've got iron in your hands most of the time. So even if I hit in the water short and long (which is very much in play and on your mind) I can still go to a drop area and get up and in for par 5. Now if it was a par 4 I'm laying up, which isn't easy either, because you'll have a downhill lie to a green that plays deceptively longer than what you see and it's super firm and gotta control spin plus trajectory. On 2 I'm not worried about much of anything. On the tee shot I wanna turn it over and second shot is just nutting it at the front of the green at least when I've played it. Even the bunker is a decent spot. Only place that is dead is long.

[Shilgy]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

But that's just making the score arbitrarily harder, sometimes it works and makes sense be cause of the hole design (Pebble 2, Oakmont 9) but other times its a bastardization of the design. I just don't see how you take that out of my post.

What? Instead of two par fives you have two par fours that require a long straight drive and long second. Is that not what you asked for to test all clubs?

[PGArox]

I understand where folks like tnord and 15th Club are coming from because, in some ways, I share some of their concerns.

 

This debate is not necessarily about scoring records, although that is a byproduct of the issue. And it's not necessarily about golfing skills, even though they enter into the debate.

 

This issue, and certainly as it applies to the professional game, is about testing the players' complete skill set and producing more interesting competitions.

 

In today's modern game we are increasingly seeing a driver-wedge approach. More and more the players are bombing a driver or 3W from the tee and needing merely 9I's or wedges on their approach. This is resulting in a less interesting professional game where scoring opportunities are increasing. It's no wonder we're seeing tournament, round and course scoring records being broken.

 

Many people have no problem whatsoever with the direction the modern pro game is going. Some people think a high-octane, offensive minded approach to professional golf is actually more exciting than the strategic, careful and defensive game which was played for so many years.

 

Personally, I would like to see the pros forced to demonstrate a much wider array of golfing skills. I think (especially in the majors) they should be required to hit as many 4I's and 3's in a round as they do 9's and wedges. I also think that driving skills (with a driver) should be a bigger part of the modern game.

 

I also want to see these guys put through their paces by being forced to hit high draws and low fades, and any number of shots they currently are not encouraged to hit. I share many of the concerns that the rollback guys do.

 

Where we part ways is HOW we accomplish the end goal. They think rolling back the ball is an answer. I do not. I think the key to the future of golf is in the architecture of the courses. We need a new approach to course design, especially at the pro level. In my not-so-humble opinion, the way you restore lost playing characteristics, and make the pro game more challenging and interesting is by building longer courses and/or lengthening courses where it is possible.

 

Last year's U.S. Open was played on a relatively new course which is capable of being stretched to 8,000 yards. I can't recall one player saying the course is too long. The existence of Erin Hills is proof that there are people with money who are willing to build new venues which suit the modern professional game, and it's proof that the USGA is willing to host their most important championship at such venues.

[clevited]

Doesn't lengthening the courses still put the focus on driving the ball as far as possible. If you say course architecture is the answer, I would argue that length is not the main answer. Make it trickier. Longer, more punishing rough and hazards, routs for the brave to take a chance but risk huge setbacks. Long doglegs reqiring shot shaping to score well. Water hazards, tree lined, soft fairways rather than hard, undulating fairways making accuracy and distance control more important to set up that second shot, pin placement, I could go on and on.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

 

But what if players start hitting it 370 with the current ball and club? Gasp! How will the Legends compete with superior athleticism and training? We have to preserve Doug Sanders' legacy.

[knock it close]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

But that's just making the score arbitrarily harder, sometimes it works and makes sense be cause of the hole design (Pebble 2, Oakmont 9) but other times its a bastardization of the design. I just don't see how you take that out of my post.

What? Instead of two par fives you have two par fours that require a long straight drive and long second. Is that not what you asked for to test all clubs?

Yes but you can't simply put lipstick on my uncle and call him my aunt. If the hole isn't designed to be attacked that way you can't just slap a different number on it and expect it to test your game properly. As much as we can say par doesn't matter it is taken into account by architects and short par 5's will very likely provide vastly different challenges that long par 4's

[knock it close]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

 

But what if players start hitting it 370 with the current ball and club? Gasp! How will the Legends compete with superior athleticism and training? We have to preserve Doug Sanders' legacy.

Who the hell is Doug Sanders?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

But that's just making the score arbitrarily harder, sometimes it works and makes sense be cause of the hole design (Pebble 2, Oakmont 9) but other times its a bastardization of the design. I just don't see how you take that out of my post.

What? Instead of two par fives you have two par fours that require a long straight drive and long second. Is that not what you asked for to test all clubs?

Yes but you can't simply put lipstick on my uncle and call him my aunt. If the hole isn't designed to be attacked that way you can't just slap a different number on it and expect it to test your game properly. As much as we can say par doesn't matter it is taken into account by architects and short par 5's will very likely provide vastly different challenges that long par 4's

 

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.