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

[gvogel]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

[clevited]

As I have alluded to many many times. There are many guys on tour with Champs ability. This is nothing new. You just happen to be seeing one that happens to have the other pieces as well. If you pay attention, most golf courses reign in drives that are as far as Champs. If you look at some of the more recent really long guys their ball speeds dropped once on tour. Do you think it is because they suddenly got old? Is it because they hurt themselves? No, its because they need to gain more control to do well. Lots of pro's have done this. Bubba Watson and Gary Woodland come to mind. Bubba started using a shorter driver, and enlarged the grip, and Gary was at least at the time of the article I read using very heavy driver shafts to help him. You can be the longest of long, that is great, but a ball in the air for 9 seconds and landing over 300 yards isn't always as beneficial as it sounds. I know this for a fact, I don't hit it quite as far as Champ, but I am close when I am having a good day. I have my ball flight maximized and on a good day, I can hit my target, but even the slightest breeze can knock your ball into deep rough, or make it be behind a tree, or in a bunker or what have you. The ball lands and bounds forward more unpredictably too if you don't have spin on the ball. If you hit a bumpy fairway it might bound into deep rough. Sometimes you can bomb and gouge other times the ball is sitting down and you are trying to plan for a flyer.

 

Most golf courses limit distance, or the benefit of distance very naturally. Golf course type mix, is important on tour. I guarantee you Champ will be toning it down over the long run on tour. He could stick with his current game plan but I would be willing to bet it will only help him win here and there. If he tones it down and keeps improving on the many other aspects of being a successful tour player, he can be every bit as successful as any other player out there. Distance gets watered down at a certain point. I don't feel like Champ is going to have much more success then DJ for instance, unless he is absolutely robotic with all other aspects of his game. His distance certainly isn't going to do much more for him than it does DJ.

[bladehunter]

It's amazing watching all of the hype over Champs wedge game this week at Sanderson Farms. The announcers, fans and even this forum are abuzz With his control and accuracy from 120 yards and in. I haven't seen hype like this since Hank Kuehne, Tiger, Bubba or Daly hit the scene with their crowd pleasing wedges and putting.

 

It's really crazy how much people get hyped about how accurate pros short games are these days.

 

I feel like it's rare to see distance and touch. DJ wasn't always a great wedge player. When someone has the complete package, it's fun to watch. I know it's early in his career, but Cameron Champ has nowhere to go but up. As he improves, he's going to light the tour up.

 

i saw him miss plenty of greens day 3 with wedges..Im not sure where the "great wedge game" moniker for him comes from.... very very rough in my opinion .. not terribly accurate with driver either... id predict 5 pga tour wins for his career .

[bladehunter]

As I have alluded to many many times. There are many guys on tour with Champs ability. This is nothing new. You just happen to be seeing one that happens to have the other pieces as well. If you pay attention, most golf courses reign in drives that are as far as Champs. If you look at some of the more recent really long guys their ball speeds dropped once on tour. Do you think it is because they suddenly got old? Is it because they hurt themselves? No, its because they need to gain more control to do well. Lots of pro's have done this. Bubba Watson and Gary Woodland come to mind. Bubba started using a shorter driver, and enlarged the grip, and Gary was at least at the time of the article I read using very heavy driver shafts to help him. You can be the longest of long, that is great, but a ball in the air for 9 seconds and landing over 300 yards isn't always as beneficial as it sounds. I know this for a fact, I don't hit it quite as far as Champ, but I am close when I am having a good day. I have my ball flight maximized and on a good day, I can hit my target, but even the slightest breeze can knock your ball into deep rough, or make it be behind a tree, or in a bunker or what have you. The ball lands and bounds forward more unpredictably too if you don't have spin on the ball. If you hit a bumpy fairway it might bound into deep rough. Sometimes you can bomb and gouge other times the ball is sitting down and you are trying to plan for a flyer.

 

Most golf courses limit distance, or the benefit of distance very naturally. Golf course type mix, is important on tour. I guarantee you Champ will be toning it down over the long run on tour. He could stick with his current game plan but I would be willing to bet it will only help him win here and there. If he tones it down and keeps improving on the many other aspects of being a successful tour player, he can be every bit as successful as any other player out there. Distance gets watered down at a certain point. I don't feel like Champ is going to have much more success then DJ for instance, unless he is absolutely robotic with all other aspects of his game. His distance certainly isn't going to do much more for him than it does DJ.

 

 

for once i agree with you 100%.... He will dial back to the low 120s just like Rory and DJ.... then will learn to hit wedges , only then will the potential pop out... That process could be 10 years or more.. It was for DJ.

[clevited]

As I have alluded to many many times. There are many guys on tour with Champs ability. This is nothing new. You just happen to be seeing one that happens to have the other pieces as well. If you pay attention, most golf courses reign in drives that are as far as Champs. If you look at some of the more recent really long guys their ball speeds dropped once on tour. Do you think it is because they suddenly got old? Is it because they hurt themselves? No, its because they need to gain more control to do well. Lots of pro's have done this. Bubba Watson and Gary Woodland come to mind. Bubba started using a shorter driver, and enlarged the grip, and Gary was at least at the time of the article I read using very heavy driver shafts to help him. You can be the longest of long, that is great, but a ball in the air for 9 seconds and landing over 300 yards isn't always as beneficial as it sounds. I know this for a fact, I don't hit it quite as far as Champ, but I am close when I am having a good day. I have my ball flight maximized and on a good day, I can hit my target, but even the slightest breeze can knock your ball into deep rough, or make it be behind a tree, or in a bunker or what have you. The ball lands and bounds forward more unpredictably too if you don't have spin on the ball. If you hit a bumpy fairway it might bound into deep rough. Sometimes you can bomb and gouge other times the ball is sitting down and you are trying to plan for a flyer.

 

Most golf courses limit distance, or the benefit of distance very naturally. Golf course type mix, is important on tour. I guarantee you Champ will be toning it down over the long run on tour. He could stick with his current game plan but I would be willing to bet it will only help him win here and there. If he tones it down and keeps improving on the many other aspects of being a successful tour player, he can be every bit as successful as any other player out there. Distance gets watered down at a certain point. I don't feel like Champ is going to have much more success then DJ for instance, unless he is absolutely robotic with all other aspects of his game. His distance certainly isn't going to do much more for him than it does DJ.

 

 

for once i agree with you 100%.... He will dial back to the low 120s just like Rory and DJ.... then will learn to hit wedges , only then will the potential pop out... That process could be 10 years or more.. It was for DJ.

 

Yeah, and some learn quicker, and dial it back sooner but still don't have the other aspects of the game down well enough. They might not ever. To me, mid 120s ss average, is about the limit for beneficial swing speed. Of course being able to dial it up further for that once and a great while chance you are downhill downwind with a wide open fairway on a par 5 with nothing lose or you need to make a move to win, then its useful and exciting to see these guys really take a rip at it. On average though, they will be toning it down.

[QMany]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

[bladehunter]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

How so.

[new2g0lf]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

I'll say it again (sorry for repeating myself) but my home course (6400 yards, par 70) hosted two Open qualifiers and the best score shot was 68 and only seven guys shot under par. Our course is narrow with trees, water, thick rough and OB on most holes, these big hitters had to dial it back to keep their ball in play. If the MGA could figure out how to set up my course to challenge these guys then I'm pretty confident the PGA Tour can do the same if they wanted to, the problem is I don't think they want to.

[gvogel]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

Perhaps in your mind; not in mine.

 

Are you an equipment ho, or do you have interests in golf courses?

[QMany]

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

No. No they won't.

[new2g0lf]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We'll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here's one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

How so.

 

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

[Roadking2003]

I feel like it's rare to see distance and touch.

 

Except for Jack, Tiger, Phil, Greg, etc.

[radiman]

I feel like it's rare to see distance and touch.

 

Except for Jack, Tiger, Phil, Greg, etc.

 

Right. And those types of players are rare are they not? Not too many people playing of that caliber on a consistent basis.

 

Point being, if he can clean up and perfect his short game, he will be hard to beat. He is so young with such a high ceiling. That is the point I am making.

[clevited]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

I'll say it again (sorry for repeating myself) but my home course (6400 yards, par 70) hosted two Open qualifiers and the best score shot was 68 and only seven guys shot under par. Our course is narrow with trees, water, thick rough and OB on most holes, these big hitters had to dial it back to keep their ball in play. If the MGA could figure out how to set up my course to challenge these guys then I'm pretty confident the PGA Tour can do the same if they wanted to, the problem is I don't think they want to.

 

They want distance and roll (the beloved ground game....rolling my eyes) but then bit&h about too much distance. Then people say narrow and thick rough and OB is boring. Or players complain about it. You can't have everything you want. Just keep a nice mix of courses on tour. Have narrow, tree lined courses like yours where accuracy is king and you have a great golf test with emphasis on accuracy. Then grab a wide open links type course where distance and ground game are the emphasis. There are all kinds of different golf courses. Nature to some extent dictates how much distance can help or hurt (tree height for example can allow or not allow a corner on a dog leg to be cut). I just still can't believe that the few want to hurt the many in order to protect a few old courses. Many of which can't fit a pga event logistically.

 

I have a short 6500 yard tree lined narrow course with lots of OB myself, rarely get out driver and if I do, only go after it when its beneficial (calm wind, swinging well and reachable par 4s). Long hitters don't have the ability to go after it very often or if they do, the risk is very high. I also have a 7000+ yard links style course here. Lots of hazards but some very big fairways, and downhill holes. Grip it and rip it comes into play more often and can help you score lower if you are GOOD.

[15th Club]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We'll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here's one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

How so.

 

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

[15th Club]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

I'll say it again (sorry for repeating myself) but my home course (6400 yards, par 70) hosted two Open qualifiers and the best score shot was 68 and only seven guys shot under par. Our course is narrow with trees, water, thick rough and OB on most holes, these big hitters had to dial it back to keep their ball in play. If the MGA could figure out how to set up my course to challenge these guys then I'm pretty confident the PGA Tour can do the same if they wanted to, the problem is I don't think they want to.

 

They want distance and roll (the beloved ground game....rolling my eyes) but then bit&h about too much distance. Then people say narrow and thick rough and OB is boring. Or players complain about it. You can't have everything you want. Just keep a nice mix of courses on tour. Have narrow, tree lined courses like yours where accuracy is king and you have a great golf test with emphasis on accuracy. Then grab a wide open links type course where distance and ground game are the emphasis. There are all kinds of different golf courses. Nature to some extent dictates how much distance can help or hurt (tree height for example can allow or not allow a corner on a dog leg to be cut). I just still can't believe that the few want to hurt the many in order to protect a few old courses. Many of which can't fit a pga event logistically.

 

I have a short 6500 yard tree lined narrow course with lots of OB myself, rarely get out driver and if I do, only go after it when its beneficial (calm wind, swinging well and reachable par 4s). Long hitters don't have the ability to go after it very often or if they do, the risk is very high. I also have a 7000+ yard links style course here. Lots of hazards but some very big fairways, and downhill holes. Grip it and rip it comes into play more often and can help you score lower if you are GOOD.

 

Because YOU brought it up derisively, I am "rolling my eyes" at a comment like that.

 

I don't really feel much need to explain the notion of the "ground game" to you, because I already know that the USGA and the R&A get it. And it is those governing bodies who will make the equipment rules that I will live by.

 

But for myself, I want to aggressively push back on any idea that it is any form of hypocrisy to complain about equipment-technology distance on the one hand, and to encourage golf courses to be set up firmer and faster. They are intimately consistent, not inconsistent. Precisely because most golf courses should be firmer and faster and are at their best when they are, it adds to the already-existing pressure to roll back golf balls.

[clevited]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We'll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here's one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

How so.

 

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

 

You don't ever seem to understand one very important thing regarding this precious architecture you keep talking about. You can't control the players! You can't make someone play a course the way you want no matter how hard you try. There is no strategy proofing. You have too vast of a difference in golfer abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Lets say you do something to the ball to make it "fit your course". Well its impossible to fit your course unless like I have said before, you literally move hazards depending on the player on the tee. Or you literally go hand them the club you want them to use for each shot. Sure, design the course with some intent, put some thought into it but understand that you can't possibly stop people from playing it in a way that wasn't intended.

[new2g0lf]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We'll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here's one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

False Dichotomy

 

How so.

 

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

The USGA wants to discourage bomb and gouge, I interpret that as penalize the long hitters. If a course can't be updated to play more competitively in this era then the simple answer is to let the pro's score on it, who really cares (except us) what the score is on Sunday, the majority of viewers only care who is at the top of the leaderboard.

[clevited]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

I'll say it again (sorry for repeating myself) but my home course (6400 yards, par 70) hosted two Open qualifiers and the best score shot was 68 and only seven guys shot under par. Our course is narrow with trees, water, thick rough and OB on most holes, these big hitters had to dial it back to keep their ball in play. If the MGA could figure out how to set up my course to challenge these guys then I'm pretty confident the PGA Tour can do the same if they wanted to, the problem is I don't think they want to.

 

They want distance and roll (the beloved ground game....rolling my eyes) but then bit&h about too much distance. Then people say narrow and thick rough and OB is boring. Or players complain about it. You can't have everything you want. Just keep a nice mix of courses on tour. Have narrow, tree lined courses like yours where accuracy is king and you have a great golf test with emphasis on accuracy. Then grab a wide open links type course where distance and ground game are the emphasis. There are all kinds of different golf courses. Nature to some extent dictates how much distance can help or hurt (tree height for example can allow or not allow a corner on a dog leg to be cut). I just still can't believe that the few want to hurt the many in order to protect a few old courses. Many of which can't fit a pga event logistically.

 

I have a short 6500 yard tree lined narrow course with lots of OB myself, rarely get out driver and if I do, only go after it when its beneficial (calm wind, swinging well and reachable par 4s). Long hitters don't have the ability to go after it very often or if they do, the risk is very high. I also have a 7000+ yard links style course here. Lots of hazards but some very big fairways, and downhill holes. Grip it and rip it comes into play more often and can help you score lower if you are GOOD.

 

Because YOU brought it up derisively, I am "rolling my eyes" at a comment like that.

 

I don't really feel much need to explain the notion of the "ground game" to you, because I already know that the USGA and the R&A get it. And it is those governing bodies who will make the equipment rules that I will live by.

 

But for myself, I want to aggressively push back on any idea that it is any form of hypocrisy to complain about equipment-technology distance on the one hand, and to encourage golf courses to be set up firmer and faster. They are intimately consistent, not inconsistent. Precisely because most golf courses should be firmer and faster and are at their best when they are, it adds to the already-existing pressure to roll back golf balls.

 

Are you literally insulted when I roll my eyes at the "ground game". That wasn't aimed at you, I literally think the idea of that is the most stupid and narrow minded thought ever. YES the ground game is PART OF GOLF. But it is not EVERYTHING nor the most IMPORTANT. I would literally invite the mods to close this thread if only it means I don't have to see you posting your narrow minded ridiculous crap anymore. There I finally lost my patience with you. I am sick of the garbage and BS you spew.

[new2g0lf]

From another site:

 

The rise of Champ is going to further the discussion of distance in the world of golf. The guy hits the ball 340 yards with ease and is going to be a polarizing figure. We’ll leave the full discussion of this to Andy and Brendan on the Shotgun Start, but here’s one basic question in regards to this issue: what is the harm in protecting the integrity of golf courses instead of the bottom lines of equipment manufacturers?

 

His distance off the tee is dictated by the level and type of course he plays. Give any pro a wide open fairway with nothing to fear and they will hit it 340, put trees, fescue, water and nasty thick rough along a narrow fairway and they will slow down that mighty swing to gain better control.

 

I'll say it again (sorry for repeating myself) but my home course (6400 yards, par 70) hosted two Open qualifiers and the best score shot was 68 and only seven guys shot under par. Our course is narrow with trees, water, thick rough and OB on most holes, these big hitters had to dial it back to keep their ball in play. If the MGA could figure out how to set up my course to challenge these guys then I'm pretty confident the PGA Tour can do the same if they wanted to, the problem is I don't think they want to.

 

They want distance and roll (the beloved ground game....rolling my eyes) but then bit&h about too much distance. Then people say narrow and thick rough and OB is boring. Or players complain about it. You can't have everything you want. Just keep a nice mix of courses on tour. Have narrow, tree lined courses like yours where accuracy is king and you have a great golf test with emphasis on accuracy. Then grab a wide open links type course where distance and ground game are the emphasis. There are all kinds of different golf courses. Nature to some extent dictates how much distance can help or hurt (tree height for example can allow or not allow a corner on a dog leg to be cut). I just still can't believe that the few want to hurt the many in order to protect a few old courses. Many of which can't fit a pga event logistically.

 

I have a short 6500 yard tree lined narrow course with lots of OB myself, rarely get out driver and if I do, only go after it when its beneficial (calm wind, swinging well and reachable par 4s). Long hitters don't have the ability to go after it very often or if they do, the risk is very high. I also have a 7000+ yard links style course here. Lots of hazards but some very big fairways, and downhill holes. Grip it and rip it comes into play more often and can help you score lower if you are GOOD.

 

Because YOU brought it up derisively, I am "rolling my eyes" at a comment like that.

 

I don't really feel much need to explain the notion of the "ground game" to you, because I already know that the USGA and the R&A get it. And it is those governing bodies who will make the equipment rules that I will live by.

 

But for myself, I want to aggressively push back on any idea that it is any form of hypocrisy to complain about equipment-technology distance on the one hand, and to encourage golf courses to be set up firmer and faster. They are intimately consistent, not inconsistent. Precisely because most golf courses should be firmer and faster and are at their best when they are, it adds to the already-existing pressure to roll back golf balls.

 

Wow, you sound like the religious people who knock on my door to convert me to their religion, they also speak factually about opinions and beliefs and it does no better job convincing me than you do. Did you watch the Ryder Cup? Firmer and faster courses have a place in the game, just like huge oval, banked tracks have a place in NASCAR but not every course has to be set up that way.

[15th Club]

 

...

...

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

The USGA wants to discourage bomb and gouge, I interpret that as penalize the long hitters. If a course can't be updated to play more competitively in this era then the simple answer is to let the pro's score on it, who really cares (except us) what the score is on Sunday, the majority of viewers only care who is at the top of the leaderboard.

 

I will happily give you another chance to answer the question, "What do you do to a golf course, to punish longer hitters?" Because I have an answer for you after you do that.

[farmer]

Lock this down. It's been going in a circle for about 100 pages.

[clevited]

A well deserved stay in the cooler although I prefer a lock. I am addicted to this thread but also annoyed by it.

[new2g0lf]

...

...

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

The USGA wants to discourage bomb and gouge, I interpret that as penalize the long hitters. If a course can't be updated to play more competitively in this era then the simple answer is to let the pro's score on it, who really cares (except us) what the score is on Sunday, the majority of viewers only care who is at the top of the leaderboard.

 

I will happily give you another chance to answer the question, "What do you do to a golf course, to punish longer hitters?" Because I have an answer for you after you do that.

Watch the Ryder Cup, you'll find your answers there.

[smashdn]

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

 

Kind of sad to think there will come a day when Aronimink won't be able to host a pro tournament. (2018 BMW there was won at -20 by Keegan Bradley, par 70 course at 7200 yards.)

 

But now that I did a little research, by and large the PGA Tour doesn't go to old school clubs and courses anyway. I say let them continue to go to un-inspiring McGolf Courses that lack interest and architecture. 260 yard par threes are a hoot. 8000 yard par 72 or bust. May do an event at TopGolf and just cut to the chase.

[Shilgy]

 

...

...

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

The USGA wants to discourage bomb and gouge, I interpret that as penalize the long hitters. If a course can't be updated to play more competitively in this era then the simple answer is to let the pro's score on it, who really cares (except us) what the score is on Sunday, the majority of viewers only care who is at the top of the leaderboard.

 

I will happily give you another chance to answer the question, "What do you do to a golf course, to punish longer hitters?" Because I have an answer for you after you do that.

Just a few posts ago you stated:

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

If not to penalize why do you need a rollback. The shorter hitters, say 270 and less, are certainly playing the game you wish. So why promote a rollback?

[Shilgy]

 

...

...

It appears the course owners want their cake and eat it too, when you hear discussions on courses addressing the 'increased distance" of the pro's their only solution has been to lengthen the course. They and the PGA Tour like these guys bombing the ball, a 320+ yard drive is like a homerun in baseball, fans want to see the pro's do things they can't do. So rather than have the course set up to penalize the distance, they want the USGA to roll back equipment so these guys can still swing out of their shoes like they do at longer courses without giving up the lower scores compared to longer courses.

 

Let's have a few seasons where these shorter courses that complain distance is ruining their course change their course setup to penalize the longer hitters and let's see the impact on scoring on these courses.

 

But what do you do to a course, "to penalize the longer hitters"?

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

We want great championships to be played on great, classic era golf courses which have been the foundation of the game and how it is played. Those courses were not intended to be played with 330-yard average drives and 225-yard 5-irons. They can be played that way; but the genius of the course design is overwhelmed, and efforts to make them harder and more punitive as a means to making scoring denudes them of the strategy and the thinking that should come into play.

The USGA wants to discourage bomb and gouge, I interpret that as penalize the long hitters. If a course can't be updated to play more competitively in this era then the simple answer is to let the pro's score on it, who really cares (except us) what the score is on Sunday, the majority of viewers only care who is at the top of the leaderboard.

 

I will happily give you another chance to answer the question, "What do you do to a golf course, to punish longer hitters?" Because I have an answer for you after you do that.

A few posts ago you stated:

 

I don't even accept the premise that we need to penalize the longer hitters. I don't think that the USGA, or great golf course architects, want to "penalize the longer hitters." I don't even know where that idea comes from. In golf course architecture discussions, we joke a bit derisively about the "penal" school of golf course architecture. Versus the "strategic" school of course architecture.

 

The short hitters, say 270 and less, are playing the game and courses you seem to desire. So why a rollback?

[Roadking2003]

This whole idiotic media campaign seems to be based on the notion that it is inherently more entertaining to watch someone hit a

golf ball

250 yards than 300 yards.

 

No; it is just more interesting to watch a golf tournament at The Old Course, or Merion, or Shinnecock Hills, than it is to watch a golf tournament at the TPC of Wherever.

 

More interesting for some, but not for others. For me, watching The Memorial at Muirfield Village is more interesting than watching the xxx of whatever old course you pick.

[dropkicked]

"Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them; that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like. "

-Lao Tzu

[Curtdr]

Yes. Let's settle the technology, please, once and for all, before the world's beautiful existing challenging courses become obsolete and start to seem "short."

 

Just like in basketball, baseball, football, soccer... every darn sport... there needs to be limits on official technology. We've already had limits to COR, to groove shape, to the SIZE of the golf ball, etc. etc., and now we really ought consider BALL TECH and settle on the max limits.

 

The golf courses already exist. What are we going to do, purchase all the land around the existing courses in order to lengthen them? Why? Hey, a football field is 100 yards from TD to TD. It's FINE as-is. What's not fine is coming up with a football that can be thrown 130 yards, or how about a basketball that's slightly smaller so it goes in the hoop more easily for more "exciting" play?

 

The current pros have damaged the game in several ways, and the emphasis on "Smash and Gouge" - style play, although it "works" (for a while, until you ruin your body), is not one that is healthy to emulate for the masses of amateur golfers like YOU and I, not over the long term. Read up on the damage that's being caused to even young pros' bodies, their backs, their joints... premature aging.

 

Another way the current pros have damaged the game is their pace of play; it's way too slow. I prefer the "old school" play fast, try to keep up with Vardon, Jones, Hogan, smoothly swinging fluid Snead, and play 18 in the morning and 18 after lunch. Unfortunately, people emulate what they see on TV, and I'm seeing more and more people just excrutiating over the damned putt or measuring and remeasuring their fairway lie and then practice swing after practice swing. Come ON. Hit the damned ball and let's play! I suppose that's another topic, but it's related to the "ruining" issue.