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

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

> 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.

 

I know you and 15th have a thing going on here but what about the all the major courses that have been lengthened since 1980? Do we discount that fact? Courses that _have_ to put in sub-air systems to get the greens "championship" firm. If you look just at the US Open, really no course since the 1960's has been a one and done. For the most part they all make the changes necessary to stay in the loop.

 

I personally think it is a stupid "keeping up with the Jones's" sort of thing but at the end of the day it is up to the membership to vote on (presumably) to spend the money and tear up their course to do it.

 

Valhalla played on temporary greens for several months leading up to the Ryder Cup.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > 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.

>

> I know you and 15th have a thing going on here but what about the all the major courses that have been lengthened since 1980? Do we discount that fact? Courses that _have_ to put in sub-air systems to get the greens "championship" firm. If you look just at the US Open, really no course since the 1960's has been a one and done. For the most part they all make the changes necessary to stay in the loop.

>

> I personally think it is a stupid "keeping up with the Jones's" sort of thing but at the end of the day it is up to the membership to vote on (presumably) to spend the money and tear up their course to do it.

>

> Valhalla played on temporary greens for several months leading up to the Ryder Cup.

 

Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > I know you and 15th have a thing going on here but what about the all the major courses that have been lengthened since 1980? Do we discount that fact? Courses that _have_ to put in sub-air systems to get the greens "championship" firm. If you look just at the US Open, really no course since the 1960's has been a one and done. For the most part they all make the changes necessary to stay in the loop.

> >

> > I personally think it is a stupid "keeping up with the Jones's" sort of thing but at the end of the day it is up to the membership to vote on (presumably) to spend the money and tear up their course to do it.

> >

> > Valhalla played on temporary greens for several months leading up to the Ryder Cup.

>

> Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

 

While I am on your side. I am not sure that the USGA is really to blame for the any perceived or real distance problem. I think they got caught with the pants down. Ignorance is not any better if that is the case.

 

I am curious how major location selection happens. I a honestly do not know what the process is. Is it like the olympics, and courses submit bids?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I know you and 15th have a thing going on here but what about the all the major courses that have been lengthened since 1980? Do we discount that fact? Courses that _have_ to put in sub-air systems to get the greens "championship" firm. If you look just at the US Open, really no course since the 1960's has been a one and done. For the most part they all make the changes necessary to stay in the loop.

> > >

> > > I personally think it is a stupid "keeping up with the Jones's" sort of thing but at the end of the day it is up to the membership to vote on (presumably) to spend the money and tear up their course to do it.

> > >

> > > Valhalla played on temporary greens for several months leading up to the Ryder Cup.

> >

> > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

>

> While I am on your side. I am not sure that the USGA is really to blame for the any perceived or real distance problem. I think they got caught with the pants down. Ignorance is not any better if that is the case.

>

> I am curious how major location selection happens. I a honestly do not know what the process is. Is it like the olympics, and courses submit bids?

 

Yeah, I suppose I don't think the USGA is 100% "to blame" for any real or perceived issue, just that it is the entity that had the power to do something ~20 years ago, and chose not to for financial reasons (as even 15th confirmed). I mean, they had no problem killing the ERC in short order. Now, all these years later, if they choose to do something at the expense of the vast majority of golfers to "preserve" 5-10 courses for elite men's play, it will be tough to reconcile it without pointing the finger at itself. Even if the USGA takes some sort of responsibility for its inaction (doubtful), it will be doubly difficult to roll back anything while keeping a straight face as the entity responsible for the good of the game as a whole.

 

TL;DR: A leader derserving of respect doesn't proclaim itself in charge, fall asleep for 20 years, and then wake up blaming others.

 

I'm not sure about how major venues are selected. Masters is obvious; British has the rotation. PGA and US Open, IDK.

[LICC]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > > >

> > > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > > >

> > > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> > >

> > > I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

> > >

> > > At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

> >

> >

> > 1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

>

> To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

>

> I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

>

> For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

 

I believe this. Most people think they hit it farther than they really do.

[oiler45]

I agree with the above. There are a number of reasons to consider rolling back the distance a ball travels but in my opinion the least relevant is because a number of classic old courses are obsolete. I say "WHO CARES" ?? A few courses throughout the world that only 0.001% of people can play and we want to significantly alter the enjoyment the other 99.999% of golfers have because of that? Some old classics now can't handle pro tournaments - big deal.

[15th Club]

I’m not agreeing with you about anything, Ashley Schaeffer. You can stop misquoting me.

 

 

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

>

> To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

>

> I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

>

> For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

 

Is golf not supposed to be hard to an extent? At some point if you can't keep the ball somewhat on the face you should reap what you sow.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> >

> > To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

> >

> > I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

> >

> > For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

>

> Is golf not supposed to be hard to an extent? At some point if you can't keep the ball somewhat on the face you should reap what you sow.

 

True, I agree. Golf is not so much fun but rewarding.

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

> Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

 

I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

 

So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players. Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

 

If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

[oikos1]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

>

> I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

>

> So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players. Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

>

> If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

 

The majority of golfers don't want to go backwards. Actual or perceived distance is a real thing. Distance sells. Golf is not going backwards.

 

I suppose if the USGA froze the ball and didn't allow further advancements that might be a reasonable beginning. The USGA and the PGA could also require tournament selected sites to grow the rough and narrow certain fairways "to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play". For some reason they don't want to do either. I don't think most golf spectators would actually care what kind of golf ball players used in competition except it's going to look pretty silly when guys at the local muni are out driving the longest of tour pros.

 

 

[bigred90gt]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

>

> I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

>

> So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

>

> If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

 

In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

 

I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > >

> > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> >

> > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> >

> > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> >

> > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

>

> In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

>

> I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

 

It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

[smashdn]

That's the thing though, it is not just limited to those hosting majors or pro tournaments or even those vying to host said tournaments. The Augusta Syndrome is real and pervasive and costs places money just the way distance does.

 

There is a set of players that won't entertain playing a course less than 7000 yards regardless of whether they have any business playing at that length. It is machismo at work.

 

When I made the Tiger Tee comment I made sure and searched before I did. I found a course in MD with back tees at 8000 yards. Why?

 

The local club here has added a set of tee markers that stays at the very back of the box all the time. They'll have some tournaments off those tees. Course also has a 305Ish par four dogleg left around a fronting pond. In that tournament a guy aced it with a three wood. He was able to go over some huge oak trees to do it.

 

My gripe isn't confined to just the distance but also the height of drives. I play persimmon as well as a modern set. I'm not short off the tee with either driver. But the biggest difference is how you have to play to get the same distance. I have found I have to hit a running draw to get the runout to get the distance. The ball just goes lower. Which means you can't as easily go over the trees. You have to shape your shot. Shot making. The ball is running on the ground so you have to take the bunker at 260 into consideration. You can't just fly it. The hills and humps come into play.

 

I carry my Titleist 913 an average of 275 and get about 10 yards rollout on average according to track man last year. It is just a completely different game. Wood bats vs. Late 1990's aluminum bat-esque.

 

I am not saying one way or the other is better per se, but one way is definitely more challenging and has more variables to contend with. If you are interested in challenging pros there is a path to do it by.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > >

> > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > >

> > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > >

> > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > >

> > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> >

> > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> >

> > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

>

> It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

 

That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

> That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

 

I don't know. It all stinks of "I don't like where it is going" type think. Even 15, has said multiple times. Score does not matter, it is all about how the game is played now. I am probably wrong but that is the feeling that I get.

[LICC]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > >

> > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > >

> > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > >

> > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > >

> > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> >

> > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> >

> > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

>

> It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

 

You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > >

> > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > >

> > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > >

> > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > >

> > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> >

> > That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

>

> I don't know. It all stinks of "I don't like where it is going" type think. Even 15, has said multiple times. Score does not matter, it is all about how the game is played now. I am probably wrong but that is the feeling that I get.

 

It's the feeling I get as well. Their real feelings are conveniently disguised as genuine concern for the way a handful of players play a handful of courses.

[QuigleyDU]

> @LICC said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

> You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

 

> @LICC said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

> You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

 

Man, I feel like you see that some but it is not like they do that on every hole and every course. I agree that it is a bit of a mindset but in practice I do not think it is as wide spread as some think.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

> You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

 

Meh, I get what you're saying, but I think you might be overlooking the fact that the feathered 5-irons of old weren't exactly riveting compared to the wild recovery shots of today.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @smashdn said:

> That's the thing though, it is not just limited to those hosting majors or pro tournaments or even those vying to host said tournaments. The Augusta Syndrome is real and pervasive and costs places money just the way distance does.

>

> There is a set of players that won't entertain playing a course less than 7000 yards regardless of whether they have any business playing at that length. It is machismo at work.

>

> When I made the Tiger Tee comment I made sure and searched before I did. I found a course in MD with back tees at 8000 yards. Why?

>

> The local club here has added a set of tee markers that stays at the very back of the box all the time. They'll have some tournaments off those tees. Course also has a 305Ish par four dogleg left around a fronting pond. **In that tournament a guy aced it with a three wood. He was able to go over some huge oak trees to do it.**

>

> My gripe isn't confined to just the distance but also the height of drives. I play persimmon as well as a modern set. I'm not short off the tee with either driver. But the biggest difference is how you have to play to get the same distance. I have found I have to hit a running draw to get the runout to get the distance. The ball just goes lower. Which means you can't as easily go over the trees. You have to shape your shot. Shot making. The ball is running on the ground so you have to take the bunker at 260 into consideration. You can't just fly it. The hills and humps come into play.

>

> I carry my Titleist 913 an average of 275 and get about 10 yards rollout on average according to track man last year. It is just a completely different game. Wood bats vs. Late 1990's aluminum bat-esquire.

>

> I am not saying one way or the other is better per se, but one way is definitely more challenging and has more variables to contend with. If you are interested in challenging pros there is a path to do it by.

 

Would you say he's representative of the average player? IDK, some may read that and say, "he shouldn't be able to do that." I read it and think it must've been an incredibly exciting shot to watch!

[raynorfan1]

Does anybody else find it "interesting" that the GolfClubAtlas "New Golden Age" of design (beginning at the dawn of this century) corresponds almost perfectly to the escalation in equipment?

 

Could it be that the new equipment makes it possible for tens of thousands more golfers to understand and appreciate great architecture and the designers' intent? And that the cost of this "golden age" may actually be that the top 100 players in the world make a mockery of some old classics. Who would we rather preserve these courses for? The thousands of people who play them every day, or the twice-in-a-lifetime major championship?

[bigred90gt]

> @smashdn said:

> That's the thing though, it is not just limited to those hosting majors or pro tournaments or even those vying to host said tournaments. The Augusta Syndrome is real and pervasive and costs places money just the way distance does.

>

 

The additional cost IS limited to those hosting these tournaments. Regular courses aren't lengthening existing tracts just for the sake of doing it. Not enough to be of any concern anyway. In all of the courses I have played around Houston multiple times over the last 15 years, I have seen 1 tee box added to 1 hole on 1 course.

 

> There is a set of players that won't entertain playing a course less than 7000 yards regardless of whether they have any business playing at that length. It is machismo at work.

>

 

And they can go find those courses. That set of people is very VERY small compared to the golfing public as a whole.

 

> When I made the Tiger Tee comment I made sure and searched before I did. I found a course in MD with back tees at 8000 yards. Why?

>

 

There's a course in Alabama that's 8000 yards too, and? Who cares why? The builders felt that is what they wanted to do, it was their money, and they did it. Good for them.

 

> The local club here has added a set of tee markers that stays at the very back of the box all the time. They'll have some tournaments off those tees. Course also has a 305Ish par four dogleg left around a fronting pond. In that tournament a guy aced it with a three wood. He was able to go over some huge oak trees to do it.

>

305 severe dogleg around a pond, probably plays what, 230-240 going straight to the green?

 

> My gripe isn't confined to just the distance but also the height of drives. I play persimmon as well as a modern set. I'm not short off the tee with either driver. But the biggest difference is how you have to play to get the same distance. I have found I have to hit a running draw to get the runout to get the distance. The ball just goes lower. Which means you can't as easily go over the trees. You have to shape your shot. Shot making. The ball is running on the ground so you have to take the bunker at 260 into consideration. You can't just fly it. The hills and humps come into play.

>

 

Here's the great thing about having a choice: you can CHOOSE to play those shots with those clubs if you long for the old days of running the ball around the course. No one is stopping you from enjoying the game you want to play, but your plan, and that of the entire rollback crowd WOULD effect every single person that plays the game.

 

> I carry my Titleist 913 an average of 275 and get about 10 yards rollout on average according to track man last year. It is just a completely different game. Wood bats vs. Late 1990's aluminum bat-esquire.

>

> I am not saying one way or the other is better per se, but one way is definitely more challenging and has more variables to contend with. If you are interested in challenging pros there is a path to do it by.

 

I couldnt care less about challenging professional golfers. I'd still watch it if they played a 5000 yard course and the winning score was -35. I enjoy watching the best players on the planet play the best golf they are capable of playing.

 

[bigred90gt]

> @LICC said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

> You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

 

If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > >

> > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > >

> > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > >

> > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > >

> > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> >

> > That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

>

> I don't know. It all stinks of "I don't like where it is going" type think. Even 15, has said multiple times. Score does not matter, it is all about how the game is played now. I am probably wrong but that is the feeling that I get.

 

 

 

I did not say that "score does not matter." I am really getting sick and tired of all of the casually inaccurate misquoting of me here.

 

I have said that a ball rollback is not aimed at rewarding or punishing any particular group of elite level players (long hitters or short). And a ball rollback isn't at all aimed at barely-competent recreational players. Nobody wants to roll them back.

 

And if you simply want to control scoring in the most bluntly effective (and perhaps the cheapest in the short term) way, just do what so many architectural illiterates suggest and make course more punitive. Narrow fairways, longer rough, faster greens. And in doing that, there is not one single person who is knowledgeable about golf course architecture who will deny that the result will be golf that is devoid of strategy related to the course. It won't matter much where the game is played.

 

And as a simple matter of fact, I understand that many of you don't care much about course architecture or history. I am not saying that you need to (although I'd respectfully suggest that it would add to your enjoyment of the game); what I am saying as a matter of fact, rather than my opinion of what should be, is that the USGA and the R&A care deeply about their historic championship golf courses. And they care deeply about the historical dimensions of how golf is played. And that they do regard their championships as historical markers as to how the game is played.

 

And that those deeply-held concerns will drive any decision.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > >

> > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > >

> > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > >

> > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > >

> > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> >

> > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> >

> > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

>

> It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

 

 

 

It's odd to me how few people will find this comment to be profoundly offensive. I guess that it is open season on some personal stereotypes.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > >

> > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > >

> > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > >

> > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > >

> > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> >

> > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

>

>

>

> It's odd to me how few people will find this comment to be profoundly offensive. I guess that it is open season on some personal stereotypes.

 

Must be hitting close to the mark then.. Especially since I did not even mention you, or anyone by name or you know... personally.

[15th Club]

I want to separate out this particular point of Quigley DU's comment for challenge:

 

"It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records."

 

Questions: Which "old pros" have stated any concern about records? Do you have quotes? Links? Which records are in question? What, exactly, prompted you to write that it was a matter of "old pros concerned about records"?

 

I've seen this before. No one has ever articulated anything close to a real basis for that allegation. I've seen garbage tossed around like, "Nicklaus is concerned about his record of major championships." But all that does is cause me to ask in amazement, "How would a ball rollback affect anyone's run at winning majors? Everybody plays by the same equipment regulations. What possible effect would a ball rollback have on that?"

 

If anyone were concerned about scoring records per se, that notion has already been rendered senseless by virtue of the fact that courses keep getting made longer and harder. Can anybody even recite any scoring records as such? I sure can't.

 

So I really don't know of any "old pros" who favor a ball rollback because they are "concerned about records." And I don't think there are any.

 

[oikos1]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > >

> > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > >

> > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > >

> > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > >

> > > That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

> >

> > I don't know. It all stinks of "I don't like where it is going" type think. Even 15, has said multiple times. Score does not matter, it is all about how the game is played now. I am probably wrong but that is the feeling that I get.

>

>

>

> I did not say that "score does not matter." I am really getting sick and tired of all of the casually inaccurate misquoting of me here.

>

> I have said that a ball rollback is not aimed at rewarding or punishing any particular group of elite level players (long hitters or short). And a ball rollback isn't at all aimed at barely-competent recreational players. Nobody wants to roll them back.

>

> And if you simply want to control scoring in the most bluntly effective (and perhaps the cheapest in the short term) way, just do what so many architectural illiterates suggest and make course more punitive. Narrow fairways, longer rough, faster greens. And in doing that, there is not one single person who is knowledgeable about golf course architecture who will deny that the result will be golf that is devoid of strategy related to the course. It won't matter much where the game is played.

>

> And as a simple matter of fact, I understand that many of you don't care much about course architecture or history. I am not saying that you need to (although I'd respectfully suggest that it would add to your enjoyment of the game); what I am saying as a matter of fact, rather than my opinion of what should be, is that the USGA and the R&A care deeply about their historic championship golf courses. And they care deeply about the historical dimensions of how golf is played. And that they do regard their championships as historical markers as to how the game is played.

>

> And that those deeply-held concerns will drive any decision.

 

Well now, since you seem to be an architectural literate, can you please explain how narrowing a fairway for 30 yards past a 265-285 yard fairway bunker and growing the surrounding rough changes course strategy for those who choose to lay up short of the bunker?

[Titleist99]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > >

> > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > >

> > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > >

> > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > >

> > > That's an opinion based less in fact than the one you are counter to.

> >

> > I don't know. It all stinks of "I don't like where it is going" type think. Even 15, has said multiple times. Score does not matter, it is all about how the game is played now. I am probably wrong but that is the feeling that I get.

>

>

>

> I did not say that "score does not matter." I am really getting sick and tired of all of the casually inaccurate misquoting of me here.

>

> I have said that a ball rollback is not aimed at rewarding or punishing any particular group of elite level players (long hitters or short). And a ball rollback isn't at all aimed at barely-competent recreational players. Nobody wants to roll them back.

>

> And if you simply want to control scoring in the most bluntly effective (and perhaps the cheapest in the short term) way, just do what so many architectural illiterates suggest and make course more punitive. Narrow fairways, longer rough, faster greens. And in doing that, there is not one single person who is knowledgeable about golf course architecture who will deny that the result will be golf that is devoid of strategy related to the course. It won't matter much where the game is played.

>

> And as a simple matter of fact, I understand that many of you don't care much about course architecture or history. I am not saying that you need to (although I'd respectfully suggest that it would add to your enjoyment of the game); what I am saying as a matter of fact, rather than my opinion of what should be, is that the USGA and the R&A care deeply about their historic championship golf courses. And they care deeply about the historical dimensions of how golf is played. And that they do regard their championships as historical markers as to how the game is played.

>

> And that those deeply-held concerns will drive any decision.

 

 

 

 

As long as you keep in mind that the Championship golf courses of the past was constructed with the "gutty or balata" ball as golf equipment. They flew about 200-250 off the tee. As equipment advanced so must the golf course at the same rate......the only way to play the same game as the original architects is to go back to the featherie, gutta-purcha and hickory shafts......