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

[bladehunter]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @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.

 

At no point before trackman did we hear AOA , spin etc preached like it is now. Why are they preached ? Because kids are taught how to maximize the speed they have. In a pga junior league practice session it’s literally said “ swing hard enough to fall over and then backoff one tiny bit “ Wild isn’t even in it. You could not teach that way to a bunch of kids hitting persimmon drivers. They wouldn’t have the ball teed up 4-5 inches either. Why ? Control. Now it’s just swing hard. Find it. The ball wont go that far off course . You know full well that having the least amount of club into a green has always been relative to control and safety. The equipment allows for that balance to be cheated. In my opinion.

[QuigleyDU]

It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

 

True to an extent. They could not and would not mow them as tight as they are now or they would completely lose the course. Yes watering was less but the grass was generally taller. Longer grass requires less watering and less maintenance.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

 

With one Walker Cup 97 years ago, a charity nod for another over 90 years later, and precisely zero major championships hosted, I’d hardly call that course a good example for your argument to preserve classic, historic, precious, championship courses at the expense of the golfing public. Hey, it was referred to as the “snootiest country club in the nation”, so that tells us something. Long way from Detroit!

[Titleist99]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

 

I see it at the Munies all the time....

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

>

> I see it at the Munies all the time....

 

Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

[bigred90gt]

> @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.

 

They didn’t have the understanding of agronomy that we do today, true. And yes, they could get baked out. But, they also didn’t have mowers capable of mowing fairways to 3/16”. Grass in the fairways was generally longer. So yes, the soil was firm, but the grass was longer, so firm at times, sure. Fast, not so much.

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> >

> > I see it at the Munies all the time....

>

> Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

 

 

Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

[oikos1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @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.

>

> At no point before trackman did we hear AOA , spin etc preached like it is now. Why are they preached ? Because kids are taught how to maximize the speed they have. In a pga junior league practice session it’s literally said “ swing hard enough to fall over and then backoff one tiny bit “ Wild isn’t even in it. You could not teach that way to a bunch of kids hitting persimmon drivers. They wouldn’t have the ball teed up 4-5 inches either. Why ? Control. Now it’s just swing hard. Find it. The ball wont go that far off course . You know full well that having the least amount of club into a green has always been relative to control and safety. The equipment allows for that balance to be cheated. In my opinion.

 

So you're making an argument for the good old days, an argument that's been made by those in every passing generation since the game began. Which good ol' days should the game go back to?

 

The game has advanced and technology is a part of that. Golf courses should advance as well. I do believe there should be risk involved when attempting for greater distance and it really shouldn't be that difficult for a golf course to create new risk if warranted. Here's an interesting quote from one of the games bombers:

 

"They call it 'Tiger-proofing,' but they're just making it longer, making it tougher for everybody," said Bubba Watson, one of the game's longest drivers, who will make his third Masters appearance next week. "I think they're going the wrong way. I think they should grow the rough up and make the fairways narrower, not length. Make it tougher. Firmer greens, smaller fairways, higher rough. That's all you need to do."

 

https://www.espn.com/golf/masters11/columns/story?columnist=harig_bob&page=110329-RTTMasters

[rangersgoalie]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

Hootie quoted about the response by Augusta in the changes’ rationale is the “young men” hitting the ball a lot longer.

 

There was more than distance changes in reaction to Tiger embarrassing the fields in some events. Trees, bunkers, rough, hole location changes, etc

 

.

 

Players, fans, and yes golf writers called it “Tiger proofing”.

 

The Titleiest Professional and Bridgestone balls started a big change in the late 90’s as players started looking more and more to find distance as well more height.

 

As players and equipment companies learned more and more, speed, launch angles and optimization allowed more players to find their ideal and most efficient setups and swings.

 

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > >

> > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> >

> > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

>

>

> Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

 

Hahaha. careful, we can all go back through this and pull posts. the trolling happens on both sides. That is why this argument is so stupid and the cognitive dissonance reaching new levels.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > >

> > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> >

> > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

>

>

> Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

 

Let’s count how many times you’ve called people’s opinions dumb, or the like.

 

Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

 

That’s what I thought.

[15th Club]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> Hootie quoted about the response by Augusta in the changes’ rationale is the “young men” hitting the ball a lot longer.

>

> There was more than distance changes in reaction to Tiger embarrassing the fields in some events. Trees, bunkers, rough, hole location changes, etc

>

> .

>

> Players, fans, and yes golf writers called it “Tiger proofing”.

>

> The Titleiest Professional and Bridgestone balls started a big change in the late 90’s as players started looking more and more to find distance as well more height.

>

> As players and equipment companies learned more and more, speed, launch angles and optimization allowed more players to find their ideal and most efficient setups and swings.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

Isn’t that what I wrote? That ANGC did some things other than pure lengthening, as we ended the nineties and got into the aughts? Yes, I see that that is what I wrote and you didn’t understand or acknowledge it. I wrote that they were architectural changes that have been roundly criticized.

 

Anyway, I gave you the numbers on ANGC length and they speak for themselves. The notion of “Tiger-proofing” is as stupid now as it was when it was invented.

 

And as for your last paragraph, I just have to repeat myself as nauseum; no one cares if the “blame” for increasing distances is drivers or agronomy or launch monitors or athleticism... The simple fact is that the balls are the easiest thing to adjust. Much easier (and better) to adjust ball performance than to adjust priceless and irreplaceable works of golf architectural art.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > At no point before trackman did we hear AOA , spin etc preached like it is now. Why are they preached ? Because kids are taught how to maximize the speed they have. In a pga junior league practice session it’s literally said “ swing hard enough to fall over and then backoff one tiny bit “ Wild isn’t even in it. You could not teach that way to a bunch of kids hitting persimmon drivers. They wouldn’t have the ball teed up 4-5 inches either. Why ? Control. Now it’s just swing hard. Find it. The ball wont go that far off course . You know full well that having the least amount of club into a green has always been relative to control and safety. The equipment allows for that balance to be cheated. In my opinion.

>

> So you're making an argument for the good old days, an argument that's been made by those in every passing generation since the game began. Which good ol' days should the game go back to?

>

> The game has advanced and technology is a part of that. Golf courses should advance as well. I do believe there should be risk involved when attempting for greater distance and it really shouldn't be that difficult for a golf course to create new risk if warranted. Here's an interesting quote from one of the games bombers:

>

> "They call it 'Tiger-proofing,' but they're just making it longer, making it tougher for everybody," said Bubba Watson, one of the game's longest drivers, who will make his third Masters appearance next week. "I think they're going the wrong way. I think they should grow the rough up and make the fairways narrower, not length. Make it tougher. Firmer greens, smaller fairways, higher rough. That's all you need to do."

>

> https://www.espn.com/golf/masters11/columns/story?columnist=harig_bob&page=110329-RTTMasters

 

Well. Let’s flip that around shall we ?

 

So you’re part of the camp that’s advocating for unlimited tech growth going forward. Let’s have every player in a set of hollow irons , and a putter that won’t change ball path anywhere on the face. Then a driver that has max CT score across a 4 inch section of face. That’s where they are headed. 10 years time tops.

 

You’re going to call that nuts. Right ? Sure. But it’s no more nuts than someone calling a wish for some rollback and oversight a “ pining for the old days .... which old days “? That’s a pretty obtuse statement/question that’s simply meant to belittle the opposite side of the argument. Doesn’t work. Just makes you look closed minded. And why ? To call someone else selfish ? When clearly both sides are.

[raynorfan1]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > > >

> > > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> > >

> > > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

> >

> >

> > Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

> Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

 

This is actually a really specific ask. Since 1980 (until the beginning of the ProV1 Era in ~2002), only 31 US courses have hosted majors. Of that group, a handful have subsequently hosted. I think you also have to include in this the courses that were significantly lengthened so that they could host.

 

The group that are too short are:

Cherry Hills Country Club

Southern Hills (currently adding length in the hopes of hosting again)

Riviera (it's great for a PGA tour stop, but not long enough to be a major test)

Oak Hill (they played the 2013 PGA there, and the course did not 'hold up')

 

The group that have been significantly lengthened:

Merion (from ~6500 to 7000)

The Country Club (from 7000 to 7500)

 

But realistically, I don't think there is a *single* golf course that hosted a major before 2000 that has hosted one since without increasing the length of the golf course. Even Bethpage Black has added a couple hundred yards since it first hosted in 2002.

[gvogel]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

 

I bet you that not one of those 4 people play completely by the rules of golf. They certainly shouldn't be playing from the same tees as highly skilled players, so they're not really playing the same game, either. I know that at 66 with a sub 90 swing speed, I am not playing the "pro" game, and I don't pretend to be playing that game.

 

So the difference between us 200 yard drivers and the guys that I like to watch on TV is almost that we're playing on two different planets. I think that is greatest argument for bifurcation. It's come to that.

[oikos1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > > @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.

> > >

> > > At no point before trackman did we hear AOA , spin etc preached like it is now. Why are they preached ? Because kids are taught how to maximize the speed they have. In a pga junior league practice session it’s literally said “ swing hard enough to fall over and then backoff one tiny bit “ Wild isn’t even in it. You could not teach that way to a bunch of kids hitting persimmon drivers. They wouldn’t have the ball teed up 4-5 inches either. Why ? Control. Now it’s just swing hard. Find it. The ball wont go that far off course . You know full well that having the least amount of club into a green has always been relative to control and safety. The equipment allows for that balance to be cheated. In my opinion.

> >

> > So you're making an argument for the good old days, an argument that's been made by those in every passing generation since the game began. Which good ol' days should the game go back to?

> >

> > The game has advanced and technology is a part of that. Golf courses should advance as well. I do believe there should be risk involved when attempting for greater distance and it really shouldn't be that difficult for a golf course to create new risk if warranted. Here's an interesting quote from one of the games bombers:

> >

> > "They call it 'Tiger-proofing,' but they're just making it longer, making it tougher for everybody," said Bubba Watson, one of the game's longest drivers, who will make his third Masters appearance next week. "I think they're going the wrong way. I think they should grow the rough up and make the fairways narrower, not length. Make it tougher. Firmer greens, smaller fairways, higher rough. That's all you need to do."

> >

> > https://www.espn.com/golf/masters11/columns/story?columnist=harig_bob&page=110329-RTTMasters

>

> Well. Let’s flip that around shall we ?

>

> So you’re part of the camp that’s advocating for unlimited tech growth going forward. Let’s have every player in a set of hollow irons , and a putter that won’t change ball path anywhere on the face. Then a driver that has max CT score across a 4 inch section of face. That’s where they are headed. 10 years time tops.

>

> You’re going to call that nuts. Right ? Sure. But it’s no more nuts than someone calling a wish for some rollback and oversight a “ pining for the old days .... which old days “? That’s a pretty obtuse statement/question that’s simply meant to belittle the opposite side of the argument. Doesn’t work. Just makes you look closed minded. And why ? To call someone else selfish ? When clearly both sides are.

 

I'm not sure how supporting technology and forward advancement can be "closed minded", so I'll let that comment simmer for now. As it stands, the ruling bodies have already imposed limits on drivers and change the rules of the game constantly for numerous reasons, of which there is almost no universal agreement. More than likely the day will come when the ball is restricted, and it will more than likely be through bifurcation, which will create an entirely new debate and issues.

 

I've already stated there should be greater risk and penalties for chasing distance. You want to roll it back, I want to see golf courses make forward change as needed. You also brought persimmon and computerized swing readouts into the discussion and it's not relevant as those changes have already happened. Those days are gone and here at the same time.

 

Seriously, how difficult would it be for a golf course to narrow the fairway beyond those 285 bunkers and grow penal rough? You don't have to make courses longer, and you don't have to roll the ball back. Also, if the course is hosting a PGA event, they already change setups all the time compared to what the members play. The truth is, too much distance just isn't an issue at the amateur level and the PGA has no interest in less than 300 yard drives or severe penalties for misses on said 300 yard drives because it's bad for business.

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > > >

> > > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> > >

> > > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

> >

> >

> > Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

>

> Let’s count how many times you’ve called people’s opinions dumb, or the like.

>

> Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

>

> That’s what I thought.

 

 

Neither you, nor your question(s) are worth my time. The golf distance debate is not confined to the PGA Tour, nor major championships.

 

[bladehunter]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > > > @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.

> > > >

> > > > At no point before trackman did we hear AOA , spin etc preached like it is now. Why are they preached ? Because kids are taught how to maximize the speed they have. In a pga junior league practice session it’s literally said “ swing hard enough to fall over and then backoff one tiny bit “ Wild isn’t even in it. You could not teach that way to a bunch of kids hitting persimmon drivers. They wouldn’t have the ball teed up 4-5 inches either. Why ? Control. Now it’s just swing hard. Find it. The ball wont go that far off course . You know full well that having the least amount of club into a green has always been relative to control and safety. The equipment allows for that balance to be cheated. In my opinion.

> > >

> > > So you're making an argument for the good old days, an argument that's been made by those in every passing generation since the game began. Which good ol' days should the game go back to?

> > >

> > > The game has advanced and technology is a part of that. Golf courses should advance as well. I do believe there should be risk involved when attempting for greater distance and it really shouldn't be that difficult for a golf course to create new risk if warranted. Here's an interesting quote from one of the games bombers:

> > >

> > > "They call it 'Tiger-proofing,' but they're just making it longer, making it tougher for everybody," said Bubba Watson, one of the game's longest drivers, who will make his third Masters appearance next week. "I think they're going the wrong way. I think they should grow the rough up and make the fairways narrower, not length. Make it tougher. Firmer greens, smaller fairways, higher rough. That's all you need to do."

> > >

> > > https://www.espn.com/golf/masters11/columns/story?columnist=harig_bob&page=110329-RTTMasters

> >

> > Well. Let’s flip that around shall we ?

> >

> > So you’re part of the camp that’s advocating for unlimited tech growth going forward. Let’s have every player in a set of hollow irons , and a putter that won’t change ball path anywhere on the face. Then a driver that has max CT score across a 4 inch section of face. That’s where they are headed. 10 years time tops.

> >

> > You’re going to call that nuts. Right ? Sure. But it’s no more nuts than someone calling a wish for some rollback and oversight a “ pining for the old days .... which old days “? That’s a pretty obtuse statement/question that’s simply meant to belittle the opposite side of the argument. Doesn’t work. Just makes you look closed minded. And why ? To call someone else selfish ? When clearly both sides are.

>

> I'm not sure how supporting technology and forward advancement can be "closed minded", so I'll let that comment simmer for now. As it stands, the ruling bodies have already imposed limits on drivers and change the rules of the game constantly for numerous reasons, of which there is almost no universal agreement. More than likely the day will come when the ball is restricted, and it will more than likely be through bifurcation, which will create an entirely new debate and issues.

>

> I've already stated there should be greater risk and penalties for chasing distance. You want to roll it back, I want to see golf courses make forward change as needed. You also brought persimmon and computerized swing readouts into the discussion and it's not relevant as those changes have already happened. Those days are gone and here at the same time.

>

> Seriously, how difficult would it be for a golf course to narrow the fairway beyond those 285 bunkers and grow penal rough? You don't have to make courses longer, and you don't have to roll the ball back. Also, if the course is hosting a PGA event, they already change setups all the time compared to what the members play. The truth is, too much distance just isn't an issue at the amateur level and the PGA has no interest in less than 300 yard drives or severe penalties for misses on said 300 yard drives because it's bad for business.

 

I’ll preface this ( and should have before ) to say that none of my opinions are meant to personally attack. In fact you are more reasonable than some for sure.

 

But (lol). One can certainly be closed minded in either direction . Change for the sake of change to call it progress is a type of closed minded addiction. Refusal to know when to quit/ or acknowledge that critical mass has been reached is the root of that idea. Sure that line is debatable. I agree. But i can’t agree that the line doesn’t exist.

 

Now I’m sure you think I’m closed off to “ modern ways “. Not true. And I’ll cite examples. I use an armlock putter. I’m not currently using a 3 iron. ( hybrid instead) I’m using the most tech in a golf ball that exists. ( low spin , more layers etc ) and I used a set of hollow irons all last winter (i500). That’s why I know what I’m talking about. A player who competes has no choice but to search for tech advantages to keep up. It’s much less about ballstrikers and much more about findable distance and putts. I think we agree on that?

[LICC]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @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)...

 

I predict this comment won’t hold up. Will be interesting to see. But look at this year’s PGA at Bethpage. A long course with narrow fairways and brutal rough and preferred angles. The only thing that stopped low scores was heavy winds. These guys bomb it past all the strategic design and even high, thick rough doesn’t stop these guys from getting close to the pin from wedge distances.

[bladehunter]

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

>

> I bet you that not one of those 4 people play completely by the rules of golf. They certainly shouldn't be playing from the same tees as highly skilled players, so they're not really playing the same game, either. I know that at 66 with a sub 90 swing speed, I am not playing the "pro" game, and I don't pretend to be playing that game.

>

> So the difference between us 200 yard drivers and the guys that I like to watch on TV is almost that we're playing on two different planets. I think that is greatest argument for bifurcation. It's come to that.

 

 

Yes. Absolutely yes. There are 2-3 games being played at your local muni. And I play with all versions regularly. It will make some mad. But a guy who doesn’t hit it over 230-240 in the air with driver should not be on the regular “ men’s” tee. That’s a 4 hybrid or 3 iron for any ( yes any ) decent mid am or college player.

 

You cannot truly understand my gripe until you watch a guy hit lob wedge after lob wedge into par4s .... and no it’s not about my being jealous. I do it too when my driver isn’t acting up. And sure. I can layup and not. But I’m trying to compete with the others that do. So you. cannot do that. But I’m a better mid iron player than most. So if you backed it up off the tee the one dimensional player would be exposed. I see it enough on sloppy days , or times when we hit 7000 plus yard courses. You’d see the same on tour. The iron players like tiger would see more advantage. And I personally believe approach play is the game. Not effortless long drive.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > > > >

> > > > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> > > >

> > > > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

> > >

> > >

> > > Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

> >

> > Let’s count how many times you’ve called people’s opinions dumb, or the like.

> >

> > Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

> >

> > That’s what I thought.

>

>

> Neither you, nor your question(s) are worth my time. The golf distance debate is not confined to the PGA Tour, nor major championships.

>

 

Well, at least you can agree that it’s the USGA’s fault, with its lack of oversight and failure to “handle with care” over the last 20 years, that there is a distance debate at all. So, if you want to point fingers, you had better start right there.

 

 

[15th Club]

What does it do for golf, to narrow fairways and grow more penal rough? That just creates boring, penal non-strategic golf. Purely in the interest of controlling scoring. Width is what creates interest. Width opens up choice; choice of different lines of play, and strategy and — with proper distances and firm/fast conditions — the ground game which adds yet more interest.

[raynorfan1]

> @LICC said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @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)...

>

> I predict this comment won’t hold up. Will be interesting to see. But look at this year’s PGA at Bethpage. A long course with narrow fairways and brutal rough and preferred angles. The only thing that stopped low scores was heavy winds. These guys bomb it past all the strategic design and even high, thick rough doesn’t stop these guys from getting close to the pin from wedge distances.

 

Six guys finished the tournament under par at Bethpage. That feels pretty reasonable to me.

 

The Country Club will play to almost exactly the same length that Bethpage did this year. The greens at TCC are - on average -about half the size of the greens at Bethpage. At the 2013 Amateur, there were several guys who are currently on Tour (Bryson Dechambeau, Justin Thomas, Xander Schauffle, Matthew Fitzpatrick, etc.) and none of those "future stars" was under par in stroke play. There are currently a few changes underway that will add a couple hundred yards to the course that the Am was played on, and some bunkering/rough changes that will make the penalty for a miss even more severe.

 

We can revisit in three years, but my guess is that fewer than 4 guys finish under Par for the tournament. There will also be plenty of complaints about how "unfair" the rough is...

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

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

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

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > > > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > > > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> > > > >

> > > > > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

> > >

> > > Let’s count how many times you’ve called people’s opinions dumb, or the like.

> > >

> > > Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

> > >

> > > That’s what I thought.

> >

> >

> > Neither you, nor your question(s) are worth my time. The golf distance debate is not confined to the PGA Tour, nor major championships.

> >

>

> Well, at least you can agree that it’s the USGA’s fault, with its lack of oversight and failure to “handle with care” over the last 20 years, that there is a distance debate at all. So, if you want to point fingers, you had better start right there.

>

>

 

 

Geoff Shackelford does. He’s a regular USGA critic. But he’s not a lawyer, and I am. And my suspicions are that the USGA’s inactivity is in large part attributable to fear of litigation on the part of the Acushnet Holdings Corp. And that someone thought that years of study and documentation to prove the relevant points would be better when, as is inevitable, ball regulations are rolled back.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

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

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

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

> > > > > > > Not surprising to me....most hit about 200-220 and can't break 90....Yet we're having a conversation about rolling back the ball and shrinking the driver because most touring

> > > > > > > Pros hit it 300 and still won't win 10 times in their careers......unbelievable!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I see it at the Munies all the time....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Must preserve the classic, historic, precious, championship courses that have never hosted, and/or cannot host modern tournaments. Maybe my stance and illogical advocacy will make them accept me...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, and for the record, let’s note the personal trolling coming from precisely one side of this debate.

> > > >

> > > > Let’s count how many times you’ve called people’s opinions dumb, or the like.

> > > >

> > > > Can you name five courses that have hosted majors since 1980, can currently host a modern major from an infrastructure perspective, but have been overlooked because they are too short? No? You can’t? You’ll dodge the question for the 15th time?

> > > >

> > > > That’s what I thought.

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither you, nor your question(s) are worth my time. The golf distance debate is not confined to the PGA Tour, nor major championships.

> > >

> >

> > Well, at least you can agree that it’s the USGA’s fault, with its lack of oversight and failure to “handle with care” over the last 20 years, that there is a distance debate at all. So, if you want to point fingers, you had better start right there.

> >

> >

>

>

> Geoff Shackelford does. He’s a regular USGA critic. But he’s not a lawyer, and I am. And my suspicions are that the USGA’s inactivity is in large part attributable to fear of litigation on the part of the Acushnet Holdings Corp. And that someone thought that years of study and documentation to prove the relevant points would be better when, as is inevitable, ball regulations are rolled back.

>

 

So the USGA had only its own interests in mind whilst pulling the wool over the golfing public’s eyes with all the “handle with care” BS. Shocker.

 

If it’s so important to the game, and they intentionally let it get out of hand for self-preservation, I’ve lost even more respect for that organization.

 

 

[oikos1]

> @"15th Club" said:

> What does it do for golf, to narrow fairways and grow more penal rough? That just creates boring, penal non-strategic golf. Purely in the interest of controlling scoring. Width is what creates interest. Width opens up choice; choice of different lines of play, and strategy and — with proper distances and firm/fast conditions — the ground game which adds yet more interest.

 

Please expand. What good is width past a 285 yard bunker when you want to stop players from carrying the bunker? Shorter hitters lay up, playing the hole as it was "designed" and then hit their second into the green. Bombers get penalized if they miss the fairway. Doesn't change choice at all but does increase risk.

[15th Club]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > What does it do for golf, to narrow fairways and grow more penal rough? That just creates boring, penal non-strategic golf. Purely in the interest of controlling scoring. Width is what creates interest. Width opens up choice; choice of different lines of play, and strategy and — with proper distances and firm/fast conditions — the ground game which adds yet more interest.

>

> Please expand. What good is width past a 285 yard bunker when you want to stop players from carrying the bunker? Shorter hitters lay up, playing the hole as it was "designed" and then hit their second into the green. Bombers get penalized if they miss the fairway. Doesn't change choice at all but does increase risk.

 

 

When it is a new ball design that allows players to obviate significant, relevant golf course hazards, I say we should address the ball design and not the golf course design.

 

How hard is that to understand?

 

And yet at the same time, I will always want well-struck shots, including long and accurate drives to be rewarded. I want well-played and imaginitevely-spun shots to be rewarded. I want players of all abilities to be rewarded for thinking their way around golf courses in ways that reflect an understanding of themselves and the course architecture.

[QuigleyDU]

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > It’s funny, I worked today part time at the store. I fit 4 people for drivers all your average male in the mid ages. Not a single one of them hit the ball further than 200 yards..

>

> I bet you that not one of those 4 people play completely by the rules of golf. They certainly shouldn't be playing from the same tees as highly skilled players, so they're not really playing the same game, either. I know that at 66 with a sub 90 swing speed, I am not playing the "pro" game, and I don't pretend to be playing that game.

>

> So the difference between us 200 yard drivers and the guys that I like to watch on TV is almost that we're playing on two different planets. I think that is greatest argument for bifurcation. It's come to that.

 

I would say that you are close. 1 of them I know is a member at one of the nicer clubs in the area, and keeps a handicap. How he plays when no one is looking? I don't know.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> What does it do for golf, to narrow fairways and grow more penal rough? That just creates boring, penal non-strategic golf. Purely in the interest of controlling scoring. Width is what creates interest. Width opens up choice; choice of different lines of play, and strategy and — with proper distances and firm/fast conditions — the ground game which adds yet more interest.

 

I agree with you, but I think that game is really only played on courses that are 100 years old. New courses, have greens that are guarded and obstructed or have false fronts. You cannot play this ground game you speak of.

 

I understand your points, I may even say they have some validity. But, only at 3 courses in the entire world for maybe 100 people in the world. That is too small of a demographic for such fever for pitchforks and torches to burn down titleist headquarters.