Is Increasing Driving Distance Ruining the Pro Tours? (***CONTENTS UNDER MOD REVIEW***)

[chippa13]

Or they could just toss in a few more well placed sand or grass bunkers and/or narrow/reshape some fairways.

 

That is one approach: put in more penal design features on present courses. That approach takes driver out of the players' hands. If that is the game that you espouse, good for you, I guess. But historically, driver has been part of the game, and an important part at that. So, instead of lengthening courses, I vote for a roll back of some sort.

 

How is adding traps and the like out at the new landing distances taking driver out of players' hands any more than rolling back the ball to shorten their distances back to where the original traps and the like are?

 

"We need to roll back or lengthen courses because guys are driving clear of all the trouble."

"How about we just add a little trouble to the further landing areas? Return some of the risk/reward you say is missing from the game."

"Are you crazy, that takes driver out of their hands."

 

If the course plays relatively longer for the players (by rolling back equipment), they would have to play driver in order to have a playable shot to the green. By just adding more penal features to a course, the players will be apt to lay up, since they second shot to the green will not be much of a problem because the course is too short for their abilities.

 

Opt to lay up? You mean back where the original trouble is that they were driving over in the first place?

[buckeyefl]

Or they could just toss in a few more well placed sand or grass bunkers and/or narrow/reshape some fairways.

 

That is one approach: put in more penal design features on present courses. That approach takes driver out of the players' hands. If that is the game that you espouse, good for you, I guess. But historically, driver has been part of the game, and an important part at that. So, instead of lengthening courses, I vote for a roll back of some sort.

 

How is adding traps and the like out at the new landing distances taking driver out of players' hands any more than rolling back the ball to shorten their distances back to where the original traps and the like are?

 

"We need to roll back or lengthen courses because guys are driving clear of all the trouble."

"How about we just add a little trouble to the further landing areas? Return some of the risk/reward you say is missing from the game."

"Are you crazy, that takes driver out of their hands."

 

If the course plays relatively longer for the players (by rolling back equipment), they would have to play driver in order to have a playable shot to the green. By just adding more penal features to a course, the players will be apt to lay up, since they second shot to the green will not be much of a problem because the course is too short for their abilities.

 

Opt to lay up? You mean back where the original trouble is that they were driving over in the first place?

 

In his struggle to prove his non-point I think he got lost.

 

It doesn't take it out of anyone's hands, it makes it more risky. Huge difference. Also we are talking about a very tiny percentage of players. A well designed course SHOULD present some sort of decision off if the tee so I'm really not sure how you arrived at your conclusion.

 

In responding to his point how did you suddenly jump to lengthening courses?

 

Because the average player is now playing short second shots to greens (it's called bomb and gauge), golf course designers are going to be more apt to design new courses at longer lengths. Ie: Erin Hills which could be played at over 8,000 yards.

 

Keep chugging along Little Engine.

[buckeyefl]

Or they could just toss in a few more well placed sand or grass bunkers and/or narrow/reshape some fairways.

 

That is one approach: put in more penal design features on present courses. That approach takes driver out of the players' hands. If that is the game that you espouse, good for you, I guess. But historically, driver has been part of the game, and an important part at that. So, instead of lengthening courses, I vote for a roll back of some sort.

 

How is adding traps and the like out at the new landing distances taking driver out of players' hands any more than rolling back the ball to shorten their distances back to where the original traps and the like are?

 

"We need to roll back or lengthen courses because guys are driving clear of all the trouble."

"How about we just add a little trouble to the further landing areas? Return some of the risk/reward you say is missing from the game."

"Are you crazy, that takes driver out of their hands."

 

If the course plays relatively longer for the players (by rolling back equipment), they would have to play driver in order to have a playable shot to the green. By just adding more penal features to a course, the players will be apt to lay up, since they second shot to the green will not be much of a problem because the course is too short for their abilities.

 

Keep trying. Why would you hold the golf world hostage because a few players hit the ball longer than most? You are old enough to know that there always has been and always will be long hitters.

 

It seems from your ridiculous comments that you PREFER bomb and gouge given your completely inaccurate and illogical idea that golfers must hit driver off of every tee. Some of the greatest holes in the world are short par 4's because they give players options and risk and reward.

[DFS PFD]

Speaking of bomb and gouge, this BMW tournament looks like a real test!

[Shilgy]

Or they could just toss in a few more well placed sand or grass bunkers and/or narrow/reshape some fairways.

 

That is one approach: put in more penal design features on present courses. That approach takes driver out of the players' hands. If that is the game that you espouse, good for you, I guess. But historically, driver has been part of the game, and an important part at that. So, instead of lengthening courses, I vote for a roll back of some sort.

 

How is adding traps and the like out at the new landing distances taking driver out of players' hands any more than rolling back the ball to shorten their distances back to where the original traps and the like are?

 

"We need to roll back or lengthen courses because guys are driving clear of all the trouble."

"How about we just add a little trouble to the further landing areas? Return some of the risk/reward you say is missing from the game."

"Are you crazy, that takes driver out of their hands."

 

If the course plays relatively longer for the players (by rolling back equipment), they would have to play driver in order to have a playable shot to the green. By just adding more penal features to a course, the players will be apt to lay up, since they second shot to the green will not be much of a problem because the course is too short for their abilities.

 

Keep trying. Why would you hold the golf world hostage because a few players hit the ball longer than most? You are old enough to know that there always has been and always will be long hitters.

 

It seems from your ridiculous comments that you PREFER bomb and gouge given your completely inaccurate and illogical idea that golfers must hit driver off of every tee. Some of the greatest holes in the world are short par 4's because they give players options and risk and reward.

But he just said even the average player is too long to play golf. Guess it's not just the 0.001% anymore.

[Shilgy]

Speaking of bomb and gouge, this BMW tournament looks like a real test!

Does a low score matter? We have been told for 125 pages that score does not matter.

 

Did you know the pros are good players? 7,237 yards. Par 70 course rating 74.4. So the leaders are 10+ better than the course rating. Does that mean the rating is wrong? Does that mean the course is too easy? Does that mean the players are really good? Did you know Johnny Miller once shot 63 in a US Open? The best golf I ever saw played was Johnny in the desert in the 70's. Back to back weeks at -24 and -25. won by 14 one week and 9 the next. Was there a hue and cry on SnailNailWRX back then that the course was too easy? And too short? And not enough drivers hit? And too many wedges?

 

Trevor Story hit a 505 foot home run last night. Do they need softer wood in the bat? Softer baseballs?

[DFS PFD]

Speaking of bomb and gouge, this BMW tournament looks like a real test!

Does a low score matter? We have been told for 125 pages that score does not matter.

 

Did you know the pros are good players? 7,237 yards. Par 70 course rating 74.4. So the leaders are 10+ better than the course rating. Does that mean the rating is wrong? Does that mean the course is too easy? Does that mean the players are really good? Did you know Johnny Miller once shot 63 in a US Open? The best golf I ever saw played was Johnny in the desert in the 70's. Back to back weeks at -24 and -25. won by 14 one week and 9 the next. Was there a hue and cry on SnailNailWRX back then that the course was too easy? And too short? And not enough drivers hit? And too many wedges?

 

Trevor Story hit a 505 foot home run last night. Do they need softer wood in the bat? Softer baseballs?

I don't disagree Shilgy, I was just instigating Buckeye for fun.

[buckeyefl]

swing and a miss

[RedWings1]

After watching all of Rory's tee shot replays last night and now seeing him rip another. Yes, he bombs it but...

 

The real issue is the hardness of the fairways, not jus the ball. It's a combo of everything!

 

What they should do, an do, and is the least disruptive to all golfers I dial back the hardness and speed of the fairways. It's ridiculous seeing the ball roll out 30, 40 & 50 yards after landing and then hear somebody blame the ball! I'm guessing here but I'd put money on it that most all of us play course where we get 10 yards roll. I fly my drives an average of 290. Most the time it hits and backs up a yard. It's all about the supreme conditions these guys play on in my opinion.

[clevited]

After watching all of Rory's tee shot replays last night and now seeing him rip another. Yes, he bombs it but...

 

The real issue is the hardness of the fairways, not jus the ball. It's a combo of everything!

 

What they should do, an do, and is the least disruptive to all golfers I dial back the hardness and speed of the fairways. It's ridiculous seeing the ball roll out 30, 40 & 50 yards after landing and then hear somebody blame the ball! I'm guessing here but I'd put money on it that most all of us play course where we get 10 yards roll. I fly my drives an average of 290. Most the time it hits and backs up a yard. It's all about the supreme conditions these guys play on in my opinion.

 

Its been raining so much here all summer that my best drives make a ball mark and stop in less than a foot on the fairway. I hit low spin high launch shots too and even that doesn't go anywhere once it lands. I have played courses during dry times and the difference is amazing. Change of nearly 50 yards on my best shots on some of those holes.

[gvogel]

 

 

Keep chugging along Little Engine.

 

Why don't you stop being demeaning to people with an opinion different from yours.

[clevited]

This guy gets it and summarizes things pretty well I think.

 

http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/golf-ball-distance-debate/

[gvogel]

This guy gets it and summarizes things pretty well I think.

 

http://www.golfcours...istance-debate/

 

I read the article, and the article talks about the average golfer. It does not address the distance problem on the Tour, unless his solution for the Tour is to play much longer golf courses.

 

For guys like me - I get it, we don't hit the ball long enough. I can score in the mid-70's on a course at 5800 to 5900 yards, but at 6,200 to 6,300 yards I can't because I am faced with some par 4's where I can't quite reach the green, and the par 3's are 7-woods and 4-woods. And most of the guys that I play with in our league don't hit it as far as i do, except a few of the younger guys who hit the bejesus out of the ball. But they are in the woods or a hazard off the tee two or three times in 9 holes. Pity.

 

We certainly don't need a ball roll back. (Or if that happens, we really need to move up to the senior tees.)

 

But this thread is about the pro tours, where the game has changed fundamentally due to a combination of equipment, equipment fitting, and stronger players.

 

Next year they are going to play the US Open at Pebble Beach. I contend right now that Pebble Beach is really too short to host a national championship. Here are the holes where the players might hit driver: 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18. That is only seven holes out of the 14 holes that are not par 3's. I contend that the golf course will play fundamentally different than it did when Nicklaus won there in '72, Watson won there in '82 and Kite in '92. It is going to play effectively much shorter than it did for those national championships.

 

So the debate is all about how the golfer is tested, and our judgement of whether an effectively shorter course can produce the best champion as opposed to the best putting champion.

 

It will be darned interesting to see how Pebble Beach plays out. Maybe the weather sucks and makes the course play more difficult. Maybe it doesn't, and the only way for the USGA to protect par is to grow the rough and shave the greens - which are conditions that they do not advocate for every day play.

 

You might say that the modern game has out grown Pebble Beach, just as the modern game out grew Prestwick and Royal Cinque Ports. But I would counter and ask: where could you find another more wonderful setting for a golf course like Pebble?

 

So the debate goes on.

[buckeyefl]

No this thread is most certainly about everyday golfers when it main contributor and the ruling bodies pushing for a ball change that will effect everyone.

 

To your point, no course is too short as every player plays the same course.

 

The tour should not ever be the proving ground for changes to the game as the USGA has shown over and over again.

[clevited]

This guy gets it and summarizes things pretty well I think.

 

http://www.golfcours...istance-debate/

 

I read the article, and the article talks about the average golfer. It does not address the distance problem on the Tour, unless his solution for the Tour is to play much longer golf courses.

 

For guys like me - I get it, we don't hit the ball long enough. I can score in the mid-70's on a course at 5800 to 5900 yards, but at 6,200 to 6,300 yards I can't because I am faced with some par 4's where I can't quite reach the green, and the par 3's are 7-woods and 4-woods. And most of the guys that I play with in our league don't hit it as far as i do, except a few of the younger guys who hit the bejesus out of the ball. But they are in the woods or a hazard off the tee two or three times in 9 holes. Pity.

 

We certainly don't need a ball roll back. (Or if that happens, we really need to move up to the senior tees.)

 

But this thread is about the pro tours, where the game has changed fundamentally due to a combination of equipment, equipment fitting, and stronger players.

 

Next year they are going to play the US Open at Pebble Beach. I contend right now that Pebble Beach is really too short to host a national championship. Here are the holes where the players might hit driver: 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18. That is only seven holes out of the 14 holes that are not par 3's. I contend that the golf course will play fundamentally different than it did when Nicklaus won there in '72, Watson won there in '82 and Kite in '92. It is going to play effectively much shorter than it did for those national championships.

 

So the debate is all about how the golfer is tested, and our judgement of whether an effectively shorter course can produce the best champion as opposed to the best putting champion.

 

It will be darned interesting to see how Pebble Beach plays out. Maybe the weather sucks and makes the course play more difficult. Maybe it doesn't, and the only way for the USGA to protect par is to grow the rough and shave the greens - which are conditions that they do not advocate for every day play.

 

You might say that the modern game has out grown Pebble Beach, just as the modern game out grew Prestwick and Royal Cinque Ports. But I would counter and ask: where could you find another more wonderful setting for a golf course like Pebble?

 

So the debate goes on.

 

I think if you read again, he addresses everything that needs addressing including your points.

 

[buckeyefl]

But hes no Shack!

 

 

Jeffrey D. Brauer is a veteran golf course architect responsible for more than 50 new courses and more than 100 renovations. A member and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, he is president of Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas. Reach him at [email protected].

 

 

Geoff Shackelford

 

Author

 

 

One deals in theory and the other, well, he's a writer.

Jeffrey D. Brauer is a veteran golf course architect responsible for more than 50 new courses and more than 100 renovations. A member and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, he is president of Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas. Reach him at [email protected].

[Shilgy]

Gvogel, Pebble plays differently than in the past. True. Greens are faster and firmer. And the course plays effectively shorter.

 

If you wish to call it a problem the issue send to me the additional equipment. In the past Watson's chip would have been played with a 56° sand wedge. Today to faster, and usually firmer, greens he would use a 60°.

On the other end of the bag the new longer, both in length of club and distance covered, was added. So rather than bemoan the fact driver is only hit a certain number of times be glad that the new tee club is only able to be used a few times and the driver, today's 3 wood, is used on the balance of holes.

[rangersgoalie]

This guy gets it and summarizes things pretty well I think.

 

http://www.golfcours...istance-debate/

 

I read the article, and the article talks about the average golfer. It does not address the distance problem on the Tour, unless his solution for the Tour is to play much longer golf courses.

 

For guys like me - I get it, we don't hit the ball long enough. I can score in the mid-70's on a course at 5800 to 5900 yards, but at 6,200 to 6,300 yards I can't because I am faced with some par 4's where I can't quite reach the green, and the par 3's are 7-woods and 4-woods. And most of the guys that I play with in our league don't hit it as far as i do, except a few of the younger guys who hit the bejesus out of the ball. But they are in the woods or a hazard off the tee two or three times in 9 holes. Pity.

 

We certainly don't need a ball roll back. (Or if that happens, we really need to move up to the senior tees.)

 

But this thread is about the pro tours, where the game has changed fundamentally due to a combination of equipment, equipment fitting, and stronger players.

 

Next year they are going to play the US Open at Pebble Beach. I contend right now that Pebble Beach is really too short to host a national championship. Here are the holes where the players might hit driver: 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18. That is only seven holes out of the 14 holes that are not par 3's. I contend that the golf course will play fundamentally different than it did when Nicklaus won there in '72, Watson won there in '82 and Kite in '92. It is going to play effectively much shorter than it did for those national championships.

 

So the debate is all about how the golfer is tested, and our judgement of whether an effectively shorter course can produce the best champion as opposed to the best putting champion.

 

It will be darned interesting to see how Pebble Beach plays out. Maybe the weather sucks and makes the course play more difficult. Maybe it doesn't, and the only way for the USGA to protect par is to grow the rough and shave the greens - which are conditions that they do not advocate for every day play.

 

You might say that the modern game has out grown Pebble Beach, just as the modern game out grew Prestwick and Royal Cinque Ports. But I would counter and ask: where could you find another more wonderful setting for a golf course like Pebble?

 

So the debate goes on.

This guy gets it and summarizes things pretty well I think.

 

http://www.golfcours...istance-debate/

 

I read the article, and the article talks about the average golfer. It does not address the distance problem on the Tour, unless his solution for the Tour is to play much longer golf courses.

 

For guys like me - I get it, we don't hit the ball long enough. I can score in the mid-70's on a course at 5800 to 5900 yards, but at 6,200 to 6,300 yards I can't because I am faced with some par 4's where I can't quite reach the green, and the par 3's are 7-woods and 4-woods. And most of the guys that I play with in our league don't hit it as far as i do, except a few of the younger guys who hit the bejesus out of the ball. But they are in the woods or a hazard off the tee two or three times in 9 holes. Pity.

 

We certainly don't need a ball roll back. (Or if that happens, we really need to move up to the senior tees.)

 

But this thread is about the pro tours, where the game has changed fundamentally due to a combination of equipment, equipment fitting, and stronger players.

 

Next year they are going to play the US Open at Pebble Beach. I contend right now that Pebble Beach is really too short to host a national championship. Here are the holes where the players might hit driver: 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18. That is only seven holes out of the 14 holes that are not par 3's. I contend that the golf course will play fundamentally different than it did when Nicklaus won there in '72, Watson won there in '82 and Kite in '92. It is going to play effectively much shorter than it did for those national championships.

 

So the debate is all about how the golfer is tested, and our judgement of whether an effectively shorter course can produce the best champion as opposed to the best putting champion.

 

It will be darned interesting to see how Pebble Beach plays out. Maybe the weather sucks and makes the course play more difficult. Maybe it doesn't, and the only way for the USGA to protect par is to grow the rough and shave the greens - which are conditions that they do not advocate for every day play.

 

You might say that the modern game has out grown Pebble Beach, just as the modern game out grew Prestwick and Royal Cinque Ports. But I would counter and ask: where could you find another more wonderful setting for a golf course like Pebble?

 

So the debate goes on.

 

Fwiw, I was able to play Pebble in tournaments ranging from the California Am through a few bigger events, starting in the mid 80’s thru 1997

I hit driver on 2,6,9,10,13,14,15, and 18

I naturally hit a draw back then, or likely would have been 3 wood on 15

At best, middle of pack distance fwiw

[rangersgoalie]

I should add,

I assume the layup holes are likely attacked with shorter clubs off the tee?

[Shilgy]

From the latest posts here what I don't get...

 

We used to think a great layout made you think. Off the tee don't just blindly blast driver but perhaps a long iron or fairway wood.

 

Now it's "proof" distance has run amok if the lads don't use driver every hole?

[buckeyefl]

I've been thinking the same after reading recent posts. The mental gymnastics and goalpost moving is impressive.

[clevited]

I agree, it seems like the reasons something is a problem keeps bouncing from contradictory idea to contradictory idea.

[15th Club]

Did all of you realize that this is the second time that Jeff Brauer's column from the industry publication "Golf Course Industry," has appeared in this long thread?

 

I am respectfully acquainted with Jeff from Ran Morissett's wonderful commercial-free website Golf Club Atlas, and a number of their social events.

 

Now, on to the specifics, or lack therof, in Jeff Brauer's column from last spring. Jeff tries to categorize rollback proponents as follows:

 

For proponents of a roll back, much of reality is ignored –

• Basing the distance debate on the top 25 to 50 longest hitters in the world skews the argument horribly. The pros have influenced course design towards longer and harder courses. Too many design discussions drift to the subject of, “Would the pros tear this course up?”, even on the design of easy peasy municipal courses. Worse yet, sometimes those thoughts become actions, even though the pros are never, ever, going to show up.
  
• 99% of courses don’t need major changes to accommodate either every day play, or even lower level tournaments, were length is held down to protect the bottom half of the field.
  
• 99% of America’s 15,000 courses do vitally need to keep and attract players, while about 1% (about 150) of America’s course want to, but can’t, host tournaments solely due to their length.
  
• The same distance study that started this round of arguments also showed average golfers losing length. Most courses ought to be thinking in terms of adjusting middle and forward tees.
  

 

Sorry, Jeff. We are not ignoring any reality. We are not basing anything at all on the yardages of the 25 or 50 longest hitters in the world. The question goes to all of elite-level golf. Top amateur play, NCAA play, etc. Not just the PGA Tour, and not just the longest of the long on the PGA Tour.

 

Jeff says 99% of courses don't need renovations to combat modern technologically-aided distance. That may or may not be true. I suspect that there are a number of very old courses that are effectively distance-limited even for high level recreational play. But whatever; for most recreational golfers, the ProV era hasn't given them a whole lot, and the end of that era won't take away a whole lot. So, no big deal.

 

Jeff talks about how 99% of golf courses need to attract more golfers. Uh, okay. What is the rest of that point? Are we supposed to take it on faith that a ball rollback will somehow hurt the 99% of golf courses seeking to attract more golfers? Since there is no current rollback proposal to even debate, what is the basis for such an argument? What makes anyone think that a ball rollback, of some unknown terms and design, will hurt the attraction of golfers and golf business?

 

Lastly, Jeff Brauer seemingly talks about encouraging golfers to play more forward tees, and for golf course operators to also encourage play from shorter tees. But that is what the USGA and Jack Nicklaus have been saying for years. People should re-think their golf. People ought to consider the joys of golf on a 5800-yard course with clever strategy, and forget about play from 7200 yards. I actually think that many devoted golfers have already caught on to that, and that the gigantic newsmaking event that a ball rollback will no doubt be, will continue that positive direction.

 

Brauer pays a bit of lip service to the links courses of the British Open rota. He seems to want to make the point that the rota has changed over the years, with Prestwick, Cinque Ports and Musselborough out of the rota. But that doesn't work for the Old Course, which should never be (and, I dare say, will never be) abandoned as an Open site. And just as true is the fact that all of the current rota courses have all been rather drastically pushed to their limits in terms of length and adaptation to distance in the ProV era.

 

Jeff Brauer claims to believe that the USGA and the R&A have committed to further study and discussion of the ball/distance issue as "a stall tactic." That is a rather remarkable accusation, and I invite Mr. Brauer to come here and defend his belief. It is a pretty serious allegation; that all of the current work by the governing bodies is being conducted in bad faith and as a sham device to stall until... what, exactly?

 

I also invite him to explain what he means by "bifurcating" golf courses. He says that he is opposed to bifurcating golf ball standards. That is not a terribly controversial position to take. I am myself opposed to bifurcating the Rules. So is the USGA, led by Mike Davis rather strenuously in that regard. So is Acushnet, the holder of the ProV 1 patents and market share, and the most activist commercial force in golf opposed to any ball rollback. Being opposed to bifurcating equipment rules is a widely-held notion, by the purists on both sides of the rollback debate.

 

But how to make any sense out of Jeff Brauer's column? He doesn't want an equipment bifurcation, but he writes that golfers "want and need longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs to ease their golf struggles." Which is it? Bifurcation, or not? If not, will golf equipment manufacturers continue to produce the "longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs"? What will that equipment do, in the hands of elite-level players?

 

I'd be very interested in Jeff Brauer's answers to those questions.

[tannyhoban]

But hes no Shack!

 

 

Jeffrey D. Brauer is a veteran golf course architect responsible for more than 50 new courses and more than 100 renovations. A member and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, he is president of Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas. Reach him at [email protected].

 

 

Geoff Shackelford

 

Author

 

 

One deals in theory and the other, well, he's a writer.

Jeffrey D. Brauer is a veteran golf course architect responsible for more than 50 new courses and more than 100 renovations. A member and past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, he is president of Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas. Reach him at [email protected].

 

Thank gawd. We dont need the one we got.

[tannyhoban]

Did all of you realize that this is the second time that Jeff Brauer's column from the industry publication "Golf Course Industry," has appeared in this long thread?

 

I am respectfully acquainted with Jeff from Ran Morissett's wonderful commercial-free website Golf Club Atlas, and a number of their social events.

 

Now, on to the specifics, or lack therof, in Jeff Brauer's column from last spring. Jeff tries to categorize rollback proponents as follows:

 

For proponents of a roll back, much of reality is ignored –

• Basing the distance debate on the top 25 to 50 longest hitters in the world skews the argument horribly. The pros have influenced course design towards longer and harder courses. Too many design discussions drift to the subject of, “Would the pros tear this course up?”, even on the design of easy peasy municipal courses. Worse yet, sometimes those thoughts become actions, even though the pros are never, ever, going to show up.
  
• 99% of courses don’t need major changes to accommodate either every day play, or even lower level tournaments, were length is held down to protect the bottom half of the field.
  
• 99% of America’s 15,000 courses do vitally need to keep and attract players, while about 1% (about 150) of America’s course want to, but can’t, host tournaments solely due to their length.
  
• The same distance study that started this round of arguments also showed average golfers losing length. Most courses ought to be thinking in terms of adjusting middle and forward tees.
  

 

Sorry, Jeff. We are not ignoring any reality. We are not basing anything at all on the yardages of the 25 or 50 longest hitters in the world. The question goes to all of elite-level golf. Top amateur play, NCAA play, etc. Not just the PGA Tour, and not just the longest of the long on the PGA Tour.

 

Jeff says 99% of courses don't need renovations to combat modern technologically-aided distance. That may or may not be true. I suspect that there are a number of very old courses that are effectively distance-limited even for high level recreational play. But whatever; for most recreational golfers, the ProV era hasn't given them a whole lot, and the end of that era won't take away a whole lot. So, no big deal.

 

Jeff talks about how 99% of golf courses need to attract more golfers. Uh, okay. What is the rest of that point? Are we supposed to take it on faith that a ball rollback will somehow hurt the 99% of golf courses seeking to attract more golfers? Since there is no current rollback proposal to even debate, what is the basis for such an argument? What makes anyone think that a ball rollback, of some unknown terms and design, will hurt the attraction of golfers and golf business?

 

Lastly, Jeff Brauer seemingly talks about encouraging golfers to play more forward tees, and for golf course operators to also encourage play from shorter tees. But that is what the USGA and Jack Nicklaus have been saying for years. People should re-think their golf. People ought to consider the joys of golf on a 5800-yard course with clever strategy, and forget about play from 7200 yards. I actually think that many devoted golfers have already caught on to that, and that the gigantic newsmaking event that a ball rollback will no doubt be, will continue that positive direction.

 

Brauer pays a bit of lip service to the links courses of the British Open rota. He seems to want to make the point that the rota has changed over the years, with Prestwick, Cinque Ports and Musselborough out of the rota. But that doesn't work for the Old Course, which should never be (and, I dare say, will never be) abandoned as an Open site. And just as true is the fact that all of the current rota courses have all been rather drastically pushed to their limits in terms of length and adaptation to distance in the ProV era.

 

Jeff Brauer claims to believe that the USGA and the R&A have committed to further study and discussion of the ball/distance issue as "a stall tactic." That is a rather remarkable accusation, and I invite Mr. Brauer to come here and defend his belief. It is a pretty serious allegation; that all of the current work by the governing bodies is being conducted in bad faith and as a sham device to stall until... what, exactly?

 

I also invite him to explain what he means by "bifurcating" golf courses. He says that he is opposed to bifurcating golf ball standards. That is not a terribly controversial position to take. I am myself opposed to bifurcating the Rules. So is the USGA, led by Mike Davis rather strenuously in that regard. So is Acushnet, the holder of the ProV 1 patents and market share, and the most activist commercial force in golf opposed to any ball rollback. Being opposed to bifurcating equipment rules is a widely-held notion, by the purists on both sides of the rollback debate.

 

But how to make any sense out of Jeff Brauer's column? He doesn't want an equipment bifurcation, but he writes that golfers "want and need longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs to ease their golf struggles." Which is it? Bifurcation, or not? If not, will golf equipment manufacturers continue to produce the "longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs"? What will that equipment do, in the hands of elite-level players?

 

I'd be very interested in Jeff Brauer's answers to those questions.

 

 

Look here, Jeff has it right for 99 percent of golfers. Take your 1% and do whatever the f*** you want. But dont try to impact the 99 percent who actually pay the freight.

[15th Club]

Look here, Jeff has it right for 99 percent of golfers. Take your 1% and do whatever the f*** you want. But dont try to impact the 99 percent who actually pay the freight.

 

That's not Brauer's argument. And it isn't Titleist's argument. Neither one wants any bifurcation.

[radiman]

If not, will golf equipment manufacturers continue to produce the "longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs"? What will that equipment do, in the hands of elite-level players?

 

I'd be very interested in Jeff Brauer's answers to those questions.

 

Elite players are still playing demanding irons that allow them to shape their shots.

 

The ball isn't getting easier to hit. That's not why the distance has increased. It's a slight increase in the AVERAGE distance produced by a very small percentage of the golfing population. Younger, stronger, and faster players are skewing the numbers. Folks like you are just trying to jump on this slight increase to rollback. It's been a desire for some time, just needed a reason to put all the cards on the table and make the big push.

[15th Club]

If not, will golf equipment manufacturers continue to produce the "longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs"? What will that equipment do, in the hands of elite-level players?

 

I'd be very interested in Jeff Brauer's answers to those questions.

 

Elite players are still playing demanding irons that allow them to shape their shots.

 

The ball isn't getting easier to hit. That's not why the distance has increased. It's a slight increase in the AVERAGE distance produced by a very small percentage of the golfing population. Younger, stronger, and faster players are skewing the numbers. Folks like you are just trying to jump on this slight increase to rollback. It's been a desire for some time, just needed a reason to put all the cards on the table and make the big push.

 

We don't even have to debate those details. Jeff Brauer wants there to be continuing improvements and advances in equipment. Let's forget about irons and just say, "Balls that go higher and farther, and drivers that are more forgiving and with which you can swing harder and hit farther." Ask any recreational golfer if he wants equipment that will help him hit golf balls farther and straighter. You know what the answer will be. Those recreational players will pay for such equipment. Ask a Tour golfer if he is interested in balls that go farther and drivers that are more forgiving. He'll be just as interested.

 

These aren't oddball concepts. An entire industry is devoted to building better equipment that pushes the boundaries of the Rules of Golf. They are doing exactly what we are talking about.

 

And the only governor on all of that machinery are the ruling bodies of golf.

 

Jeff Brauer says that he wants to see more and more technological advances in golf equipment (to help recreational golfers and consequently boost the business of golf and golf course operators). But he does not want to bifurcate any of the Rules. I don't see how those things square with each other. Because whatever technological advances go to recreational golfers, they'll be going to elites as well.

[buckeyefl]

Did all of you realize that this is the second time that Jeff Brauer's column from the industry publication "Golf Course Industry," has appeared in this long thread?

 

I am respectfully acquainted with Jeff from Ran Morissett's wonderful commercial-free website Golf Club Atlas, and a number of their social events.

 

Now, on to the specifics, or lack therof, in Jeff Brauer's column from last spring. Jeff tries to categorize rollback proponents as follows:

 

For proponents of a roll back, much of reality is ignored –

• Basing the distance debate on the top 25 to 50 longest hitters in the world skews the argument horribly. The pros have influenced course design towards longer and harder courses. Too many design discussions drift to the subject of, “Would the pros tear this course up?”, even on the design of easy peasy municipal courses. Worse yet, sometimes those thoughts become actions, even though the pros are never, ever, going to show up.
  
• 99% of courses don’t need major changes to accommodate either every day play, or even lower level tournaments, were length is held down to protect the bottom half of the field.
  
• 99% of America’s 15,000 courses do vitally need to keep and attract players, while about 1% (about 150) of America’s course want to, but can’t, host tournaments solely due to their length.
  
• The same distance study that started this round of arguments also showed average golfers losing length. Most courses ought to be thinking in terms of adjusting middle and forward tees.
  

 

Sorry, Jeff. We are not ignoring any reality. We are not basing anything at all on the yardages of the 25 or 50 longest hitters in the world. The question goes to all of elite-level golf. Top amateur play, NCAA play, etc. Not just the PGA Tour, and not just the longest of the long on the PGA Tour.

 

Jeff says 99% of courses don't need renovations to combat modern technologically-aided distance. That may or may not be true. I suspect that there are a number of very old courses that are effectively distance-limited even for high level recreational play. But whatever; for most recreational golfers, the ProV era hasn't given them a whole lot, and the end of that era won't take away a whole lot. So, no big deal.

 

Jeff talks about how 99% of golf courses need to attract more golfers. Uh, okay. What is the rest of that point? Are we supposed to take it on faith that a ball rollback will somehow hurt the 99% of golf courses seeking to attract more golfers? Since there is no current rollback proposal to even debate, what is the basis for such an argument? What makes anyone think that a ball rollback, of some unknown terms and design, will hurt the attraction of golfers and golf business?

 

Lastly, Jeff Brauer seemingly talks about encouraging golfers to play more forward tees, and for golf course operators to also encourage play from shorter tees. But that is what the USGA and Jack Nicklaus have been saying for years. People should re-think their golf. People ought to consider the joys of golf on a 5800-yard course with clever strategy, and forget about play from 7200 yards. I actually think that many devoted golfers have already caught on to that, and that the gigantic newsmaking event that a ball rollback will no doubt be, will continue that positive direction.

 

Brauer pays a bit of lip service to the links courses of the British Open rota. He seems to want to make the point that the rota has changed over the years, with Prestwick, Cinque Ports and Musselborough out of the rota. But that doesn't work for the Old Course, which should never be (and, I dare say, will never be) abandoned as an Open site. And just as true is the fact that all of the current rota courses have all been rather drastically pushed to their limits in terms of length and adaptation to distance in the ProV era.

 

Jeff Brauer claims to believe that the USGA and the R&A have committed to further study and discussion of the ball/distance issue as "a stall tactic." That is a rather remarkable accusation, and I invite Mr. Brauer to come here and defend his belief. It is a pretty serious allegation; that all of the current work by the governing bodies is being conducted in bad faith and as a sham device to stall until... what, exactly?

 

I also invite him to explain what he means by "bifurcating" golf courses. He says that he is opposed to bifurcating golf ball standards. That is not a terribly controversial position to take. I am myself opposed to bifurcating the Rules. So is the USGA, led by Mike Davis rather strenuously in that regard. So is Acushnet, the holder of the ProV 1 patents and market share, and the most activist commercial force in golf opposed to any ball rollback. Being opposed to bifurcating equipment rules is a widely-held notion, by the purists on both sides of the rollback debate.

 

But how to make any sense out of Jeff Brauer's column? He doesn't want an equipment bifurcation, but he writes that golfers "want and need longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs to ease their golf struggles." Which is it? Bifurcation, or not? If not, will golf equipment manufacturers continue to produce the "longer, higher flying easier to hit golf balls and forgiving clubs"? What will that equipment do, in the hands of elite-level players?

 

I'd be very interested in Jeff Brauer's answers to those questions.

 

Insanity on display for the world.

 

Same old same old.

Lie

Distort

Cherry pick

Put elitism on display

Play dumb

Claim to be a victim

 

Rinse and repeat.

[clevited]

I thought it was pretty clear that Mr. Brauer wasn't being literal about increasing performance for the majority of golfers, he was merely saying if anything should change, that is a need, therefore going backwards with a ball rollback or anything else is insanity. This Brauer guy seems quite intelligent compared to another writer I am aware of. The other writer is full of hot air, emotion and lacks quite a lot of analytical intelligence. He should not be allowed to speak imo. But that is just because I really dislike who he is, what he represents, what he says, how he says it, how disgustingly uppity he acts.....I could go on and on and on. Brauer at least speaks on the level, and uses logic and intelligence to plainly state what has been plainly obvious to most in here. Others quote and support rants of a DB that doesn't represent golf in any way, shape or form and should shut his mouth as his spread of misinformation and bs is appalling.

 

I can rant too Shackletwit.