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

[bigred90gt]

> @gvogel said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

>

> I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

>

> It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

>

> On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

>

> As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

>

> I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

>

> I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

>

>

 

Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

 

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

 

Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly is.

 

[Krt22]

Well said big red.

[gvogel]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > >

> > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> >

> > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> >

> > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> >

> > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> >

> > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> >

> > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> >

> > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> >

> >

>

> Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

>

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

>

> Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

>

 

But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen. In reality, millions and millions of golfers do not play the game from the same tees as the elite 1%. The tees for millions and millions can be moved shorter.

[bigred90gt]

> @gvogel said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > > >

> > > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> > >

> > > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> > >

> > > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> > >

> > > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> > >

> > > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> > >

> > > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

> >

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

> >

> > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

> >

>

> But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

 

Except for those that are already playing the forward tees and struggling to even be able to reach the greens in regulation with the longest clubs in their bags. But nevermind those folks right?

 

But regardless, why should anyone have to change the way they play golf simply because a few random people are not pleased with what they see the best of the best of the best do on TV? It is absolutely absurd to think there is ANY logic in that.

[QuigleyDU]

> @gvogel said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > > >

> > > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> > >

> > > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> > >

> > > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> > >

> > > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> > >

> > > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> > >

> > > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

> >

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

> >

> > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

> >

>

> But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

 

They can already play those courses in a shorter way, or suffer the consequences.. haha.

 

 

[bigred90gt]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > >

> >

> > But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

>

> They can already play those courses in a shorter way, or suffer the consequences.. haha.

>

>

>

 

lol, I actually saw a guy do that after his buddy shamed him into it one time (yes, both were drunk). The guy took a mighty lash at the ball and fell smooth over because he tripped on his britches that were around his ankles.

[MidwestGolfBum]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> >

> >

> > Driving accuracy

> > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

>

> Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

>

> All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

 

Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

[gvogel]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > > > @Krt22 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > > > >

> > > > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> > > >

> > > > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> > > >

> > > > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> > > >

> > > > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> > > >

> > > > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> > > >

> > > > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

> > >

> >

> > But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

>

> Except for those that are already playing the forward tees and struggling to even be able to reach the greens in regulation with the longest clubs in their bags. But nevermind those folks right?

>

> But regardless, why should anyone have to change the way they play golf simply because a few random people are not pleased with what they see the best of the best of the best do on TV? It is absolutely absurd to think there is ANY logic in that.

 

At the muni course that I play, they have put some posts out in the fairway that are shorter than the ladies tees. They are meant for kids and older players. As a matter of fact, I have played from them with a reduced distance ball (Point Five). Pretty much the same game, plays faster, scoring is about the same. I have been doing that because I have a torn rotator cuff tendon in my shoulder, and the reduced distance ball doesn't hurt.

 

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

 

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

[QuigleyDU]

> @gvogel said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Krt22 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > > > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > > > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > > > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> > > > >

> > > > > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

> > > >

> > >

> > > But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

> >

> > Except for those that are already playing the forward tees and struggling to even be able to reach the greens in regulation with the longest clubs in their bags. But nevermind those folks right?

> >

> > But regardless, why should anyone have to change the way they play golf simply because a few random people are not pleased with what they see the best of the best of the best do on TV? It is absolutely absurd to think there is ANY logic in that.

>

> At the muni course that I play, they have put some posts out in the fairway that are shorter than the ladies tees. They are meant for kids and older players. As a matter of fact, I have played from them with a reduced distance ball (Point Five). Pretty much the same game, plays faster, scoring is about the same. I have been doing that because I have a torn rotator cuff tendon in my shoulder, and the reduced distance ball doesn't hurt.

>

> Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees? **YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**

>

> Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course? **I cant say for sure, but I think I have an idea. **

 

Again, for what you could really say encompasses relatively ALL golfers the course being too short is not an issue. We are talking about the 1% of 1%.

[bigred90gt]

> @gvogel said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @rangersgoalie said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Krt22 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > > > > > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > > > > > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > > > > > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

> > > > >

> > > > > As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Part of the differing options, Augusta National didn’t HAVE to purchase the land, they CHOSE to purchase the land.

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. **You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly i**s.

> > > >

> > >

> > > But what you are leaving out of your argument is that if the equipment is rolled back, courses can be set up shorter, and millions and millions of golfers will still get the same enjoyment (or lack thereof, sometimes) on a shorter course. This can happen.

> >

> > Except for those that are already playing the forward tees and struggling to even be able to reach the greens in regulation with the longest clubs in their bags. But nevermind those folks right?

> >

> > But regardless, why should anyone have to change the way they play golf simply because a few random people are not pleased with what they see the best of the best of the best do on TV? It is absolutely absurd to think there is ANY logic in that.

>

> At the muni course that I play, they have put some posts out in the fairway that are shorter than the ladies tees. They are meant for kids and older players. As a matter of fact, I have played from them with a reduced distance ball (Point Five). Pretty much the same game, plays faster, scoring is about the same. I have been doing that because I have a torn rotator cuff tendon in my shoulder, and the reduced distance ball doesn't hurt.

>

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

>

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

 

Sure, ask all of the struggling golf courses to build a new set or 2 of tee boxes because a handful of people do not like the way pros/elite ams play the game. Still doesnt make a lick of sense.

 

And we do have 1 course near me that has tee markers 150 out on most holes (except par 3s and for whatever reason 1 random par 4). Those are the tees my wife plays when we play there. She has hit it on a green 1 time, usually she is a little short. When we play other courses and she plays the ladies tees, it might take her 3 solid shots to reach most greens. So she should be basically penalized 1 stroke per hole because someone wants to watch someone play golf on an old course? Again, no logical justification.

 

And playing the same course from a shorter distance will not save time. You still have to travel the full length of the course.

[marmaduk]

> @Krt22 said:

> Agreed with you there Quigley, this discussion realistically only applies to professionals and maybe 1-2% of elite ams. The reality is there are far too many ams who play the wrong tees for their skill/length and rolling back anything would only hurt them, pace of play, and ultimately the game as a whole. So the notion of bifucation comes up, which IMO would have a similar negative impact given one of the allures of golf is you can literally play the same game/courses as the professionals. If you have bifurcation, well that goes away and you have an institution essentially saying the pros and ams are playing two wildly different games.

 

I agree that bifurcation would destroy pace of play as those monkeys who drive it 220 from the tips would now just be driving it 190 from the tips because they would obviously use the pro’s ball now....

 

But, you are wildly wrong if you think pros and ams play the same game. Your game, and mine as well, looks like ping-pong compared to Nadal‘s tennis.

[marmaduk]

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

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

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

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

>

>

> My comment as you quoted it wasn’t aimed at you. Based on your informal golfing resume, I expect that a conversation with you would be quite enjoyable.

>

> My comment was clearly aimed at another commenter who presumed that the main motivation for advocates of a ball rollback was that they could no longer compete with younger (?!) players and/or who could no longer hit it as far as they used to.

>

>** And that sort of random baseless insult is a conversation ended. At least, a polite conversation ender.**

>

 

see post #206 for that random baseless insult.

[15th Club]

All of these concerns about aging high handicappers losing 30 yards off the tee are hysterical. It will never happen.

 

Did they GAIN 30 yards with the advent of the Pro V? Of course not; they don’t even buy Pro V’s.

[gvogel]

> @marmaduk said:

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

 

Best comment in the thread.

 

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

 

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

[15th Club]

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

 

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

 

Dit-to.

 

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

 

[Shilgy]

> @gvogel said:

> > @marmaduk said:

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

>

> Best comment in the thread.

>

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

>

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

 

 

[gvogel]

> @"15th Club" said:

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

>

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

>

> Dit-to.

>

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

>

 

Let's hope that they are quietly lobbying the USGA and R&A to take action so that they can keep 13 the same length. Chairman Ridley has hinted as much .

[marmaduk]

> @Shilgy said:

>

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @marmaduk said:

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

> >

> > Best comment in the thread.

> >

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

> >

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

>

>

 

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

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

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

>

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

>

> Dit-to.

>

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

>

 

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

[ThinkingPlus]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

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

> >

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

> >

> > Dit-to.

> >

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

> >

>

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

 

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

[csiachos]

TW would have been more dominant if he had grown up in the modern driver era.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @csiachos said:

> TW would have been more dominant if he had grown up in the modern driver era.

 

Relevancy?

[clevited]

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

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

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

> >

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

> >

> > Dit-to.

> >

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

> >

>

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

 

 

I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

 

[gvogel]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Dit-to.

> > >

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

> > >

> >

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

>

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

 

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

[bladehunter]

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > >

> > >

> > > Driving accuracy

> > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> >

> > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> >

> > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

>

> Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

 

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > >

> > >

> > > Driving accuracy

> > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> >

> > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> >

> > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

>

> Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

 

Yes. Exactly.

 

 

A rollback would ensure that the long guy saw the advantage. We’d get a couple dominant players based on driving again. Not this taking turns winner stuff we have now. Why is it this way? Everybody is long enough now.

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

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

 

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

 

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

[bladehunter]

> @csiachos said:

> TW would have been more dominant if he had grown up in the modern driver era.

 

How so?

My understanding and opinion is that it’s the opposite. If he hits it shorter relative to everyone else ( as he would with modern equipment ) how is he more dominant ? He might carry it longer than he did then. But there are far more players driving it 300-340 now than then. Somebody find Cory Pavins driver stats from then and now. I’d bet anything he carries it 10-20 plus yards more on the seniors tour than when he played on the pga tour. The short guy has gained the most with new equipment.

[DFS PFD]

Regardless of contributing factors, if the governing bodies do choose to mitigate this problem, the ball would be the single easiest factor to manipulate. I would prefer smaller drivers but I don't see that happening, I would be an advocate in favor reducing ball performance and bring the whole bag back into play. We also could stop lengthening courses to 7300+ yards (sometimes 7500+) and get back to just maintaining what we already have, with land and water shortages as time advances, bigger golf courses do not play into the future well.