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

[North Butte]

I love how Brooks Koepka stated that he has not gained distance from when he was a teenager but still some people think everyone has gained distance because of technology....... I am not saying he speaks for everyone but I can say that I have not gained distance in the last 10-15 years. Forgiveness might have been increased. But there is no reason to go back now and change everything. Unless you want to remove the major wins and put * beside everyone who won in that time period because of the imaginary distance increase from technology. :swoon:

 

Brooks Koepka is 28 years old. He was 13 by the time that the Pro V1 and 460cc drivers were fully implemented. Of course he can say that because by the time he was a mid-teen, he was playing with equipment comparable to today's. He has probably picked up a few yards since then, but that is not significant to him.

 

The distance "problem" was already a "problem" by 2003.

 

If the distance was a "problem" it would have been fixed a year later. Not 15. That is my point.

 

As always, we're back to people wanting to re-litigate a decision that USGA made circa 2002. The existence of titanium drivers and ProV1's have been perfectly legitimate parts of the game since before Brooks Koepka can even remember. Or Dustin Johnson. Or virtually all of the other top players in the game.

 

Telling these late 20's young guns that the game they've played their whole life is illegitimate would be like telling Jack Nicklaus that none of his records really matter because he wasn't using hickory shafts.

 

It's all Grandpa Simpson ravings, nothing to do with the actual here and now.

[15th Club]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

[15th Club]

Telling these late 20's young guns that the game they've played their whole life is illegitimate

 

Who is doing that?

[fly787]

clearly, the combination of driver, ball, hard as hell fairways, launch monitor fitting, and player conditioning have all made an impact. Soften the courses and taper the rough to pinch fairways starting at 280 .. also stop cleaning out the areas where the wild shots land .... today I saw many a crap shot at the Players end up in sweet little pine needle lies ..

[DFS PFD]

Can you all imagine playing a sport where the higher you perform (Swing Speed) past a certain point (>108 mph for arguments sake), the more you are penalized? Baseball should make a ball that becomes more inefficient the harder you hit it, to prevent guys like Aaron Judge making modern stadiums irrelevant with his 450' home runs, it's become a blasphemy.

[vanillafunk616]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

[buckeyefl]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

 

Probably the most telling this is you pretending you didn't know what "Tiger-proofing" was in the day. Heck if someone was bored, it's almost guaranteed you mentioned it in one if your long winded opinion posts.

[15th Club]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

 

Probably the most telling this is you pretending you didn't know what "Tiger-proofing" was in the day. Heck if someone was bored, it's almost guaranteed you mentioned it in one if your long winded opinion posts.

 

I have heard the phrase "tiger-proofing" more times than I could ever count. Usually used by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Who have their dates fundamentally wrong, as to things like changes to Augusta.

 

I still don't know what it is supposed to mean. Does it mean making golf courses longer, in the years following 2001? Well DUH! We saw the introduction of urethane balls in those years! Followed very closely by a rapid growth in the volume of driver heads from something near 300 cc, to such pressure on size that the USGA had to belatedly halt it at 460cc, with an all-new algorithm to figure out allowable MoI. Is that "tiger proofing"? Or an obvious response to technology?

 

I addressed ANGC specifically, here.

[heavy_hitter]

Why does The Old Course have to be the standard of golf for the foreseeable future, why shouldn't golf evolve (read develop) with the rest of modern society (I.E baseball and polo grounds)? The Old Course will always be the home of golf, but that doesn't mean it needs to be the indefinite home of the USGA standards.

 

Because cranky middle aged persons don't have enough to complain about; so contrived non-existent "problems" are manufactured to "fix the game".

 

I am a cranky middle aged man and I don't agree with that horse crap he is saying.

 

:superman:

[MtlJeff]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

 

I have no idea, I only skimmed through it and posted it for the overall themes which I agree with. I didn't really read it.... maybe someone can scour the web for a better written one, if it's poorly written.

 

 

The part about other guys training to hit it further to compete with tiger is true though. Pretty sure even Phil admitted that at some point

[gvogel]

It would be nice to see professional golfers using more then the high lofted wedges or irons to reach the green, and use a 4, 5, or 6 iron to reach the green.

 

Why?

 

what's a "6" iron anyway? in 2018 it's like 26 degrees. in 1988 it was 32 degrees. Assuming the announcers even club them right, a 7 iron might be 30 degrees in that dude's bag

 

I know you guys have continued this discussion later in the thread, but I still hit a 31 degree 6 iron in 2018.

 

Rolling back the golf ball, as I have said so many times I have had this discussion and 15 always comes in and tells me that I'm wrong, because of a few of the golf courses in the world that are played in pristine conditions by the best players in the world just simply doesn't make sense. Sure, I hit the ball farther than some, but my argument comes, and will continue to come, that the only people who they are trying to hurt with the ball rollback is those people who have found a way to swing a club faster than others while maintaining some control over where their ball is going. They want to level the playing field so that the guy who swings his driver 100MPH doesn't feel like he has to swing out of his shoes to "keep up" with the guy who can swing at 120MPH.

 

That is absolutely what this ball roll back advocate does not want to happen. I want the guy who swings 120 to have the same advantage over a 100 mph player that he has now. I simply want their games to fit shorter courses. I want to see the 120 mph player hitting some mid irons, maybe even a long iron on a par 4, and maybe the 100 mph player has to hit a fairway wood.

[15th Club]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

 

Does Geoff Oglivy count as a crotchety, angry, old Grandpa Simpson-type?!? What about Mr. Tiger Woods?

[mjen43]

clearly, the combination of driver, ball, hard as hell fairways, launch monitor fitting, and player conditioning have all made an impact. Soften the courses and taper the rough to pinch fairways starting at 280 .. also stop cleaning out the areas where the wild shots land .... today I saw many a crap shot at the Players end up in sweet little pine needle lies ..

 

Oh, so destroy the architectural elements of the course while also penalizing the most skilled players in one aspect of the game. Great idea!!!!!11!

[BrockPSU]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

 

Does Geoff Oglivy count as a crotchety, angry, old Grandpa Simpson-type?!? What about Mr. Tiger Woods?

 

I will get a lot of hate on here but I would say yes, both of them have yet to win in a long time. You can only use injury as an excuse for so long. Short game is king and everyone should take note at Jordan Spieth right now. One of the "best" if not best to ever putt now cant do it at all.....just like someone else I heard of that "used" to be able to putt.

[The Pearl]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

 

 

So the part of your comment that I highlighted; you seem to be saying -- to all of the people commenting here and imploring the USGA to just leave things the way they are -- that "leaving things the way they are" will never work, because the incipient genius of technical R&D, and ever-rising athletic abilities, will eventually find a way to overcome any obstacle. You seem to be saying that we can never really just leave things the way that they are at present. It won't work. It's a fool's errand.

 

For my part, Pearl, I think I agree with you. I might state it differently, however. With your indulgence, I'll give it a try: Yes, technology is ever-evolving and we can't and shouldn't try to shut it down altogether. And yes, athleticism is something that we all should embrace and encourage, and not try to suppress. But neither one of those principles bars us from protecting the great historic venues of championship golf. We can roll back the balls, and the best players will still win. We could limit the number of clubs to seven, or expand the number of clubs to 21, and the best players will still win (hopefully). We could play on a 4,000-yard course, or a 10,000-yard course, and the best players will still win.

 

Doing all of those things changes the nature of the game, however, right?

 

And understanding that new technology issues will always pop up no matter what any of us thinks today, and understanding that athletes of the future will always do amazing things, we can still intelligently tailor rules to encourage a certain kind of a game, on venues that we already know and love. We will always, always, always need to keep tinkering with the equipment rules in light of all of that.

 

I am not completely sold on "doing nothing". What I am leery of is certain claims made by the "roll the ball back" movement as being accepted as gospel. As MtlJeff mentioned earlier on in this thread, "show me the data".

 

The main argument to rolling back the ball is so that the "classic" courses aren't being blown apart by the current tour player. Fine, I am willing to listen to that argument, but to me is simply an arbitrary argument. Roll the ball back to where? Roll it back to where St. Andrews was originally designed to play in the 18th century? How about the 1940s? The 90s? Who decides what era of golf do we roll the ball back to and who decides how each of the classic courses were meant to play like? Geoff Shackelford? Furthermore, if you really want to get down to "how the game was meant to be played", an original major variable in golf was the weather. For the tour, that has all but been eliminated. The tour plays in the equivalent of dome stadiums. Perhaps we should install massive wind machines at each event so the tour and USGA can create windy conditions.

 

 

As I have stated in previous threads on this subject, I will really be concerned when the classic courses stop trying to host Major events and the R&A stops putting the Old Course in it's Rota.

 

Back to my original point, what are they going to do when the average tour player in 15 years is 6ft 5in and 240Lbs? Roll the ball back again?

 

I see both sides of the debate, however, at this point in time, the "roll the ball back" crowd simply has not made any headway intellectually. A yearning for yesterday is simply not enough to get my attention. With that said, I don't think the general concept of having a "tour ball" would do any damage to the game overall.

[vanillafunk616]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

 

Does Geoff Oglivy count as a crotchety, angry, old Grandpa Simpson-type?!? What about Mr. Tiger Woods?

 

They're both in their 40's. Neither has won a major in 10+ years. Oldest dude to win one was 46.

Not to hurt your feelings but the end is near.

[bladehunter]

There are plenty of people who enjoy seeing the brand of golf played now. If you wanna see 260 yard drives and guys hitting 5 irons in to short par 4s then go hang out at the local muni or watch LPGA.

 

Golf seems to be the only sport concerned with limiting or rolling back technology and its just so some older golf courses can host Tour events? Who cares?

 

PGA Tour viewership ratings are doing well. If the PGA Tour wants to keep attracting new fans and growing the game it is not going to be by rolling back the ball to satisfy the misguided desires of people to see golf "the way it was in my day" or to ensure that 100+ year old courses are played on Tour. Those old courses are great, still host other events fine and can still be enjoyed and played by the average golfer but there are other problems to talk that are greater than this moronic, tired debate.

 

Maybe focus on incentives to increase youth participation, continue to encourage people getting out for 9 holes if they cant do 18, add more variety in scoring formats ie stableford, team events etc.

 

You don't see the NBA raising the rims to 12 feet because too many people are dunking and you don't see baseball going back to the old dead balls they used to use to "protect the game". PGA Tour shouldn't be doing things like this either. If people are obsessed with that type of golf they can easily go get some old Hogan blades and some balatas and knock themselves out at the local course playing the game "the proper way".

 

That doesn’t work either. They hit 5 hybrids. Not 5 irons.

[bladehunter]

Well, I just shot the lowest round of the year (84 from men's tees, which included a dumb quad) with the new setup vs about 25-30 rounds in the 86-94 range with the prior setup. Should take me down a smidgeon on the newest revision....anxious to get out and repeat.

 

But it's kind of hard to give up distance once you get it. Recently, at age 64, I grudgingly tried a 'Senior' flex shaft in my driver. Stiff was 62 grams, Reg was 58, and Senior was 54, or something like that (they should just list them by gram weights and forget the descriptive names). Woah, I'm hitting it 20 yards longer. Then I just got fitted for irons (1st time getting fitted), and the fitter changed me from my current ProModus3 105Tour Stiff to Recoil 760 F3 (68 gms), and I complained they were 'too light', but he said stick with them a bit, try them a while and get back to me.....I complained, told him I'll be selling them on Ebay while I still played with them.....but dam, I gained 2-3 clubs, hitting 8i/9i where I used to hit 6 irons....scores been dropping too. Hmmm......what do you think I should do, go back to shorty clubs or stick with this setup?

 

I like it when one or two guys stand out as bombers. Today I feel like there are two dozen guys, maybe more, that have that bomber rep. Then there are probably another two dozen that are bombers but we never hear about them because they don't contend.

 

I wouldn't say it is ruining golf because I love watching golf. But I think if reaching par 5s in two and driving short par 4s was more of a novelty rather than a routine happening, the game would be even better.

 

handicap dropped ?

 

 

I asked because the usga claims that caps aren’t dropping. And I believe it. What I do think is that the sandbagger population is growing. Not aiming at you personally. Just was curious if tech was dropping your cap.

[bladehunter]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

 

Does Geoff Oglivy count as a crotchety, angry, old Grandpa Simpson-type?!? What about Mr. Tiger Woods?

 

They're both in their 40's. Neither has won a major in 10+ years. Oldest dude to win one was 46.

Not to hurt your feelings but the end is near.

 

Weather app ?

[ThinkingPlus]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

[grm24]

"Kids these days with their super long balls are destroying the game. Players in my day had to have real talent"

 

 

Does Geoff Oglivy count as a crotchety, angry, old Grandpa Simpson-type?!? What about Mr. Tiger Woods?

 

They're both in their 40's. Neither has won a major in 10+ years. Oldest dude to win one was 46.

Not to hurt your feelings but the end is near.

Julius Boros won the 1968 PGA at age 48.

[Sean2]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

 

I have no idea, I only skimmed through it and posted it for the overall themes which I agree with. I didn't really read it.... maybe someone can scour the web for a better written one, if it's poorly written.

 

 

The part about other guys training to hit it further to compete with tiger is true though. Pretty sure even Phil admitted that at some point

 

The article was fine Jeff, and echos what many of us have been saying on this forum for a long time. For example, it doesn't cost anything to let grass grow, and bomb and gouge wouldn't convey the benefits it currently does. In addition, these guys are professionals and should be hitting fairways more often than not. Courses like Merion, Harbourtown, and even TPC Sawgrass aren't exceptionally long, but the Touring professional is challenged nonetheless...more so than with much longer venues.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherrepo...st-the-opposite

 

Wow, that is a terrible, badly-sourced, poorly-written column. That guy is an idiot. Is golf his beat? Or is he a football/basketball writer?

 

He writes that other players "had to take on rigorous training regimens and hit drivers with oversized heads to enable them to hit the ball far enough to compete with Woods." Bwahhahahaha!

 

And then he goes on, with shocking accuracy, saying that Tiger dominated his first few years on tour, with the way that he hit the ball. That's true! Tiger dominated in ball striking (in addition to being a magnificent putter) in the years before the modern multilayer urethane balls, and before 400+cc alloy heads. Those things -- to Tiger's disadvantage -- helped a lot of other players effectively duplicate Tiger's supreme skill, with a more raw form of power.

 

And thereafter, ALL courses had to change, as driving distances skyrocketed in the first few years of the urethane ball revolution. It was the ball.

 

I have no idea, I only skimmed through it and posted it for the overall themes which I agree with. I didn't really read it.... maybe someone can scour the web for a better written one, if it's poorly written.

 

 

The part about other guys training to hit it further to compete with tiger is true though. Pretty sure even Phil admitted that at some point

 

The article was fine Jeff, and echos what many of us have been saying on this forum for a long time. For example, it doesn't cost anything to let grass grow, and bomb and gouge wouldn't convey the benefits it currently does. In addition, these guys are professionals and should be hitting fairways more often than not. Courses like Merion, Harbourtown, and even TPC Sawgrass aren't exceptionally long, but the Touring professional is challenged nonetheless...more so than with much longer venues.

 

Great points. If there is a problem, the cheapest solution is longer rough, and it doesn't take much to make a huge difference.

Then, however, you will have the rollbackers saying, "But that's not the way the designers intended it."

 

Of course, that completely ignores the fact that a ball rollback without a corresponding course length rollback wouldn't be the intent of current designers on new layouts/renovations. Somehow along the way, people have become very concerned with the intent of dead designers whilst ignoring the intent of ones who have designed courses with the current ball in mind.

 

If they wish to rollback the ball under the guise of designers' intent and preserving the classic layouts, they have to rollback the courses too. But, they won't. Guys like Nicklaus want the top players playing 7500+ with a ball that goes as far as it did in 1960, or even shorter. No idea why . . . oh, wait, I know exactly why. The rest is complete BS.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

 

This is such a great point for many reasons.

It reminds me of a question nobody seems to be addressing: If the USGA does nerf the ball, will they impose the same restriction on elite women's competitions?

[Roadking2003]

Recently the USGA and the R&A, who make the rules for golf, released their third annual report on driving distances on the professional tours.

 

Crisis over. Scoring is not going down. Now let's get on to relevant topics.

[Roadking2003]

As I have stated in previous threads on this subject, I will really be concerned when the classic courses stop trying to host Major events and the R&A stops putting the Old Course in it's Rota.

 

OK, so let's roll back all equipment to the era when the Old Course was laid out.

 

BTW, I don't care if 100 year old courses no longer can host majors. There are dozens of new courses that are quite capable of hosting majors. Some things don't last forever.

[MtlJeff]

Recently the USGA and the R&A, who make the rules for golf, released their third annual report on driving distances on the professional tours.

 

Crisis over. Scoring is not going down. Now let's get on to relevant topics.

 

"Should one remove one's hat at the end of the round?"

 

(takes cover)

[ThinkingPlus]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

 

This is such a great point for many reasons.

It reminds me of a question nobody seems to be addressing: If the USGA does nerf the ball, will they impose the same restriction on elite women's competitions?

It applies equally to senior, mid-am, and junior events as well. In fact there are only really 4 tournaments where classic course obsolescence is even a concern: US Open, US Amateur, The Open Championship, and the British Open. Doesn't seem rational to me to rollback the ball for the sake of those 4 events.

[bigred90gt]

It's a different game and the courses need to be bigger, which has made some of the older courses a bit obsolete.

A bit obsolete in what way? Can someone please explain that?

 

These courses still have their membership, they are still in operation, they still get play. They are not obsolete in any way form or fashion. Why do people keep saying courses are becoming obsolete? If they were indeed obsolete, they would be closingthe doors and the land would be sold off for development.

[MtlJeff]

It's a different game and the courses need to be bigger, which has made some of the older courses a bit obsolete.

A bit obsolete in what way? Can someone please explain that?

 

These courses still have their membership, they are still in operation, they still get play. They are not obsolete in any way form or fashion. Why do people keep saying courses are becoming obsolete? If they were indeed obsolete, they would be closingthe doors and the land would be sold off for development.

 

But they are obsolete for .001% of people who play golf. Don't you see why they must be BURNED TO THE GROUND