Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[smashdn]

> @swgolf12 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

> >

> > Not to completely go off in the ditch but even the courses that were explicitly designed to hold Majors are not 100% adequate to host them. AGNC is buying houses to create more parking. Valhalla buses people from the fairgrounds several miles away for the Senior PGA Championship. I could only imagine what went on during the PGA Championship or Ryder Cup when it was held there.

>

> Have you ever been to ANGC? It's not about parking, It's about expanding their footprint and moving the riff raff further away.

 

Fair enough. Pick another major course that has to bus people in. My point was few, if any courses have the infrastructure on site to manage the crowds, even courses built within the last 40 years with the intention of holding majors a la Valhalla. Somebody was using that as a reason why you should not have a major at old courses. Even clubs with two courses are at times hard pressed to fit all the modern day stuff on site. Do you bail on them for that reason?

[Krt22]

> @clevited said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> >

> > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > >

> >

> > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

>

> Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

 

Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

[Krt22]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Consistently, it is one side of this debate that nearly always resorts in the end to personal ad hominem attacks.

 

If you consider sound logical arguments as personal ad hominem attacks, not sure what to tell ya slugger.

[15th Club]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > >

> > >

> > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> >

> > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

>

> Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

 

 

I cannot think of a single golf course anywhere that was ever “Tiger proofed.” Whatever that is supposed to mean. There are hundreds that have attempted to “Pro V-proof” themselves.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > >

> > >

> > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> >

> > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

>

> Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

 

When the USGA first started Tiger Proofing layouts in the late 1990s, it became a kind of standard term for the campaign. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think I remember it being then-USGA David Fay. If I recall correctly, the Tiger Proofing campaign was kind of a pet project of his.

[Krt22]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > >

> > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > >

> > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> >

> > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

>

> When the USGA first started Tiger Proofing layouts in the late 1990s, it became a kind of standard term for the campaign. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think I remember it being then-USGA David Fay. If I recall correctly, the Tiger Proofing campaign was kind of a pet project of his.

 

no no no, it was ProV1 proofing as our USGA rep has so eloquently stated.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > > >

> > > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> > >

> > > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

> >

> > When the USGA first started Tiger Proofing layouts in the late 1990s, it became a kind of standard term for the campaign. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think I remember it being then-USGA David Fay. If I recall correctly, the Tiger Proofing campaign was kind of a pet project of his.

>

> no no no, it was ProV1 proofing as our USGA rep has so eloquently stated.

 

Well, then he knows very little about how the USGA operated when it began Tiger Proofing. First of all, it began before the Pro V1 was released. Leaders at the USGA were terrified that Tiger might do to a US Open layout what he did to Augusta in 1997. Tiger Proofing was one of the worst kept secrets in the organization to anyone who knows about the USGA and its creation of the current distance debate.

 

 

[Titleist99]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Oh, absolutely!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

> > > > >

> > > > > Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And if you don’t like their vision, and the use of historic links as general measuring sticks of how to organize and rule the game, then you are naturally free to organize your own game, make up your own rules and adapt your own equipment.

> > > >

> > > > Knock yourselves out. I won’t care.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Can you name five (5) "classic, historic, precious, championship courses" that have hosted a major since 1980, and have room for a modern tournament crowd, that cannot host a major because they are too short?

> > > Have we deduced your entire position to the preservation of a handful of courses? Hmmm.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

>

> Here are the upcoming US open sites and the dates they opened. All pretty historic.

>

>

> 2020 -- June 18-21 -- Winged Foot Golf Club, Mamaroneck, N.Y. 1923

> 2021 -- June 17-20 -- Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course), La Jolla, Calif. 1957

> 2022 -- June 16-19 -- The Country Club, Brookline, Mass. 1882

> 2023 -- June 15-18 -- Los Angeles Country Club, Los Angeles, Calif. 1897

> 2024 -- June 13-16 -- Pinehurst No. 2, Pinehurst, N.C. 1897/98

> 2025 -- June 12-15 -- Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. 1904

> 2026 -- June 18-21 -- Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y. 1896 - funny thing about this course. If it was played "as intended" it would only be 5000 yards.......

> 2027 -- June 17-20 -- Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, Calif. 1919

 

I see that the modern driver hasn't made these courses obsolete...…..LOL! Lets make golf courses harder not longer.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > >

> > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > >

> > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> >

> > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

>

>

> I cannot think of a single golf course anywhere that was ever “Tiger proofed.” Whatever that is supposed to mean. There are hundreds that have attempted to “Pro V-proof” themselves.

 

Oh come on... no one ever said pro V proofing. Tiger proofing was such a thing it was in video games..

 

[gvogel]

> @Krt22 said:

> What impacts the tour directly cascades down to amateurs and the game of golf as a whole, even more so with bifurcation. And rolling back the ball really only would be to address the top 30 or so drivers of the ball. The average carry on tour is still around 270 yards, those guys are the ones who would be impacted the most and the game would become even less competitive for the shorter hitters.

 

You are out of touch. Go watch a college golf tournament.

[gvogel]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > > > >

> > > > > Dit-to.

> > > > >

> > > > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

> > >

> > > He doesn't care about the nameless, faceless masses playing golf. His whole argument is elitist and misogynistic.

> >

> > Misogynistic is a sexist term. There is nothing sexist in 15th's argument. All golfers would be affected by a roll back, not just men, not just women. And, as a muni player, I don't find his stance elitist in the least.

>

> His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

 

So we have eliminated misogynistic from the conversation. We're making progress.

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > > > >

> > > > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> > > >

> > > > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

> > >

> > > When the USGA first started Tiger Proofing layouts in the late 1990s, it became a kind of standard term for the campaign. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think I remember it being then-USGA David Fay. If I recall correctly, the Tiger Proofing campaign was kind of a pet project of his.

> >

> > no no no, it was ProV1 proofing as our USGA rep has so eloquently stated.

>

> Well, then he knows very little about how the USGA operated when it began Tiger Proofing. First of all, it began before the Pro V1 was released. Leaders at the USGA were terrified that Tiger might do to a US Open layout what he did to Augusta in 1997. Tiger Proofing was one of the worst kept secrets in the organization to anyone who knows about the USGA and its creation of the current distance debate.

>

>

 

 

 

Regarding your earlier comment, I am not aware of any substantive quote from David Fay about "Tiger-proofing" anything. But I don't live with the guy; perhaps the phrase has crossed his lips. What quote(s) are you referring to? Since I don't believe much of anything that you claim, please be specific with any quotes and give us hyperlinks.

 

Then; you make your provoking claim about the Pro V1, "terrified" USGA leaders, and a claimed engagement in "Tiger proofing." And since I dislike you so much, I'll put some effort into this.

 

First let's go back to Augusta. ANGC never "Tiger-proofed" their course in the years after Woods won in '97. I demonstrated that fact [HERE](https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/17210848/#Comment_17210848 "HERE") among a series of comments that got predictably nasty between you and me. And that was a year and a half ago.

 

As for the USGA doing any Tiger-proofing post-'97... _Wut?_

 

The 1998 US Open (and indeed the next 4-5 Opens, I forget how many) were already set as of the summer of '97 in the wake of Tiger's first major win.

 

1998 was at the 6797-yard Olympic Club, where Lee Janzen won.

 

1999 was at Pinehurst, playing its then-standard 7175 yards and Payne Stewart won.

 

2000 was at Pebble Beach and Tiger demolished the field and the scoring records (to the delight of the USGA as far as I know) on a 6841 yard course. Some kinda Tiger-proofing, 3 years after Tiger's '97 win at Augusta.

 

2001 was at Southern Hills, at 6973 yards. Goosen.

 

2002 was at Bethpage Black, playing at its customary brutish 7214 yards. Tiger again.

 

2003 was Olympia Fields; where Furyk won on a course of 7190 yards.

 

2004 was Shinnecock Hills. Just 6996 yards, and it was Goosen again.

 

Where did the USGA do its Tiger-proofing in seven (7) years after Tiger's 1997 Masters win?

 

Tiger Woods turned professional in the late summer of 1996. He won the Masters for the first time in April, 1997. The Pro V1 was introduced in late 2000, and became available to the public just before the start of 2001. Between 1998 and 2001, very little was done to the courses of the Tour or the major championships. After 2000, things began to change substantially albeit gradually because of the years-long lead time in selecting and preparing championship golf courses. Tour course lengths really [began to bounce upwards in about 2007](http://blog.golfpredictor.com/2016/05/average-course-length-on-useuropean-pga.html "began to bounce upwards in about 2007"), when the Tour and tournament directors had had a chance to get used to what modern balls and drivers were doing to distances on their golf courses.

 

My shorter answer to you is "Wrong, wrong, and wrong."

[ThinkingPlus]

> @gvogel said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dit-to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

> > > >

> > > > He doesn't care about the nameless, faceless masses playing golf. His whole argument is elitist and misogynistic.

> > >

> > > Misogynistic is a sexist term. There is nothing sexist in 15th's argument. All golfers would be affected by a roll back, not just men, not just women. And, as a muni player, I don't find his stance elitist in the least.

> >

> > His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

>

> So we have eliminated misogynistic from the conversation. We're making progress.

 

Nevermind. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> > > > >

> > > > > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

> > > >

> > > > When the USGA first started Tiger Proofing layouts in the late 1990s, it became a kind of standard term for the campaign. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think I remember it being then-USGA David Fay. If I recall correctly, the Tiger Proofing campaign was kind of a pet project of his.

> > >

> > > no no no, it was ProV1 proofing as our USGA rep has so eloquently stated.

> >

> > Well, then he knows very little about how the USGA operated when it began Tiger Proofing. First of all, it began before the Pro V1 was released. Leaders at the USGA were terrified that Tiger might do to a US Open layout what he did to Augusta in 1997. Tiger Proofing was one of the worst kept secrets in the organization to anyone who knows about the USGA and its creation of the current distance debate.

> >

> >

>

>

>

> Regarding your earlier comment, I am not aware of any substantive quote from David Fay about "Tiger-proofing" anything. But I don't live with the guy; perhaps the phrase has crossed his lips. What quote(s) are you referring to? Since I don't believe much of anything that you claim, please be specific with any quotes and give us hyperlinks.

>

> Then; you make your provoking claim about the Pro V1, "terrified" USGA leaders, and a claimed engagement in "Tiger proofing." And since I dislike you so much, I'll put some effort into this.

>

> First let's go back to Augusta. ANGC never "Tiger-proofed" their course in the years after Woods won in '97. I demonstrated that fact [HERE](https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/17210848/#Comment_17210848 "HERE") among a series of comments that got predictably nasty between you and me. And that was a year and a half ago.

>

> As for the USGA doing any Tiger-proofing post-'97... _Wut?_

>

> The 1998 US Open (and indeed the next 4-5 Opens, I forget how many) were already set as of the summer of '97 in the wake of Tiger's first major win.

>

> 1998 was at the 6797-yard Olympic Club, where Lee Janzen won.

>

> 1999 was at Pinehurst, playing its then-standard 7175 yards and Payne Stewart won.

>

> 2000 was at Pebble Beach and Tiger demolished the field and the scoring records (to the delight of the USGA as far as I know) on a 6841 yard course. Some kinda Tiger-proofing, 3 years after Tiger's '97 win at Augusta.

>

> 2001 was at Southern Hills, at 6973 yards. Goosen.

>

> 2002 was at Bethpage Black, playing at its customary brutish 7214 yards. Tiger again.

>

> 2003 was Olympia Fields; where Furyk won on a course of 7190 yards.

>

> 2004 was Shinnecock Hills. Just 6996 yards, and it was Goosen again.

>

> Where did the USGA do its Tiger-proofing in seven (7) years after Tiger's 1997 Masters win?

>

> Tiger Woods turned professional in the late summer of 1996. He won the Masters for the first time in April, 1997. The Pro V1 was introduced in late 2000, and became available to the public just before the start of 2001. Between 1998 and 2001, very little was done to the courses of the Tour or the major championships. After 2000, things began to change substantially albeit gradually because of the years-long lead time in selecting and preparing championship golf courses. Tour course lengths really [began to bounce upwards in about 2007](http://blog.golfpredictor.com/2016/05/average-course-length-on-useuropean-pga.html "began to bounce upwards in about 2007"), when the Tour and tournament directors had had a chance to get used to what modern balls and drivers were doing to distances on their golf courses.

>

> My shorter answer to you is "Wrong, wrong, and wrong."

 

Hmm, agree to disagree.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > > >

> > > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> > >

> > > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

> >

> >

> > I cannot think of a single golf course anywhere that was ever “Tiger proofed.” Whatever that is supposed to mean. There are hundreds that have attempted to “Pro V-proof” themselves.

>

> Oh come on... no one ever said pro V proofing. Tiger proofing was such a thing it was in video games..

>

 

 

 

Right. Because general sportswriters who knew very little about golf turned it into a thing. Social activists turned it into a thing. It took on a life of its own. Lots of people talked about it.

 

It had no basis in reality.

[15th Club]

> @Titleist99 said:

 

 

> >

> > Here are the upcoming US open sites and the dates they opened. All pretty historic.

> >

> >

> > 2020 -- June 18-21 -- Winged Foot Golf Club, Mamaroneck, N.Y. 1923

> > 2021 -- June 17-20 -- Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course), La Jolla, Calif. 1957

> > 2022 -- June 16-19 -- The Country Club, Brookline, Mass. 1882

> > 2023 -- June 15-18 -- Los Angeles Country Club, Los Angeles, Calif. 1897

> > 2024 -- June 13-16 -- Pinehurst No. 2, Pinehurst, N.C. 1897/98

> > 2025 -- June 12-15 -- Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. 1904

> > 2026 -- June 18-21 -- Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y. 1896 - funny thing about this course. If it was played "as intended" it would only be 5000 yards.......

> > 2027 -- June 17-20 -- Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, Calif. 1919

>

> I see that the modern driver hasn't made these courses obsolete...…..LOL! Lets make golf courses harder not longer.

 

 

 

Let's make all of those courses _better_. And then fit the equipment to them, not vice versa.

[bigred90gt]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> >

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > > >

> > > > We watch different tournaments.

> > > >

> > > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> > >

> > > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

> >

> > Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

>

> They have an answer to this: "The courses must play firm and fast, as the dead designer intended".

> They would rather rewind 20+ years in an unsuccessful attempt to preserve fewer than 10 country clubs than let some grass grow.

> The fun part about a ball rollback would be all the tech advancements that would allow the players to figure out how to hit it just as far and continue bomb it on these newly firm and fast courses.

 

Funny thing is firm and fast is never how the original designers intended the courses to be played. They did not have the technology in agronomy to do it. Anyone who wants firm and fast, and also wants the course to play as the designer intended on these historic courses, obviously does not know as much about the history of course architecture as they seem to think they do.

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @marmaduk said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > >

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @marmaduk said:

> > > > > > Quick thought… Bifurcate the ball. Make the professional level golf ball $100 per ball. Professionals don’t pay for their equipment anyways and bad golfers will very quickly realize they brought a knife to a gun fight.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best comment in the thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm an early adapter. i bought a windsurfer in 1977 and learned how to do that. I bought an early MINI Cooper and enjoy my driving experience, 3 MINI Coopers later.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm on board to pay $100 for a pack of balls that will give me the same enjoyment as I have now from a shorter set of tees.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > $100 per ball not dozen. We need to make the stakes interesting at least.

> >

> > He said “pack”.

> >

> >

> > Bottom line is the game has changed and some do not like it. You can roll the ball back...roll the equipment back....and guess what? Nothing will change. The same players will dominate and play the same style of game being played today. Just like in baseball analytics has changed the game. Players now know that the best way to lower scores is to get the tee shot as far down the fairway as possible, and get the second on a par 5 as far as possible. The old school method of plotting and plodding your way around the course may look good on the old school stats sheet. Look! Hit every green and fairway!! But will lose to the player that has more great birdie looks.

> > And if you do what I just suggested guess what? You still will not be able to hold championships on the old courses. They will still either be too short or just not have enough room for the increased infrastructure needed for a modern event.

>

>

>

> This is such an interesting comment. Look at what is inadvertently buried in the middle. Sarcasm about “plotting and plodding your way around the course...”

>

> The other term for that is “strategy.” It is the very definition of where the interest is supposed to be in the game of golf. Different players, of different capabilities and mindsets, making strategic risk/reward decisions about how to play a hole. It is the essence of what every good golf course architect is attempting to accomplish. Strategy. Interest. Risk. Reward. Pleasure. Aesthetic.

 

As usual you are 100% correct! Except...you missed the part about plodding being the only valid strategy. Getting every shot as near the hole as possible is one that is valid as well. And creates lower scores.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> > > > >

> > > > > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

> > > >

> > > > Odd Tiger Proofing comes into these conversations, yet his name did not appear once in the OP.

> > >

> > >

> > > I cannot think of a single golf course anywhere that was ever “Tiger proofed.” Whatever that is supposed to mean. There are hundreds that have attempted to “Pro V-proof” themselves.

> >

> > Oh come on... no one ever said pro V proofing. Tiger proofing was such a thing it was in video games..

> >

>

>

>

> Right. Because general sportswriters who knew very little about golf turned it into a thing. Social activists turned it into a thing. It took on a life of its own. Lots of people talked about it.

>

> It had no basis in reality.

 

Perception is reality, broseph. Maybe your “buddies” at the USGA, who really don’t want you around, because you’re the governance equivalent of Grover Scomer as a wingman, should realize it.

 

It’s funny. We have an older dude just like you at our club who knows everything; just ask him. His hot takes aren’t about ball rollbacks, but they are equally stupid. The guy was a good player about 25 years ago, but, now, he’s focused on how the fringes don’t look right. Reminds me so much of you. The only reason I know he isn’t you is that he doesn’t lie in wait in the grill room to preach to unwilling participants.

[rangersgoalie]

https://picclick.com/Golf-World-Magazine-June-19-1998-Tiger-Woods-332329225749.html#&gid=1&pid=1

 

why would anyone think Tigerproofing was a thing before the advent of the ProV1?

Click on the picture and see the date

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > >

> > > > Courses would have to be closer to 9,000 yards today to pose the similar challenges and strategies that the same courses posed in the 1970s and 1980s.

> > > >

> > > > I agree that courses today could be set up differently to mitigate some of the distance gains. Such as by making the rough longer so that fairway misses are penalized more than they are.

> > >

> > > I'd say closer to 10,000. Those guys back then were so much better than the players these days. Any schmoe can just carry it 320 over a dogleg and putt like a machine. Much more talent back when the speed was 80% of what it is today.

> >

> > Hand yet, handicaps have not dropped since it was something that was tracked.

>

> It was a joke. @LICC sometimes likes to talk about how golf is the only sport in the world where elite talent peaked in the 1970s.

 

You can’t show one post where I ever said that.

[LICC]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Oh, absolutely!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

> > > > >

> > > > > Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And if you don’t like their vision, and the use of historic links as general measuring sticks of how to organize and rule the game, then you are naturally free to organize your own game, make up your own rules and adapt your own equipment.

> > > >

> > > > Knock yourselves out. I won’t care.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Can you name five (5) "classic, historic, precious, championship courses" that have hosted a major since 1980, and have room for a modern tournament crowd, that cannot host a major because they are too short?

> > > Have we deduced your entire position to the preservation of a handful of courses? Hmmm.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

>

> Here are the upcoming US open sites and the dates they opened. All pretty historic.

>

>

> 2020 -- June 18-21 -- Winged Foot Golf Club, Mamaroneck, N.Y. 1923

> 2021 -- June 17-20 -- Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course), La Jolla, Calif. 1957

> 2022 -- June 16-19 -- The Country Club, Brookline, Mass. 1882

> 2023 -- June 15-18 -- Los Angeles Country Club, Los Angeles, Calif. 1897

> 2024 -- June 13-16 -- Pinehurst No. 2, Pinehurst, N.C. 1897/98

> 2025 -- June 12-15 -- Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. 1904

> 2026 -- June 18-21 -- Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y. 1896 - funny thing about this course. If it was played "as intended" it would only be 5000 yards.......

> 2027 -- June 17-20 -- Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, Calif. 1919

 

It’s not that today’s distances have made these courses not able to host a major. It has made how these courses play indistinguishable from any other course out there unless the course is tricked up.

[bladehunter]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > What impacts the tour directly cascades down to amateurs and the game of golf as a whole, even more so with bifurcation. And rolling back the ball really only would be to address the top 30 or so drivers of the ball. The average carry on tour is still around 270 yards, those guys are the ones who would be impacted the most and the game would become even less competitive for the shorter hitters.

>

> You are out of touch. Go watch a college golf tournament.

 

Exactly. I play with these kids , and then another batch of mini tour guys who destroy a 6500-6800 yard course with driver.

 

I get that it’s a small percentage ( someone said 8-10%) of the total population. But I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t account for the worst case scenario first and then work backwards ? You can move most anyone else up a set of tees. But you can’t move these guys back further. There aren’t any more tee boxes. And these are guys that are very very far from being famous athletes. This type players numbers will grow exponentially on the next 10 years. We’re just now seeing the tip of the iceberg for guys who were taught to swing out of their shoes and find it from age 5 on. The modern driver and ball allow this. You’d never hear that before. In my experience 7000 plus yard courses are rare. Or at least the extreme minority. So where does it go ? You’re going to see college events soon where the top 15 players never hit more than wedge into any par 4 green. That’s just not good. Or golf. It’s a form of long drive mixed with a short pitch and putt course.

[oikos1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > What impacts the tour directly cascades down to amateurs and the game of golf as a whole, even more so with bifurcation. And rolling back the ball really only would be to address the top 30 or so drivers of the ball. The average carry on tour is still around 270 yards, those guys are the ones who would be impacted the most and the game would become even less competitive for the shorter hitters.

> >

> > You are out of touch. Go watch a college golf tournament.

>

> Exactly. I play with these kids , and then another batch of mini tour guys who destroy a 6500-6800 yard course with driver.

>

> I get that it’s a small percentage ( someone said 8-10%) of the total population. But I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t account for the worst case scenario first and then work backwards ? You can move most anyone else up a set of tees. But you can’t move these guys back further. There aren’t any more tee boxes. And these are guys that are very very far from being famous athletes. This type players numbers will grow exponentially on the next 10 years. We’re just now seeing the tip of the iceberg for guys who were taught to swing out of their shoes and find it from age 5 on. The modern driver and ball allow this. You’d never hear that before. In my experience 7000 plus yard courses are rare. Or at least the extreme minority. So where does it go ? You’re going to see college events soon where the top 15 players never hit more than wedge into any par 4 green. That’s just not good. Or golf. It’s a form of long drive mixed with a short pitch and putt course.

 

Never taught to swing out of their shoes from age 5 and on? You might want to check on your revisionist history. In fact, since when has the game of golf not been about having the least amount of club for your next shot?

 

Make three hundred yard plus misses more penal and the problem is solved. Thing is, it's not a problem on the majority of courses on any given day.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > > >

> > > > > Courses would have to be closer to 9,000 yards today to pose the similar challenges and strategies that the same courses posed in the 1970s and 1980s.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree that courses today could be set up differently to mitigate some of the distance gains. Such as by making the rough longer so that fairway misses are penalized more than they are.

> > > >

> > > > I'd say closer to 10,000. Those guys back then were so much better than the players these days. Any schmoe can just carry it 320 over a dogleg and putt like a machine. Much more talent back when the speed was 80% of what it is today.

> > >

> > > Hand yet, handicaps have not dropped since it was something that was tracked.

> >

> > It was a joke. @LICC sometimes likes to talk about how golf is the only sport in the world where elite talent peaked in the 1970s.

>

> You can’t show one post where I ever said that.

 

;)

 

 

[15th Club]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> https://picclick.com/Golf-World-Magazine-June-19-1998-Tiger-Woods-332329225749.html#&gid=1&pid=1

>

> why would anyone think Tigerproofing was a thing before the advent of the ProV1?

> Click on the picture and see the date

 

 

1997 ANGC Masters tees: 6925 yards. Winner: Tiger Woods (-18). Cut: +5.

 

1998 ANGC Masters tees: 6925 yards. Winner: Mark O'Meara (-9). Cut: +6.

 

1999 ANGC Masters tees: 6985 yards. Winner: Jose Maria Olazabal (-8). Cut +4.

 

2000 ANGC Masters tees: 6985 yards. Winner: Vijay Singh (-10). Cut +4.

 

***ProV1 introduced late 2000**

2001 ANGC Masters tees: 6985 yards. Winner: Tiger Woods (-16). Cut +1.

 

2002 ANGC Masters tees: 7270 yards. Winner: Tiger Woods (-12). Cut +3

 

2003 ANGC Masters tees: 7290 yards. Winner: Mike Weir (-7). Cut +5.

 

2004 ANGC Masters tees: 7290 yards. Winner: Phil Mickelson (-9). Cut +4.

 

2005 ANGC Masters tees: 7290 yards. Winner: Tiger Woods (-12). Cut +4.

 

2006 ANGC Masters tees: 7445 yards. Winner: Phil Mickelson (-7). Cut +4.

 

2007 ANGC Masters tees: 7445 yards. Winner: Zach Johnson (+1). Cut +8.

 

2008 ANGC Masters tees: 7445 yards. Winner: Trevor Immelman (-8). Cut +3.

 

Points to remember for the 10 years following Tiger's historic '97 Masters win:

* There was no dramatic lengthening of Augusta in response to 1997;

* There was a wholly hysterical media freakout over "Tigerproofing" things, not just ANGC.

* Real dramatic lengthening of ANGC has occurred in response to the entire field using modern urethane balls.

* ANGC has done some other things besides length, to combat distance in the Pro V era. Those things include planting some new trees, attempts at somewhat penal rough in some places, adding moisture to fairways and mowing fairways directionally back toward teeing grounds. Almost all of those things have drawn near-universal criticism from architects, players and knowledgeable observers of the event. The tree planting has drawn the most criticism; the fairway issues were called out forcefully by Sergio Garcia among others who grew tired of mudballs at Augusta even in good weather.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> https://picclick.com/Golf-World-Magazine-June-19-1998-Tiger-Woods-332329225749.html#&gid=1&pid=1

>

> why would anyone think Tigerproofing was a thing before the advent of the ProV1?

> Click on the picture and see the date

 

Haha! Must be a misprint. I think it was supposed to be “Mystery Ball Not Yet Invented Proof”

 

 

[raynorfan1]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > >

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > > > >

> > > > > We watch different tournaments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> > > >

> > > > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

> > >

> > > Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

> >

> > They have an answer to this: "The courses must play firm and fast, as the dead designer intended".

> > They would rather rewind 20+ years in an unsuccessful attempt to preserve fewer than 10 country clubs than let some grass grow.

> > The fun part about a ball rollback would be all the tech advancements that would allow the players to figure out how to hit it just as far and continue bomb it on these newly firm and fast courses.

>

> Funny thing is firm and fast is never how the original designers intended the courses to be played. They did not have the technology in agronomy to do it. Anyone who wants firm and fast, and also wants the course to play as the designer intended on these historic courses, obviously does not know as much about the history of course architecture as they seem to think they do.

>

>

 

This is generally not true (at least for "golden age" courses). The courses were designed in an era before automated irrigation was a thing, so in the summertime, it was "normal" for the fairways to become sort of burnt-out hardpan. There are still a few courses that have resisted fairway irrigation, and you can see design "intent" if you play one of these in the autumn. Firm, fast, and not much grass.

 

What modern agronomy has allowed is Augusta-like presentation of the golf course (green everywhere) with firm-and-fast conditions, which is a relatively new invention.

[raynorfan1]

> @LICC said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Oh, absolutely!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And if you don’t like their vision, and the use of historic links as general measuring sticks of how to organize and rule the game, then you are naturally free to organize your own game, make up your own rules and adapt your own equipment.

> > > > >

> > > > > Knock yourselves out. I won’t care.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Can you name five (5) "classic, historic, precious, championship courses" that have hosted a major since 1980, and have room for a modern tournament crowd, that cannot host a major because they are too short?

> > > > Have we deduced your entire position to the preservation of a handful of courses? Hmmm.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

> >

> > Here are the upcoming US open sites and the dates they opened. All pretty historic.

> >

> >

> > 2020 -- June 18-21 -- Winged Foot Golf Club, Mamaroneck, N.Y. 1923

> > 2021 -- June 17-20 -- Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course), La Jolla, Calif. 1957

> > 2022 -- June 16-19 -- The Country Club, Brookline, Mass. 1882

> > 2023 -- June 15-18 -- Los Angeles Country Club, Los Angeles, Calif. 1897

> > 2024 -- June 13-16 -- Pinehurst No. 2, Pinehurst, N.C. 1897/98

> > 2025 -- June 12-15 -- Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. 1904

> > 2026 -- June 18-21 -- Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y. 1896 - funny thing about this course. If it was played "as intended" it would only be 5000 yards.......

> > 2027 -- June 17-20 -- Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, Calif. 1919

>

> It’s not that today’s distances have made these courses not able to host a major. It has made how these courses play indistinguishable from any other course out there unless the course is tricked up.

 

I can only speak to the country club, but knowing the course reasonably well, I think it will present a similar challenge to 1913, 1968, and 1988. The course has been stretched out in a few places so that the spots to hit for the "big" hitters have not changed all that much, and the premium on being in the right spot on the fairway will be the same as it has always been. The bomb-and-gouge closer-to-the-hole-is-always-better rules will not hold up on that golf course. Some people will complain that it's "tricked up" when balls don't hold the false front on #14 or you're buried in fescue 2 paces off a green...but at the country club, those have always been risks at play.

 

It's also worth noting that the back nine of this "historic" club tips out at 4,200 yards (Par 37) after a front 9 that will be ~3,300 yards (Par 33). So it will be really interesting to see players grind on the back; there are very few obvious opportunities to score (#6, #9, and maybe #7), and also a handful of holes where the carry from the tee to the fairway is 250+ (and the fairway is not that wide)...

[15th Club]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > >

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We watch different tournaments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> > > > >

> > > > > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

> > > >

> > > > Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

> > >

> > > They have an answer to this: "The courses must play firm and fast, as the dead designer intended".

> > > They would rather rewind 20+ years in an unsuccessful attempt to preserve fewer than 10 country clubs than let some grass grow.

> > > The fun part about a ball rollback would be all the tech advancements that would allow the players to figure out how to hit it just as far and continue bomb it on these newly firm and fast courses.

> >

> > Funny thing is firm and fast is never how the original designers intended the courses to be played. They did not have the technology in agronomy to do it. Anyone who wants firm and fast, and also wants the course to play as the designer intended on these historic courses, obviously does not know as much about the history of course architecture as they seem to think they do.

> >

> >

>

> This is generally not true (at least for "golden age" courses). The courses were designed in an era before automated irrigation was a thing, so in the summertime, it was "normal" for the fairways to become sort of burnt-out hardpan. There are still a few courses that have resisted fairway irrigation, and you can see design "intent" if you play one of these in the autumn. Firm, fast, and not much grass.

>

> What modern agronomy has allowed is Augusta-like presentation of the golf course (green everywhere) with firm-and-fast conditions, which is a relatively new invention.

 

 

Exactly right. When did they install irrigation at NGLA? The eighties? I think it was the nineties! The nineteen-nineties, that is. Lol.

 

I hope to see more of your comments, Raynor fan.