Rolling back the ball

[Ashley Schaeffer]

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

Like I said before so the course can adequately test the entirety of a players game. Are you just going to keep replying why? or who cares? like a petulant child or are you going to add to the discussion.

 

Just don't see why a course that plays shorter can't adequately test the players (they can, and do, all the time). Thanks for the personal insult, though. Much appreciated.

You were the one drumming up mock conversations to make yourself feel better and replying with "pretzel" quips and little else, so if the shoe fits.

 

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

[clevited]

Not to derail an already partially derailed thread, but golf elitists like several of you in this lone thread, are a large part of why the game is not growing. Tiger made it cool, he grew the game, you guys make it an old man's bickering game.

 

 

Dude...the oldest guys in this thread are on YOUR side.....

 

The elitist ones are not. Irrational, insulting, and bickering. All I can see is Judge from Caddyshack.

[bladehunter]

Not to derail an already partially derailed thread, but golf elitists like several of you in this lone thread, are a large part of why the game is not growing. Tiger made it cool, he grew the game, you guys make it an old man's bickering game.

 

 

Dude...the oldest guys in this thread are on YOUR side.....

 

The elitist ones are not. Irrational, insulting, and bickering. All I can see is Judge from Caddyshack.

 

 

 

id say that paintbrush has touched every person in this thread.

[tnord]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

 

OK, so will the fewest amount of strokes still win? Seems like it would make strategy a part of the game, right?

so what ? chili cheeseburger deluxe !

 

By far the best response yet.

[clevited]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

Honestly, I would have pegged you as a 67 year old, cigar smoking, millionaire, that sticks his pinky out while he drinks his million dollar glass of scotch. (Not to insult, I have a policy of being brutally honest, I am serious).

 

Its not too late for you.

[clevited]

Also, I have some coworkers I used to play league with, but they irked me too much with all the pointing and laughing at players that weren't as good as them. I see them in a similar light but that is for another thread. I shall let the original dialogue continue. I can't lie, it does make an entertaining while sometimes face palming read.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

I'd say you're the perfect person to opine on issues such as these. Looking forward to your future hot takes on traditional course design and the state of the game relative to yesteryear.

[tnord]

my dad isn't even that old (and he doesn't play golf either), i do like cigars, i do not have a million dollars, and i do like scotch.

 

i only started in golf after i quit auto racing and my now wife introduced me to her parents - and her dad plays golf. that's when i picked the game back up after a brief 2 year foray into it at age 13/14.

 

i enjoy playing golf with anyone and everyone. my saturday game is with better players, but i love playing the forward tees on sundays with everybody from other scratch players to guys that get two shots on some holes.

 

my first round of golf with my father in law i shot 114 and i'm sure that was generous. it's not like i've lost all perspective.

[PGArox]

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.

 

Not necessarily. Artful architecture contains a myriad of possibilities, angles, dangers and challenges. If you produce a straight long hole then, yes, the focus will be on getting the ball out there as far as possible.

 

The next time you watch a golf telecast, observe each and every tee box, and the position where the player stands in relation to where he is aiming. Almost 100% of the time he will not be required to shape his tee shot; he will always have the option of playing either a straight shot or his comfortable natural ball flight.

 

It is very rare in today's modern game where a player is forced to hit a shot he may not have, or feel uncomfortable attempting. Even on doglegged holes, where it may look like a draw is preferred, the player always has the option of aiming to the inside of the dogleg and cutting the corner with a straight ball. If he does not feel comfortable doing that he may lay up with relatively little consequence because the holes are so short that the resulting 170 yard approach isn't all that much more challenging than the 130 he might've had, especially when the guys today are hitting 175 yard 8I's.

 

If the tee box were situated in such a position which made it absolutely necessary for the player to work a fade or a draw, the demand to show superior ball striking would be far greater, and any resulting error would likely produce more troublesome consequences.

 

If that hole were long enough (and we're talking only about a specific type of hole here - I'm not advocating 18 long par 4's) to produce a very long second shot, the player would be compelled to hit driver from the tee or suffer the consequences of a 260 yard approach on a par 4.

 

On that type of hole driving accuracy would be critically important, and you wouldn't need 25 yard wide fairways or five inch rough as a defense. Any player who either missed the fairway or clubbed down at the tee would be playing for par at best, with bogey in the equation to a far greater degree than birdie.

 

This type of hole (and remember I'm talking here about only this type of hole, not the entire course) would make driving accuracy more important; it would require a demonstration of long iron skills; and because you'd see far more missed greens on this type of hole, it would put a greater requirement on short game skills and clutch putting.

 

This is merely one idea. A great course contains a balance of short, medium and long holes, and the angles and position of obstacles are crucial.

[clevited]

my dad isn't even that old (and he doesn't play golf either), i do like cigars, i do not have a million dollars, and i do like scotch.

 

i only started in golf after i quit auto racing and my now wife introduced me to her parents - and her dad plays golf. that's when i picked the game back up after a brief 2 year foray into it at age 13/14.

 

i enjoy playing golf with anyone and everyone. my saturday game is with better players, but i love playing the forward tees on sundays with everybody from other scratch players to guys that get two shots on some holes.

 

my first round of golf with my father in law i shot 114 and i'm sure that was generous. it's not like i've lost all perspective.

 

A great thing to do is to introduce the game to brand new players,teach them stuff, praise the good shots. I have been able to addict more than a couple friends of mine by doing that. A lot of these golf clubs have no place for beginners like that, just crabby old guys in carts trying to get 9 holes in as fast as possible and then hit the bar. (You know, the ones that complain about slow play and such, well duh, new players!)

[knock it close]

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

Like I said before so the course can adequately test the entirety of a players game. Are you just going to keep replying why? or who cares? like a petulant child or are you going to add to the discussion.

 

Just don't see why a course that plays shorter can't adequately test the players (they can, and do, all the time). Thanks for the personal insult, though. Much appreciated.

You were the one drumming up mock conversations to make yourself feel better and replying with "pretzel" quips and little else, so if the shoe fits.

 

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

Nah I'm going to continue my same argument. The game and ball as of now asks players to hit it as far as they can and imo overvalues driving and wedge play at the tour level. At current course length elite drivers are able to fly it over most any trouble. In order to test players you either need to make the course play longer, or you can pinch the fw's and grow the rough which I personally think stifles the creativity of the player and breeds a boring brand of golf. So in order to make the course play longer you either increase the length which again is not an option for all courses, or you restrict the ball slightly.

[knock it close]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

Honestly, I would have pegged you as a 67 year old, cigar smoking, millionaire, that sticks his pinky out while he drinks his million dollar glass of scotch. (Not to insult, I have a policy of being brutally honest, I am serious).

 

Its not too late for you.

Do me next, it should be fairly simple

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

Nah I'm going to continue my same argument. The game and ball as of now asks players to hit it as far as they can and imo overvalues driving and wedge play at the tour level. At current course length elite drivers are able to fly it over most any trouble. In order to test players you either need to make the course play longer, or you can pinch the fw's and grow the rough which I personally think stifles the creativity of the player and breeds a boring brand of golf. So in order to make the course play longer you either increase the length which again is not an option for all courses, or you restrict the ball slightly.

 

Cool. Or, just move/make the trouble up range. Problem solved.

Pro tip: Lose the "in order to"; just use "to".

Hope this helps.

[15th Club]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

 

And you dont see the MLB trying to roll back the ball to stop it :) . I say let the pros shoot -20 as a winning score for a tournament by shortening courses. Its just a number (like folks are pointing out). USGA keeps trying to fix a problem (low scores) by creating new problems that in the end hurt the recreational player more than it hurts pros. Effin dumb :)

 

Wrong, and wrong.

 

MLB doesn't come out with new and improved balls every year. They don't allow players to choose different balls to favor their particular performance. In fact, if stats begin to show that the ball might be improving on-field performance (as has in fact been the case in MLB the last couple of years) it's a scandal.

 

And the USGA's concern over balls isn't "scoring." At least, it isn't purely scoring. Scoring is so much a function of course variability, and weather. The USGA can tweak scoring if they want. They trick the courses. Growing rough to penal lengths; burning out greens with low-cut grass and dried-out subsurfaces. And, of course, pushing tees back farther and farther wherever it can be done.

 

All of which is varying degrees of "bad," for the quality of play (entirely apart from scoring). What you want in a course is firm and fast turf (it rolls a lot) because that brings into play the ground game. But it's hard to do that, when the balls go so far. You don't want punitive rough; and you want wide fairways to challenge players' strategy in picking out lines of play, etc. This is elementary golf architecture, and yet some of you really don't want to accept it.

[knock it close]

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

Nah I'm going to continue my same argument. The game and ball as of now asks players to hit it as far as they can and imo overvalues driving and wedge play at the tour level. At current course length elite drivers are able to fly it over most any trouble. In order to test players you either need to make the course play longer, or you can pinch the fw's and grow the rough which I personally think stifles the creativity of the player and breeds a boring brand of golf. So in order to make the course play longer you either increase the length which again is not an option for all courses, or you restrict the ball slightly.

 

Cool. Or, just move/make the trouble up range. Problem solved.

Pro tip: Lost the "in order to"; just use "to".

Hope this helps.

Pro tip lose not lost

 

Nice try on the edit though

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

Nah I'm going to continue my same argument. The game and ball as of now asks players to hit it as far as they can and imo overvalues driving and wedge play at the tour level. At current course length elite drivers are able to fly it over most any trouble. In order to test players you either need to make the course play longer, or you can pinch the fw's and grow the rough which I personally think stifles the creativity of the player and breeds a boring brand of golf. So in order to make the course play longer you either increase the length which again is not an option for all courses, or you restrict the ball slightly.

 

Cool. Or, just move/make the trouble up range. Problem solved.

Pro tip: Lost the "in order to"; just use "to".

Hope this helps.

Pro tip lose not lost

 

Nice try on the edit though

 

Haha, nice catch!

[clevited]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

Honestly, I would have pegged you as a 67 year old, cigar smoking, millionaire, that sticks his pinky out while he drinks his million dollar glass of scotch. (Not to insult, I have a policy of being brutally honest, I am serious).

 

Its not too late for you.

Do me next, it should be fairly simple

 

Sure I'll give it a go.

 

Lets see, big ego.... 20s.

Lets see, probably decent golfer, obviously obsessed about the game.... (I can't see sigs btw so no idea).

Mom and Dad got you lessons as a kid, high school golf team, never made it further. Play at a nicer course, definitely not the local 9 hole. Is annoyed by hackers. Can't bomb and gouge so one reason you don't like it. Idk, I'm actually bored with the thread now, but how did I do? Just a crazy guess to humor you.

[knock it close]

Great, so, with respect to your Monday night in Alberta, Canadia, what would be so bad about the ball going as far as is it does in perpetuity?

 

EDIT: Bonus points for not repeating your dumb arguments.

Nah I'm going to continue my same argument. The game and ball as of now asks players to hit it as far as they can and imo overvalues driving and wedge play at the tour level. At current course length elite drivers are able to fly it over most any trouble. In order to test players you either need to make the course play longer, or you can pinch the fw's and grow the rough which I personally think stifles the creativity of the player and breeds a boring brand of golf. So in order to make the course play longer you either increase the length which again is not an option for all courses, or you restrict the ball slightly.

 

Cool. Or, just move/make the trouble up range. Problem solved.

Pro tip: Lost the "in order to"; just use "to".

Hope this helps.

Pro tip lose not lost

 

Nice try on the edit though

 

Haha, nice catch!

Hah, I got it by a half second, exceedingly petty I know

[knock it close]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

Honestly, I would have pegged you as a 67 year old, cigar smoking, millionaire, that sticks his pinky out while he drinks his million dollar glass of scotch. (Not to insult, I have a policy of being brutally honest, I am serious).

 

Its not too late for you.

Do me next, it should be fairly simple

 

Sure I'll give it a go.

 

Lets see, big ego.... 20s.

Lets see, probably decent golfer, obviously obsessed about the game.... (I can't see sigs btw so no idea).

Mom and Dad got you lessons as a kid, high school golf team, never made it further. Play at a nicer course, definitely not the local 9 hole. Is annoyed by hackers. Can't bomb and gouge so one reason you don't like it. Idk, I'm actually bored with the thread now, but how did I do? Just a crazy guess to humor you.

Pretty good actually, I'm much less of a ****** in person, well maybe not less I look douchey but I think I'm nice at least. Dad was a Class A but I didn't really do the whole lesson thing. Eh hackers don't really bother me. Ya I can get it out there decent, especially at my altitude but my buddies do knock it past me

[clevited]

i'm 37.

 

this is my 10th year playing golf.

 

i live in hutchinson kansas.

 

so i'm an old traditional elitist right?

 

Honestly, I would have pegged you as a 67 year old, cigar smoking, millionaire, that sticks his pinky out while he drinks his million dollar glass of scotch. (Not to insult, I have a policy of being brutally honest, I am serious).

 

Its not too late for you.

Do me next, it should be fairly simple

 

Sure I'll give it a go.

 

Lets see, big ego.... 20s.

Lets see, probably decent golfer, obviously obsessed about the game.... (I can't see sigs btw so no idea).

Mom and Dad got you lessons as a kid, high school golf team, never made it further. Play at a nicer course, definitely not the local 9 hole. Is annoyed by hackers. Can't bomb and gouge so one reason you don't like it. Idk, I'm actually bored with the thread now, but how did I do? Just a crazy guess to humor you.

Pretty good actually, I'm much less of a ****** in person, well maybe not less I look douchey but I think I'm nice at least. Dad was a Class A but I didn't really do the whole lesson thing. Eh hackers don't really bother me. Ya I can get it out there decent, especially at my altitude but my buddies do knock it past me

 

I believe it that you aren't bad in person. I am not on here to make enemies, just talk about the game I am obsessed about. Just boggles my mind the reasoning for wanting to change the ball. Its peaked as far as what it can contribute to the game as has the equipment. The players are growing up, learning to swing faster and control it. They are dedicating all of their time to the game. That wasn't the case in the past I don't think. The players are better, but they can only get so good or so fast. Any idea how much trouble you get in swinging 120+ and being off just a degree or two? Courses need to evolve but not necessarily be 8k long. There are more clever ways to make both parties happy without completely disrupting pretty well established ball performance.

 

A sudden change to said ball might also completely disrupt the entire field. Only the experienced will survive, the rest (the young guns) will struggle for some time no doubt.

[rangersgoalie]

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?

 

Picture Loyd and Harry in their tuxes at the owl benefit

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Hah, I got it by a half second, exceedingly petty I know

 

Petty? Not at all. Game reks game.

[BNGL]

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.

 

You are joking, right? Why would anyone in their right mind change how they play a hole based on par? You play the hole to achieve the lowest score. Par is irrelevant.

 

No I'm not, that's why I said it is my own personal opinion. I'd play it differently because I'd be taking the big number out of play if it was a par 4. If l lay up, I am probably not going to make worse than 5. If I go for it in GIR and don't pull it off, 5 is as good as I can do barring a chip in.

I learned the value of a shot early (after making lots of 8s haha). I can make up a bogey in one hole, and 16 gives you a chance to do that, but making an "other" isn't ideal.

[OrangeGravy]

I want to correct some more misstatements and unfair misconceptions...

• As for the opinion(s) of Jack Nicklaus, he complained about his own ball (the MacGregor Tourney) a lot; to his contacts at MacGregor, at the time. It's not in dispute. How bad the Tourney ball was, has probably never been quantified. But it was well known at the time.
  

• Through just about all of Jack's competitive career, equipment didn't change much, and distance remained mostly flat. Look at the graphs that have been variously posted here, and look at the flatness of driving distance before metalwoods and new ball designs. I do think balls improved, gradually, from 1950 to 1985. But clubs didn't change much at all.
  

• Jack would have had little reason to complain about distance/equipment issues until his career was nearly over, because there was nothing much to complain about.
  

• Jack's complaints about the golf ball do coincide with real distance gains; it is a real disservice to the debate to claim that Jack only began to complain recently, or because his competitive career ended.
  

• Tiger Woods began talking about golf ball-related distance many years ago. It was not when Tiger had somehow passed his prime. So ditto Tiger Woods; his complaints are NOT co-incident with a new ball contract, or any change in his own playing competitiveness.
  

• Geoff Shackelford has an important personal history as an author and as an architect. He was central to the recent re-do of LACC. He co-designed Rustic Canyon, an award-winning daily fee course, and he's done a number of other projects on his own or with Gil Hanse. The comments I've seen here critical of Shackelford are trashtalk.
  

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%", and many hope that such a result won't happen. I'd like to see (this is just me) a single rule and testing protocol for all of golf, regulating a new golf ball technology that effectively rolls back long-hitting elites by something close to 10% or perhaps more, but which does nothing to the average distances of recreational players. Only if you are a golfer who has gotten significant distance gains from using a multilayer urethane ball, would you have any concern over losing distance in my idealized rollback.
  

• And again -- I just don't know how many times I have to say this -- I do not care, if someone thinks that "fitness," or "player size", or "swing speed", or "agronomy", or "course set-up", or "launch monitors" are advanced as true causes for increased distances in golf. The simple fact remains that even if, and especially if, those other things are changing, the easy and simple thing to use to correct the overall distance equation is the golf ball. Because, as everybody keeps saying, we aren't going to regulate "fitness." 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.
  

 

I don't buy that courses need to be adjusted. Why?

 

 

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

[joeylough]

so if the ball was rolled back I'm guessing this would be just for pros? As at my club, I think most people use 5-year-old golf balls found on the course. I can't see the average golfer throwing out hundreds of golf balls to then change to the new rolled back ball.

[OrangeGravy]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

[OrangeGravy]

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.

 

Not necessarily. Artful architecture contains a myriad of possibilities, angles, dangers and challenges. If you produce a straight long hole then, yes, the focus will be on getting the ball out there as far as possible.

 

The next time you watch a golf telecast, observe each and every tee box, and the position where the player stands in relation to where he is aiming. Almost 100% of the time he will not be required to shape his tee shot; he will always have the option of playing either a straight shot or his comfortable natural ball flight.

 

It is very rare in today's modern game where a player is forced to hit a shot he may not have, or feel uncomfortable attempting. Even on doglegged holes, where it may look like a draw is preferred, the player always has the option of aiming to the inside of the dogleg and cutting the corner with a straight ball. If he does not feel comfortable doing that he may lay up with relatively little consequence because the holes are so short that the resulting 170 yard approach isn't all that much more challenging than the 130 he might've had, especially when the guys today are hitting 175 yard 8I's.

 

If the tee box were situated in such a position which made it absolutely necessary for the player to work a fade or a draw, the demand to show superior ball striking would be far greater, and any resulting error would likely produce more troublesome consequences.

 

If that hole were long enough (and we're talking only about a specific type of hole here - I'm not advocating 18 long par 4's) to produce a very long second shot, the player would be compelled to hit driver from the tee or suffer the consequences of a 260 yard approach on a par 4.

 

On that type of hole driving accuracy would be critically important, and you wouldn't need 25 yard wide fairways or five inch rough as a defense. Any player who either missed the fairway or clubbed down at the tee would be playing for par at best, with bogey in the equation to a far greater degree than birdie.

 

This type of hole (and remember I'm talking here about only this type of hole, not the entire course) would make driving accuracy more important; it would require a demonstration of long iron skills; and because you'd see far more missed greens on this type of hole, it would put a greater requirement on short game skills and clutch putting.

 

This is merely one idea. A great course contains a balance of short, medium and long holes, and the angles and position of obstacles are crucial.

 

I agree with the course design angle. The only problem I see is that essentially requires entire new courses to be built. For now it works, but at some point in the future it may not be sustainable for tour golf anyways. At some point there won't be enough new courses designed properly or enough rich people willing to build them and then where does golf go at that level? All this assumes things keep trending the way they are of course. In recent times existing tour courses have altered their tracks to keep up and some new courses have popped up. I think we're close to the point where existing courses are pretty much tapped out with their ability to alter for the most part, so new courses are going to have to take up the slack. Now for people who don't think the game has changed for the worse, then none of this means anything.

[3whacker]

hard to put the Genie back in the bottle after its been let out...the golfing public buys equipment and golf balls and they want distance....the pros dont buy equipment or golf balls , they get paid to entice the public to buy equipment and golf balls...

[marmooskapaul]

Well according to the powers that be...they aren't going to do anything to the ball..What was that noise???? Oh...it was Shackelfords head exploding...