Rolling back the ball

[Bye]

I just looked it up and the members tees at ANGC are just over 6300 yards. And hasn’t changed much in the entire history of the club. That is a very civilized length for most decent golfers. Many should play at less yardage.

 

The Toonamint is at 7400 and will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback.

 

Any idea if the old tournament tees are still there? It played about 6,800 before the changes.

[Bye]

My best guess is that there are under 10 golfers on the planet that think a 20% roll back is a good idea.

[DavePelz4]

According to the interweb, here is the length of ANGC by decade:

 

2010: 7,435 yards (6,799 m)

2000: 6,985 yards (6,387 m)

1990: 6,905 yards (6,314 m)

1980: 7,040 yards (6,437 m)

1970: 6,980 yards (6,383 m)

1960: 6,980 yards (6,383 m)

1950: 6,900 yards (6,309 m)

1940: 6,800 yards (6,218 m)

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Will they need to bring back the Eisenhower tree at Augusta too? Think that tree ended up as firewood in the clubhouse.

 

Teed that up for you A.S.

 

Haha! They're going to have to find one somehow.

[Shilgy]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Will they need to bring back the Eisenhower tree at Augusta too? Think that tree ended up as firewood in the clubhouse.

 

Teed that up for you A.S.

 

Haha! They're going to have to find one somehow.

Found it!

[drn92]

 

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I do not think the USGA will be able to find a solution that does not materially impact the average golfer if they attempt to roll back the ball at the upper echelon.

 

drn92

[15th Club]

I just looked it up and the members tees at ANGC are just over 6300 yards. And hasn’t changed much in the entire history of the club. That is a very civilized length for most decent golfers. Many should play at less yardage.

 

The Toonamint is at 7400 and will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback.

 

Any idea if the old tournament tees are still there? It played about 6,800 before the changes.

 

They are all gone. ANGC wants a clean look. They put in new tournament tees, the old ones are gone. Although some are more like extensions (#1, #10, #18, #16).

[15th Club]

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I do not think the USGA will be able to find a solution that does not materially impact the average golfer if they attempt to roll back the ball at the upper echelon.

 

drn92

 

It's a funny thing... Seven years on after the groove rule change, we've had commenters in this very thread saying that the groove rule somehow screwed average recreational players. When in in fact the rule didn't affect the clubs in any recreational player's bag. And the USGA is going to simply review it in 2020, with no "ban" anticipated until 2024, and maybe (probably) more like "never." The only people who had to switch out clubs were Tour players (2010), then US Am participants and NCAA players (two years later). Per a Condition of Competition, not any Rule.

 

A complete myth, that the groove rule forced anyone to switch out any clubs. And by 2024, the old-standard clubs will be 14 years old or more.

[15th Club]

According to the interweb, here is the length of ANGC by decade:

 

2010: 7,435 yards (6,799 m)

2000: 6,985 yards (6,387 m)

1990: 6,905 yards (6,314 m)

1980: 7,040 yards (6,437 m)

1970: 6,980 yards (6,383 m)

1960: 6,980 yards (6,383 m)

1950: 6,900 yards (6,309 m)

1940: 6,800 yards (6,218 m)

 

Perfectly reflective, of the fact that equipment didn't change a whole lot, from 1940 to 1980. 40 years. Forty-frickin'-years. With technologically-produced distance exploding after 2000.

[radiman]

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I do not think the USGA will be able to find a solution that does not materially impact the average golfer if they attempt to roll back the ball at the upper echelon.

 

drn92

 

It's a funny thing... Seven years on after the groove rule change, we've had commenters in this very thread saying that the groove rule somehow screwed average recreational players. When in in fact the rule didn't affect the clubs in any recreational player's bag. And the USGA is going to simply review it in 2020, with no "ban" anticipated until 2024, and maybe (probably) more like "never." The only people who had to switch out clubs were Tour players (2010), then US Am participants and NCAA players (two years later). Per a Condition of Competition, not any Rule.

 

A complete myth, that the groove rule forced anyone to switch out any clubs. And by 2024, the old-standard clubs will be 14 years old or more.

 

I have asked this question more than once when you have brought this up. Please tell me which major manufacturer makes clubs with the old grooves. Nobody is forcing anybody to remove clubs from their bags. But, they have no choice when it is time to replace them. If you think new grooves spin as much as the old you are mistaken.

 

And for that matter, how in the world was anchoring a putter as big of an issue as it was made out to be. Admit it, they only changed it once anchored Putters won majors. Have you ever tried putting with one of those? It isn't exactly like it's an easy thing to get used to.

 

Believe it or not, the people at the USGA are prone to making mistakes just like any other human beings.

[farmer]

Using ANGC as a model for anything golf related is not relevant. If the members wanted to, they could buy Augusta, and transform it into a nice greenspace.

[BNGL]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I am a recreational golfer, I am therefore an authority and ambassidor for both the short hitting and the long hitting amateur. You know, the ones that buy the balls and pay to see the tournaments live, and watch them on tv getting them ad revenue. The golfers that matter.

 

I am glad you're not an ambassador nor authority for orthographic studies.

[buckeyefl]

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I do not think the USGA will be able to find a solution that does not materially impact the average golfer if they attempt to roll back the ball at the upper echelon.

 

drn92

 

It's a funny thing... Seven years on after the groove rule change, we've had commenters in this very thread saying that the groove rule somehow screwed average recreational players. When in in fact the rule didn't affect the clubs in any recreational player's bag. And the USGA is going to simply review it in 2020, with no "ban" anticipated until 2024, and maybe (probably) more like "never." The only people who had to switch out clubs were Tour players (2010), then US Am participants and NCAA players (two years later). Per a Condition of Competition, not any Rule.

 

A complete myth, that the groove rule forced anyone to switch out any clubs. And by 2024, the old-standard clubs will be 14 years old or more.

 

I have asked this question more than once when you have brought this up. Please tell me which major manufacturer makes clubs with the old grooves. Nobody is forcing anybody to remove clubs from their bags. But, they have no choice when it is time to replace them. If you think new grooves spin as much as the old you are mistaken.

 

And for that matter, how in the world was anchoring a putter as big of an issue as it was made out to be. Admit it, they only changed it once anchored Putters won majors. Have you ever tried putting with one of those? It isn't exactly like it's an easy thing to get used to.

 

Believe it or not, the people at the USGA are prone to making mistakes just like any other human beings.

 

Hes quite talented and spewing propaganda. seriously I sometimes think he is posting from DC. Your points are dead on but dont expect an acceptable answer or one filled with facts.

[15th Club]

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I do not think the USGA will be able to find a solution that does not materially impact the average golfer if they attempt to roll back the ball at the upper echelon.

 

drn92

 

It's a funny thing... Seven years on after the groove rule change, we've had commenters in this very thread saying that the groove rule somehow screwed average recreational players. When in in fact the rule didn't affect the clubs in any recreational player's bag. And the USGA is going to simply review it in 2020, with no "ban" anticipated until 2024, and maybe (probably) more like "never." The only people who had to switch out clubs were Tour players (2010), then US Am participants and NCAA players (two years later). Per a Condition of Competition, not any Rule.

 

A complete myth, that the groove rule forced anyone to switch out any clubs. And by 2024, the old-standard clubs will be 14 years old or more.

 

I have asked this question more than once when you have brought this up. Please tell me which major manufacturer makes clubs with the old grooves. Nobody is forcing anybody to remove clubs from their bags. But, they have no choice when it is time to replace them. If you think new grooves spin as much as the old you are mistaken.

 

And for that matter, how in the world was anchoring a putter as big of an issue as it was made out to be. Admit it, they only changed it once anchored Putters won majors. Have you ever tried putting with one of those? It isn't exactly like it's an easy thing to get used to.

 

Believe it or not, the people at the USGA are prone to making mistakes just like any other human beings.

 

Yes, that is correct. When you buy new clubs now, the USGA has mandated that all newly-manufactured clubs be compliant with the new groove rule. I am sorry if I missed that earlier. I feel like I am carrying on about 30 different arguments at once here so it's hard for me to keep up. So now all golfers -- if they are buying compliant equipment -- buy new-configuration grooves. Again, as I have tried to point out, the recreational golfer didn't get screwed in that regard. All golfers buying new clubs are now getting new-form grooves. No single group of golfers is getting "screwed." And a golfer who plays with budget Surlyn balls won't notice any difference. Those balls didn't spin enough with the old square grooves to notice any difference with new grooves. Only people playing with urethane balls could possibly complain about getting screwed. And with grooves, that's not Joe Sixpack.

 

I agree with you to some extent; I do not think that the new grooves spin as much... with urethane balls. The USGA's testing found little difference in spin, with harder ionomer and surlyn and other balls. (The cheaper balls, that most recreational golfer buy as a matter of cost-saving choice.)

[buckeyefl]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls. there's no reason to take the golf course back that far either.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Liked. :yes:

 

And a special word about tree removal. Great courses all over -- Oakmont, Oakland Hills, Chicago GC, Garden City, Sleepy Hollow, etc., etc. -- have all engaged in tree removal programs that range from "drastic" to "moonscape." (Well not "moonscape"; more like "linkscape.")

 

They have done so on the sometimes unwelcome advice of guys like Gil Hanse and Tom Doak. Not to mention Rees Jones (a some-time Titleist contractor).

 

The removal of trees allows for better sunlight, better air circulation (for better turfgrass) and better sightlines as envisioned by the original designers. Those courses (like ANGC) all had few trees to begin with.

 

And trees actually have a bit of bearing on our current debate because trees were once seen as a bulwark to toughen courses as players got longer. Trees = more defense of the course. But trees were a hated means of defense, by the great artists of course design in the classic era. Trees were a non-issue at the Old Course, at Muirfield, at Dornoch; at all the great links. They are mostly a non-issue at NGLA, and CGC, and CPC.

 

We can play better golf, without all but the most minimal specimen trees. But we must make sure that courses don't get overwhelmed if defensive trees are gone. Another good reason for, and another good reason to consider why, a ball rollback makes sense.

 

Good luck with the recovery from that pulled muscle. Remember, warming up before stretching saves lives.

[buckeyefl]

I just looked it up and the members tees at ANGC are just over 6300 yards. And hasn't changed much in the entire history of the club. That is a very civilized length for most decent golfers. Many should play at less yardage.

 

The Toonamint is at 7400 and will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback.

 

So now you are the authority on the length of course good players should play. Follow it with you ridiculous, factless, emotion-based claim in the last sentence and you can see how many here have lost all respect for you. You seriously need to run for public office or maybe take up speech writing.

[15th Club]

I just looked it up and the members tees at ANGC are just over 6300 yards. And hasn't changed much in the entire history of the club. That is a very civilized length for most decent golfers. Many should play at less yardage.

 

The Toonamint is at 7400 and will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback.

 

So now you are the authority on the length of course good players should play. Follow it with you ridiculous, factless, emotion-based claim in the last sentence and you can see how many here have lost all respect for you. You seriously need to run for public office or maybe take up speech writing.

 

Sport, I don't care much for your attitude. What part of, the Augusta National Golf Club's tournament course "will be significantly longer in the future, especially without a ball rollback" is "factless" and "emotion-based"?

[klebs01]

When was the last time you guys played with wood drivers, 975Ds, or wound balls? Fresh wound balls aren’t really available, but I remember my distances from 2000, and play with wood woods and my old clubs for craps and giggles at times. The distance differences aren’t nearly what people in this thread make them out to be. Wood woods really aren’t hard to hit. The only ones losing by going back would be hackers.

[buckeyefl]

Stud I dont care what you think of my "attitude". I dont like how you claim to be the end-all authority while lying, distorting, zig-zagging and being dishonest.

 

You lie filled post above about the groove rules and then when called out your lie filled response say all that needs to be said about you. You have the same distasteful attitude as the organization you blindly worship. Sparky you and the Mike Davis types of the world do the game no favors if only from the level of arrogance you project to golfers and the perception of the public. Champ you will distort in any way necessary, just like the USGA, to get your way, all while being completely out of touch with the game. Your goal isnt to preserve and protect the game, its to get your way.

 

To answer your diversionary question, there is no tech, no trend, no facts on the horizon to suggest your chicken little claim. In the future try to separate emotion from fact. I dont think you are capable because exaggeration is your weapon of choice but we can all hope.

[15th Club]

Stud I dont care what you think of my "attitude". I dont like how you claim to be the end-all authority while lying, distorting, zig-zagging and being dishonest.

 

You lie filled post above about the grove rules and then when called out your lie filled response say all that needs to be said about you. You have the same distasteful attitude as the organization you blindly worship. Sparky you and the Mike Davis types of the world do the game no favors if only from the level of arrogance you project to golfers and the perception of the public. Champ you will distort in any way necessary, just like the USGA, to get your way, all while being completely out of touch with the game. Your goal isnt to preserve and protect the game, its to get your way.

 

You didn't answer the question: what was wrong with my sentence asserting that Augusta's length "will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback"?

 

I'm really trying to stick to the debate, and not your nasty ad hominem attacks.

[buckeyefl]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

Again for the hundredth time, you can simply let the current standard be the standard ( similar to the driver rules) and made up problem solved. But that not what 15th club want now is it?

[radiman]

When was the last time you guys played with wood drivers, 975Ds, or wound balls? Fresh wound balls aren’t really available, but I remember my distances from 2000, and play with wood woods and my old clubs for craps and giggles at times. The distance differences aren’t nearly what people in this thread make them out to be. Wood woods really aren’t hard to hit. The only ones losing by going back would be hackers.

 

I played in a persimmon open a couple years back. Old balatas, persimmon woods, and old blades from the 60's. I tell you what, it was a completely different game. I pured a 6 iron from about 1700 (30 yards shorter) and that was the highlight of the round. My swing did not mesh well with the woods and balls. They launched low and seemed to not carry at all. I definitely respected what was accomplished back in when this equipment was current. I wonder if that old equipment requires some swing tweets.

 

While fun, I'm not interested in doing that on the regular.

[tnord]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

actually, here's one fact that proves you're an idiot.

https://www.cbssport...par-4-5th-hole/

 

and here's another one that solidifies it.

https://www.usatoday...hole/549199001/

 

ANGC will continue to get bigger unless something is done. they're moving f****** roads for pete's sake.

[thug the bunny]

 

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

 

Just wow.

 

You may be brutally honest in telling everyone what your opinion is, but on this matter, that's all it is, your opinion. You absolutely do not know if you're correct or not. This is an opinion, idea, and theory driven argument. It's not a black and white issue that has one absolute correct answer. So you do not know if another viewpoint is flawed or not, just that is different from yours.

 

I remember when I was 20 and thought I knew everything too.

 

I am much older than 20 but thank you for the compliment! I would argue that I have the vast majority of golf consumers backing up my point of view, and I have several strong points that cannot be denied as legitimate and very strong. I feel pretty darn comfortable that my and manys points of view about the ball not needing a roll back. I feel like this is pretty black and white. I feel like this is math. I say 1+1 = 2, while you guys say 1+1 = 3.

 

"You guys"? Do you read all the posts? Before lumping people into either group it would be good to determine on which side of the fence they are standing on. For the record, which I've said in here, although not nearly as often as others, is I am against any rollbacks. But that is still just an opinion.

 

You have what you feel are strong points (and they very well might be), but it is still just an opinion. It's good that you feel strongly about it, and for the most part I agree with you. But it is not math, just the fact that you think you have the absolute correct opinion on it doesn't make it true.

 

I think it is cute when someone (I won't say youngster) thinks his opinion is fact. This debate is nowhere even close to a scientific experiment where variables are carefully controlled, and even then, conclusions are always expressed with a degree of uncertainty in trying to disprove the null hypothesis (that your conclusions might be due to mere chance). Clev needs to take some courses on statistics. Measure a 10 cm stick of wood, but use a measurement technique that can measure out to 5 decimal places using 100 different observers. Is the guy who came up with 10. 00152 cm "fact", or the guy who came up with 9.99998 cm a "fact"?

[radiman]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

actually, here's one fact that proves you're an idiot.

https://www.cbssport...par-4-5th-hole/

 

and here's another one that solidifies it.

https://www.usatoday...hole/549199001/

 

ANGC will continue to get bigger unless something is done. they're moving f****** roads for pete's sake.

 

Lol, that first article specifically states they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance gains. It says it's to alleviate congestion on two greens that after close to each other.

[buckeyefl]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

actually, here's one fact that proves you're an idiot.

https://www.cbssport...par-4-5th-hole/

 

and here's another one that solidifies it.

https://www.usatoday...hole/549199001/

 

ANGC will continue to get bigger unless something is done. they're moving f****** roads for pete's sake.

 

Lol, that first article specifically states they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance gains. It says it's to alleviate congestion on two greens that after close to each other.

 

Facts? How dare you!!!!!

[15th Club]

Here's the answer for you, "buckeyefl."

 

Yes, indeed; Augausta National is well underway with a complex series of property buyouts, city approval permit applications and private negotiations with Augusta Country Club, all with the transparent goal of cobbling together more real estate to add more yardage to the ANGC tournament course.

 

Let's start on the northwest side of the property, where the club has purchased a vast section (dozens of individual residential properties) opposite Berckmans Road. They use much of the land for Masters parking and staging. Now, owning so much of it they have petitioned the city to re-route the road, to stretch the Fifth tee backward, through what was the old fence and the Berckmans Road-bed, and build a new tee:

 

https://thegolfnewsn...th-hole-108455/

 

Next, let's go down to Amen corner, where they are clearly planning to stretch the 13th tee significantly backward and up the slope at Rae's Creek, into the area bounced by the Ninth fairway of Augusta Country Club:

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/leaked-letter-indicates-big-changes-could-be-coming-to-augusta-nationals-iconic-13th-hole

 

Now I wanted to be clear, that you were actually challenging me on this stuff, before I came back to rub this in, buckeyefl. This is all now common knowledge; old news in golf architecture circles. I am surprised that a smart-aleck like you didn't know it but now I've made it clear for you.

 

There could actually be some more course-lengthening plans for ANGC; I don't know. But what I do know is that they have already stretched and pulled the course almost to the limits of the property. They have little if any room to move the 1st and 10th tees, because of the clubhouse complex. 15 tee bumps into 11. And 15 green bumps into the pond at 16. 17 tee bumps into 5. Etc., etc.

 

Now, have you learned something? Like, that ANGC actually does have some amazingly expensive, complicated, active plans to lengthen the tournament course?

[15th Club]

lol. I see that as I was composing that last post, others were pulling up the same info even faster.

 

Not your night, buckeyefl. You should consider some time off.

[15th Club]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

actually, here's one fact that proves you're an idiot.

https://www.cbssport...par-4-5th-hole/

 

and here's another one that solidifies it.

https://www.usatoday...hole/549199001/

 

ANGC will continue to get bigger unless something is done. they're moving f****** roads for pete's sake.

 

Lol, that first article specifically states they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance gains. It says it's to alleviate congestion on two greens that after close to each other.

 

No, "they" didn't say that. If "they" is ANGC, they haven't said anything. And the CBSSports article absolutely does not say "specifically...[that] they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance."

 

And because I really like to grind on stuff like this, there is NO "spectator congestion" at 13. There's no gate down there. There are no spectators within 120 yards of the 13th tee. They are buying real estate to lengthen the hole, to combat golf ball distance. Purely, absolutely, 100%, with no other explanation.

 

You know those people who say, "I told you so?" I am one of those people. Sorry.

[radiman]

I did and its an empty claim. Baseless, factless, pointless unless you know of some super compound that is going to make the ball go farther. There isnt, you don't and that is the point. Its not an "attack" if its a fact. You are not sticking to the debate, you are voicing an opinion as fact at a minimum and distorting the truth ( lying) at worst.

 

actually, here's one fact that proves you're an idiot.

https://www.cbssport...par-4-5th-hole/

 

and here's another one that solidifies it.

https://www.usatoday...hole/549199001/

 

ANGC will continue to get bigger unless something is done. they're moving f****** roads for pete's sake.

 

Lol, that first article specifically states they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance gains. It says it's to alleviate congestion on two greens that after close to each other.

 

No, "they" didn't say that. If "they" is ANGC, they haven't said anything. And the CBSSports article absolutely does not say "specifically...[that] they aren't lengthening the hole because of distance."

 

And because I really like to grind on stuff like this, there is NO "spectator congestion" at 13. There's no gate down there. There are no spectators within 120 yards of the 13th tee. They are buying real estate to lengthen the hole, to combat golf ball distance. Purely, absolutely, 100%, with no other explanation.

 

You know those people who say, "I told you so?" I am one of those people. Sorry.

 

Dude was using it as proof. There was no said proof in that article.