Power on the PGA Tour......

[ebrasmus21]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > >

> > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > >

> > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > >

> > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> >

> > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > 6. Does technology matter

> > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> >

> > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

>

> 1. Yes

>

> The rest?

>

>

>

> But I do like your idea of

>

> Rolling back the driver head size.

>

>

 

I would never be so bold as to make a recommendation like that

 

[bscinstnct]

> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > >

> > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > >

> > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > >

> > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> >

> > 1. Yes

> >

> > The rest?

> >

> >

> >

> > But I do like your idea of

> >

> > Rolling back the driver head size.

> >

> >

>

> I would never be so bold as to make a recommendation like that

>

 

Cmon, live a little ! ; )

 

It’s actually a good idea. I don’t know the science of it but assume that there would be a point at which they could make it small enough so they could still hit it as far but much more of a risk reward scenario for swinging full bore.

 

[Bad9]

> @gvogel said:

>

> Is distance ruining the game. Modern distance as a result of modern technology makes golf courses longer, which makes golf longer to play. Growing up, we didn't have to worry about 5 hour rounds. For serious golf viewers, the game has become more boring, as second shots are often shorter and not so difficult.

 

My course hasn't been lengthened in 25yrs and yet the time it takes many to play a round has increased from 3.5 hrs or so to 5 and 6 hrs. Yes I know guys who think a 5-6 hr round in normal. The problem I see as a main cause of longer rounds is guys acting like they are on the PGA Tour with the reshot routines, green reads from multiple angles, generally over analyzing, etc. In other words acting like pros, mostly to no avail given the results. Another factor I see a lot of is just general indifference to others on the course. And this is not just from younger players or people new to the game but many of our more seasoned and experienced players.

 

 

[Titleist99]

> @Bad9 said:

> > @gvogel said:

> >

> > Is distance ruining the game. Modern distance as a result of modern technology makes golf courses longer, which makes golf longer to play. Growing up, we didn't have to worry about 5 hour rounds. For serious golf viewers, the game has become more boring, as second shots are often shorter and not so difficult.

>

> My course hasn't been lengthened in 25yrs and yet the time it takes many to play a round has increased from 3.5 hrs or so to 5 and 6 hrs. Yes I know guys who think a 5-6 hr round in normal. The problem I see as a main cause of longer rounds is guys acting like they are on the PGA Tour with the reshot routines, green reads from multiple angles, generally over analyzing, etc. In other words acting like pros, mostly to no avail given the results. Another factor I see a lot of is just general indifference to others on the course. And this is not just from younger players or people new to the game but many of our more seasoned and experienced players.

>

>

 

Plus the fact that no one wants to leave their ball behind.....they look for 10 minutes for lost balls.

[CrushSticks]

I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

 

Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

[Titleist99]

> @CrushSticks said:

> I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

>

> Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

 

What you just stated is facts, but the throw back people are so afraid of didstance that they use the term "probaly shoot -30" with no facts at all.....They love that word (probably)…..LOL!

[CrushSticks]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @CrushSticks said:

> > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> >

> > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

>

> What you just stated is facts, but the throw back people are so afraid of didstance that they use the term "probaly shoot -30" with no facts at all.....They love that word (probably)…..LOL!

 

I’ll add to this from a statistical standpoint:

-let’s take a course with 14 par 4/5 holes and say we hit a wedge shot to all of them. The absolute best proximity to the hole average on Tour from 50-125 yards is about 10 feet, with the average being closer to the mid 20s.

-the best putting percentage from 10-15 feet is 61%, with the average being closer to 30%, maybe less. I can’t find the number.

 

-This means statistically if we created some sort of super player, they would make 8.4 birdies per round on those holes, and this would be an outrageous, near impossible feat to achieve with regularity. So assuming this player sprinkled in a birdie on the par 3s each day and never makes a bogey, yes, they would shoot 37 under par for 4 rounds. Maybe once has anyone even come close to this in 100 years of pro golf, so I don’t foresee this all of a sudden becoming the norm.

-Our average player makes around 15% of putts from 20-25 feet, so they will make 2.1 birdies per round on these holes. That hardly shakes out to 25 under par over 4 rounds.

 

So... No @LICC , while I appreciate and respect what you are saying, everyone will not shoot 25 under par on a 6500 yard course, especially one with any teeth. One guy in the field might have a stellar week and get there, but they already do that, and more than likely, scoring would be fairly similar to what it is on a 7000-7400 yard tour course.

 

[oikos1]

Did no one catch that Jack Nicklaus in 2014 said that the R&A up until 1990 allowed a ball to be used that went 50 yards farther? “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

 

How did those historic UK courses survive the onslaught of distance for all of those years?

[farmer]

> @oikos1 said:

> Did no one catch that Jack Nicklaus in 2014 said that the R&A up until 1990 allowed a ball to be used that went 50 yards farther? “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

>

> How did those historic UK courses survive the onslaught of distance for all of those years?

 

The small ball could not be used in competition after 1974. Maybe in club events, but not in R&A events. Living in windy country, I would occasionally see a small ball guys were trying, they were not 50 yds longer, maybe for tour players, but not in general. Yes, we knew it was illegal, but it also never made a difference. Herbert Warren Wind posited that the small ball was better suited to links golf because of the nature of the turf, very tight, hard lies, and that the American ball was better suited to the US because we have different grasses that provide a different lie.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @CrushSticks said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @CrushSticks said:

> > > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> > >

> > > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

> >

> > What you just stated is facts, but the throw back people are so afraid of didstance that they use the term "probaly shoot -30" with no facts at all.....They love that word (probably)…..LOL!

>

> I’ll add to this from a statistical standpoint:

> -let’s take a course with 14 par 4/5 holes and say we hit a wedge shot to all of them. The absolute best proximity to the hole average on Tour from 50-125 yards is about 10 feet, with the average being closer to the mid 20s.

> -the best putting percentage from 10-15 feet is 61%, with the average being closer to 30%, maybe less. I can’t find the number.

>

> -This means statistically if we created some sort of super player, they would make 8.4 birdies per round on those holes, and this would be an outrageous, near impossible feat to achieve with regularity. So assuming this player sprinkled in a birdie on the par 3s each day and never makes a bogey, yes, they would shoot 37 under par for 4 rounds. Maybe once has anyone even come close to this in 100 years of pro golf, so I don’t foresee this all of a sudden becoming the norm.

> -Our average player makes around 15% of putts from 20-25 feet, so they will make 2.1 birdies per round on these holes. That hardly shakes out to 25 under par over 4 rounds.

>

> So... No @LICC , while I appreciate and respect what you are saying, everyone will not shoot 25 under par on a 6500 yard course, especially one with any teeth. One guy in the field might have a stellar week and get there, but they already do that, and more than likely, scoring would be fairly similar to what it is on a 7000-7400 yard tour course.

>

 

If scoring would be similar (and I appreciate your rational, statistical analysis), wouldn't the hypothetical tournament be rather boring? Tour pros on a 370 yard hole for the most part bomb a drive and then hit a pitch, so that would be most of the field on most of the holes. I don't think there's be a tremendous amount of shotmaking because in the end it's just be howitzer wedges dropping down, and the winner would be the hot putter from 20 feet. (So basically what we have now except everyone hits wedge) Combine this with a four hour telecast of Johnny Miller telling you what a 4-iron used to be and I think you'd lose viewers quickly.

 

Also I'd want to point out that I'd expect most pros to be on or near all the par 5's in 2 on our 6500yd course, so that might get them a few shots lower.

[BNGL]

and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> >

> > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > >

> > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > >

> > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > >

> > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > >

> > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > >

> > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > >

> > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > >

> > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> >

> > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> >

> > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > 5b. Yes.

> > 6. How would it not matter?

> > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

>

> It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

 

While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

 

There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

 

By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

 

 

[LICC]

> @CrushSticks said:

> I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

>

> Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

 

You just compared a course 700 yards longer to the assertion that winning scores on a 6500 yard course would be -25 or better. You don’t see the irony of what you tried to do? And no one said “everyone” would shoot -25. The leaders would and the remaining scores would follow.

[smashdn]

> @ebrasmus21 said:

 

> With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

>

> 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack? **Probably in some ways. Tiger, I would say may be a better iron player. Jack a better driver of the ball.**

> 2. Did the old pros “play with power”? **Yes, Snead, Casper, DL3, Fred Couples**

> 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology? **He was a bomber with old tech so I would definitely say so.**

> 4. Is distance ruining the game? **Not for the average golfer (keeping in mind the average hdcp is around a 15 I think). At the pro level it has made it too formulaic to win imo.**

> 5. Is distance helping the game? **I'd say no. As a whole courses add length. That adds cost and time to play. But it is probably a wash against the fact the new stuff is easier to hit.**

> 5. Does fitness matter? **Yes. The faster you swing and the more you can leverage the ground the farther you can hit it. Also, often overlooked, is the strength of your hands to control the club.**

> 6. Does technology matter **Yes. Play a round with persimmon and blades and compare. The ball flights are different let alone the distances.**

> 7. Does agronomy matter? **To a lesser extent yes. Mostly with putting I would say. Next, most courses keep their aprons too wet and that prevents the ability to use different clubs for chipping and pitching.**

>

> With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

 

My $.02 for you.

[LICC]

> @CrushSticks said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @CrushSticks said:

> > > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> > >

> > > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

> >

> > What you just stated is facts, but the throw back people are so afraid of didstance that they use the term "probaly shoot -30" with no facts at all.....They love that word (probably)…..LOL!

>

> I’ll add to this from a statistical standpoint:

> -let’s take a course with 14 par 4/5 holes and say we hit a wedge shot to all of them. The absolute best proximity to the hole average on Tour from 50-125 yards is about 10 feet, with the average being closer to the mid 20s.

> -the best putting percentage from 10-15 feet is 61%, with the average being closer to 30%, maybe less. I can’t find the number.

>

> -This means statistically if we created some sort of super player, they would make 8.4 birdies per round on those holes, and this would be an outrageous, near impossible feat to achieve with regularity. So assuming this player sprinkled in a birdie on the par 3s each day and never makes a bogey, yes, they would shoot 37 under par for 4 rounds. Maybe once has anyone even come close to this in 100 years of pro golf, so I don’t foresee this all of a sudden becoming the norm.

> -Our average player makes around 15% of putts from 20-25 feet, so they will make 2.1 birdies per round on these holes. That hardly shakes out to 25 under par over 4 rounds.

>

> So... No @LICC , while I appreciate and respect what you are saying, everyone will not shoot 25 under par on a 6500 yard course, especially one with any teeth. One guy in the field might have a stellar week and get there, but they already do that, and more than likely, scoring would be fairly similar to what it is on a 7000-7400 yard tour course.

>

 

Your own analysis makes my point. Based on your stated stats, an average tour pro would birdie 1/3 of the par-4s. So 3-4 under. The par-5s wouldn’t be wedges in, they would be on in 2 or chipping/pitching from around the green. So definite eagle and birdie opportunities. So another 2 or 3 under. Throw in a birdie on a par-3. That gets you to 64-66. Add a bogie or two, so -4 or -5. -16 to -20 for the middle of the pack. The leaders would make another 2-4 strokes per round. You supported my assertion with that analysis.

[LICC]

> @LICC said:

> > @CrushSticks said:

> > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> >

> > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

>

> You just compared a course 700 yards longer to the assertion that winning scores on a 6500 yard course would be -25 or better. You don’t see the irony of what you tried to do? And no one said “everyone” would shoot -25. The leaders would and the remaining scores would follow.

 

The leaders at the John Deere came in at -17 to -21, and none of the top ranked pros played it. Take away 700 yards and have the top pros play and you don’t think the leaders get to -25 or better? You just convinced me even more how low these guys would go on a 6500 yard course.

[LICC]

> @CrushSticks said:

> I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

>

> Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

 

If you don’t think Woodland or Koepka could have picked up three strokes from 500 yards less length, then I don’t understand what you are thinking.

[gvogel]

> @BNGL said:

> Here’s something that might blow people’s minds...there used to be two golf balls. One in Europe (1.62 inches) and one in America (1.68 inches). Why the difference? The USGA split in the 30’s and outlawed the smaller ball, but players could still use the “longer” smaller ball at the Open Championship until 1974 maybe 75? (Someone fact check it, I’d wager my dog it was 74). And then the ruling bodies agreed in 1990 to a standardized sized golf ball of modernity. So there would almost be precedent for a tournament ball, depending on on how one viewed history.

 

I'm old enough that I played with the smaller ball in Scotland in 1979 and 1982.

 

The UK kept the smaller ball in 1931 because of the prevalence of windy days; the small ball was far better in the wind. The fact that there were two piece balls in the 1990's, and better dimple patterns, enabled the UK to go to the ball as we know it today. They also did it because their pros were at a disadvantage to the US in terms of shotmaking. The bigger ball required better control.

[gvogel]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > Here’s something that might blow people’s minds...there used to be two golf balls. One in Europe (1.62 inches) and one in America (1.68 inches). Why the difference? The USGA split in the 30’s and outlawed the smaller ball, but players could still use the “longer” smaller ball at the Open Championship until 1974 maybe 75? (Someone fact check it, I’d wager my dog it was 74). And then the ruling bodies agreed in 1990 to a standardized sized golf ball of modernity. So there would almost be precedent for a tournament ball, depending on on how one viewed history.

> >

> > Well done! This is why we grind through threads. Inspired me to seek more and this turned up:

> >

> > "Golfers had the option of playing the smaller golf ball in competitions under R&A rules, but it was not an option for golfers playing under the USGA rules. (In international competitions like the Ryder Cup, the smaller ball was allowed even if the event was held in the United States.) American golfers almost unanimously preferred the smaller ball when playing The Open Championship. Jack Nicklaus, in an interview at the Memorial Tournament this year, said, “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

> >

> > Palmer1

> >

> > "The small, “British Ball” was just what Palmer needed for the 1961 Open at Royal Birkdale. Facing gale force winds of 50 mph and torrential rain, Palmer used his 1-iron to great effect, hitting what we would call today in Tiger Woods’ parlance, “stingers.” The smaller ball off of Palmer’s attacking strikes sailed through the winds. At the 6th hole, Palmer’s shot carried a fairway bunker by some 30 yards that most of the field failed to reach. On seeing Palmer’s shot clear the bunker, one player simply said, “In that case, I give up.”

> >

> > "Playing in The Open Championship with the British ball was finally disallowed in 1974 and barred from all competition play in 1990, thereby bringing the worldwide standard for golf balls to 1.68 inches in dimension."

> >

> > "Interestingly, this decades-long debate over the size and weight of the golf ball started in 1920 during an informal conference held in Muirfield, Scotland, between the USGA and the R&A in an effort to resolve the perceived problem of increased distance that a ball carried. The golf ball continues to be a hot topic today, and fans know the debate is far from over."

> >

> > http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/media-center/news-articles/arnold-palmer-british-ball/

>

> Just goes to show you that they thought the sky way falling 100 years ago as well but somehow golf has evolved and is thriving.

>

> Touring Pros will continue to search for distance until it is no longer an advantage (i.e. penal bunkers, pitch out rough, real water hazards,

>

> tighter fairways, etc...)

>

> On another note: I still can't find any quotes of Palmer or Nicklaus saying that the ball went to far when they were in their prime....LOL!

 

100 years ago the shorter courses from the hickory era were being abandoned for longer courses - this particularly spawned the courses of the "Golden Era" of golf course design in the 1920's and 1930's.

 

That happened where I live as the Country Club of Buffalo sold the course that had hosted the 1912 US Open, and moved to a site on an abandoned quarry to build a fine Donald Ross course.

 

The difference is that today, land is not generally available to lengthen golf courses. Land is also more expensive. And because golfers expect greener grass and overall better conditions, more money is needed for golf course maintenance. Lengthening courses costs a lot more money.

 

The easier solution is to roll back equipment.

[bladehunter]

> @BNGL said:

> and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> > >

> > > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > > >

> > > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > > >

> > > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > > >

> > > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> > >

> > > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> > >

> > > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > > 5b. Yes.

> > > 6. How would it not matter?

> > > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

> >

> > It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

>

> While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

>

> There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

>

> By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

>

>

 

I agree with this in a lot of ways.

 

 

But I think it goes for both sides. I’ve seen no real objective , concrete answer as to why the rollback would kill the game either. Lots of opinion. But no study or poll or anything has been posted. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that both sides are self serving ( myself absolutely) in those OPINIONS.... and that is met with down right rage. I’m not sure why?

[bigred90gt]

nevermind - I said I was done with this one, and I need to keep it that way.

 

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @farmer said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > Did no one catch that Jack Nicklaus in 2014 said that the R&A up until 1990 allowed a ball to be used that went 50 yards farther? “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

> >

> > How did those historic UK courses survive the onslaught of distance for all of those years?

>

> The small ball could not be used in competition after 1974. Maybe in club events, but not in R&A events. Living in windy country, I would occasionally see a small ball guys were trying, they were not 50 yds longer, maybe for tour players, but not in general. Yes, we knew it was illegal, but it also never made a difference. Herbert Warren Wind posited that the small ball was better suited to links golf because of the nature of the turf, very tight, hard lies, and that the American ball was better suited to the US because we have different grasses that provide a different lie.

 

In 2014, they used to hit the small ball 50 yards further. Ask him next year, and I bet they used to hit it 60 yards further.

[Titleist99]

> @bigred90gt said:

> nevermind - I said I was done with this one, and I need to keep it that way.

>

>

>

 

Yet you still felt compelled to stop in to say hello...…..LOL!

[Titleist99]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> > > >

> > > > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > > > >

> > > > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > > > >

> > > > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> > > >

> > > > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> > > >

> > > > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > > > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > > > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > > > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > > > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > > > 5b. Yes.

> > > > 6. How would it not matter?

> > > > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

> > >

> > > It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

> >

> > While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

> >

> > There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

> >

> > By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

> >

> >

>

> I agree with this in a lot of ways.

>

>

> But I think it goes for both sides. I’ve seen no real objective , concrete answer as to why the rollback would kill the game either. Lots of opinion. But no study or poll or anything has been posted. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that both sides are self serving ( myself absolutely) in those OPINIONS.... and that is met with down right rage. I’m not sure why?

 

There's a few reasons why a rollback of equipment won't work for me and most of the people I know:

 

If you reduce distance you slow down the game and that is the biggest enemy of the game.

 

 

If you reduce distance most golfers I'm associated with won't watch golfers on TV that hit it the same distance as they do. They want to watch

great athletes do great things.

 

 

Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow.

 

 

Just my opinion~

[gvogel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @farmer said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > Did no one catch that Jack Nicklaus in 2014 said that the R&A up until 1990 allowed a ball to be used that went 50 yards farther? “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

> > >

> > > How did those historic UK courses survive the onslaught of distance for all of those years?

> >

> > The small ball could not be used in competition after 1974. Maybe in club events, but not in R&A events. Living in windy country, I would occasionally see a small ball guys were trying, they were not 50 yds longer, maybe for tour players, but not in general. Yes, we knew it was illegal, but it also never made a difference. Herbert Warren Wind posited that the small ball was better suited to links golf because of the nature of the turf, very tight, hard lies, and that the American ball was better suited to the US because we have different grasses that provide a different lie.

>

> In 2014, they used to hit the small ball 50 yards further. Ask him next year, and I bet they used to hit it 60 yards further.

 

That is pretty accurate!

 

My experience with the small is that they went further into the wind, but the American ball went further with the wind. When we went to Scotland we brought a bunch back. When playing against his sons, my father used to slip out a small ball on long holes going into the wind.

[Titleist99]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > Here’s something that might blow people’s minds...there used to be two golf balls. One in Europe (1.62 inches) and one in America (1.68 inches). Why the difference? The USGA split in the 30’s and outlawed the smaller ball, but players could still use the “longer” smaller ball at the Open Championship until 1974 maybe 75? (Someone fact check it, I’d wager my dog it was 74). And then the ruling bodies agreed in 1990 to a standardized sized golf ball of modernity. So there would almost be precedent for a tournament ball, depending on on how one viewed history.

> > >

> > > Well done! This is why we grind through threads. Inspired me to seek more and this turned up:

> > >

> > > "Golfers had the option of playing the smaller golf ball in competitions under R&A rules, but it was not an option for golfers playing under the USGA rules. (In international competitions like the Ryder Cup, the smaller ball was allowed even if the event was held in the United States.) American golfers almost unanimously preferred the smaller ball when playing The Open Championship. Jack Nicklaus, in an interview at the Memorial Tournament this year, said, “The small ball, incidentally, back then was probably about the length of the golf ball we have today. We hit it about 50 yards further.”

> > >

> > > Palmer1

> > >

> > > "The small, “British Ball” was just what Palmer needed for the 1961 Open at Royal Birkdale. Facing gale force winds of 50 mph and torrential rain, Palmer used his 1-iron to great effect, hitting what we would call today in Tiger Woods’ parlance, “stingers.” The smaller ball off of Palmer’s attacking strikes sailed through the winds. At the 6th hole, Palmer’s shot carried a fairway bunker by some 30 yards that most of the field failed to reach. On seeing Palmer’s shot clear the bunker, one player simply said, “In that case, I give up.”

> > >

> > > "Playing in The Open Championship with the British ball was finally disallowed in 1974 and barred from all competition play in 1990, thereby bringing the worldwide standard for golf balls to 1.68 inches in dimension."

> > >

> > > "Interestingly, this decades-long debate over the size and weight of the golf ball started in 1920 during an informal conference held in Muirfield, Scotland, between the USGA and the R&A in an effort to resolve the perceived problem of increased distance that a ball carried. The golf ball continues to be a hot topic today, and fans know the debate is far from over."

> > >

> > > http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/media-center/news-articles/arnold-palmer-british-ball/

> >

> > Just goes to show you that they thought the sky way falling 100 years ago as well but somehow golf has evolved and is thriving.

> >

> > Touring Pros will continue to search for distance until it is no longer an advantage (i.e. penal bunkers, pitch out rough, real water hazards,

> >

> > tighter fairways, etc...)

> >

> > On another note: I still can't find any quotes of Palmer or Nicklaus saying that the ball went to far when they were in their prime....LOL!

>

> 100 years ago the shorter courses from the hickory era were being abandoned for longer courses - this particularly spawned the courses of the "Golden Era" of golf course design in the 1920's and 1930's.

>

> That happened where I live as the Country Club of Buffalo sold the course that had hosted the 1912 US Open, and moved to a site on an abandoned quarry to build a fine Donald Ross course.

>

> The difference is that today, land is not generally available to lengthen golf courses. Land is also more expensive. And because golfers expect greener grass and overall better conditions, more money is needed for golf course maintenance. Lengthening courses costs a lot more money.

>

> The easier solution is to roll back equipment.

In 1912 the driver went 175-200 yards according to golfing history...of course change was inevitable.

 

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> > > > >

> > > > > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > > > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > > > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > > > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > > > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > > > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > > > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > > > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> > > > >

> > > > > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > > > > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > > > > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > > > > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > > > > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > > > > 5b. Yes.

> > > > > 6. How would it not matter?

> > > > > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

> > > >

> > > > It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

> > >

> > > While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

> > >

> > > There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

> > >

> > > By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I agree with this in a lot of ways.

> >

> >

> > But I think it goes for both sides. I’ve seen no real objective , concrete answer as to why the rollback would kill the game either. Lots of opinion. But no study or poll or anything has been posted. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that both sides are self serving ( myself absolutely) in those OPINIONS.... and that is met with down right rage. I’m not sure why?

>

> There's a few reasons why a rollback of equipment won't work for me and most of the people I know:

>

> If you reduce distance you slow down the game and that is the biggest enemy of the game.

>

>

> If you reduce distance most golfers I'm associated with won't watch golfers on TV that hit it the same distance as they do. They want to watch

> great athletes do great things.

>

>

> Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow.

>

>

> Just my opinion~

 

I agree with this. The only thing I’ll add is that it would be nice to see these guys play more shorter, strategic courses that rely more on playing shots into fairways and playing shots into greens, short par 4s with trouble in the fairway and trouble at the green.

 

More variety would be nice.

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @CrushSticks said:

> > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> >

> > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

>

> If you don’t think Woodland or Koepka could have picked up three strokes from 500 yards less length, then I don’t understand what you are thinking.

 

.The difference between the two comments is his is based on facts and yours is based strictly on opinion....nice try though!

 

 

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @CrushSticks said:

> > > I actually think this conversation has some interest, but I don’t think either side can actually prove their point. What I do believe is there is a point of diminishing returns with golf scores. The naysayers are saying “everyone” would shoot 25 under on a 6500 yard course setup for a major championship. The winner doesn’t even shoot 25 under every year at the John Deere, and that’s one of the lowest scoring avg tournaments of the year. I understand that it is probably 700 yards longer, but I just don’t think the field will average 5-7 under per day at any tournament, let alone one set up for a major, even at 6500 yards. How many times has a player shot 65 or better 4 days in a row, let alone half the field.

> > >

> > > Long of the short(ha!) is, I do believe a select few courses of “shorter” length could host a major championship and survive and put on an interesting show for the fans. I personally think Pebble this year was just right and I bet if you took 500 yards off, plenty of players would have still shot over par and the winner would not have shot 25 under.

> >

> > If you don’t think Woodland or Koepka could have picked up three strokes from 500 yards less length, then I don’t understand what you are thinking.

>

> .The difference between the two comments is his is based on facts and yours is based strictly on opinion....nice try though!

>

>

 

Do you not realize that him saying "I do believe ..." and "I personally think ..." and "I bet if ..." means he is giving his opinion?

[bscinstnct]

> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > > > > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > > > > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > > > > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > > > > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > > > > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > > > > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > > > > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > > > > > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > > > > > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > > > > > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > > > > > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > > > > > 5b. Yes.

> > > > > > 6. How would it not matter?

> > > > > > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

> > > >

> > > > While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

> > > >

> > > > There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

> > > >

> > > > By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I agree with this in a lot of ways.

> > >

> > >

> > > But I think it goes for both sides. I’ve seen no real objective , concrete answer as to why the rollback would kill the game either. Lots of opinion. But no study or poll or anything has been posted. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that both sides are self serving ( myself absolutely) in those OPINIONS.... and that is met with down right rage. I’m not sure why?

> >

> > There's a few reasons why a rollback of equipment won't work for me and most of the people I know:

> >

> > If you reduce distance you slow down the game and that is the biggest enemy of the game.

> >

> >

> > If you reduce distance most golfers I'm associated with won't watch golfers on TV that hit it the same distance as they do. They want to watch

> > great athletes do great things.

> >

> >

> > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow.

> >

> >

> > Just my opinion~

>

> I agree with this. The only thing I’ll add is that it would be nice to see these guys play more shorter, strategic courses that rely more on playing shots into fairways and playing shots into greens, short par 4s with trouble in the fairway and trouble at the green.

>

> More variety would be nice.

 

This is why *your sweet idea of a smaller driver head is ideal ; )

 

 

A guy can still carry it 300+ but he knows a slight mishit will result in a really bad shot. So, guys will be much more measured, not swing out of their shoes since they no longer have a giant driver to cover up mishits. This would reward truly great ball strikers and bring down the average drive a little but also require more skill.

 

And it won't impact the rest of the bag.

 

It's perfect and we all you *you to thank for it!

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > and here’s a fun fact not a lot people know, there used to be a different ball golfers played when the went to British Open, or played in Europe. > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > > > From a pure length perspective no course can be built long enough to test a PGA Tour player lest you’re going 10k yards plus. That’s consensus from a handful of golf architects (the ones doing the work) that work for Coore/Crenshaw, Nicklaus Design, Arnold Palmer Design. > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > Why does it matter what courses the Pro's play at? It doesn't affect regular joes. How many times have most of us come up to a course that is short and shot under par? Until I'm just shooting under par at those short courses I'm not complaining. For the courses that want to host tournaments they just need to tighten the fairways and grow the rough and make the tournaments boring (which they will not). Instead they just keep making it longer.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It affects a few on this site that live for this.> @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > And Raymon Floyd won the masters in 1976 with a score of -17, only 1 stroke lower that the record set by Tiger in 1997 and matched by Spieth in 2015.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Spieth was T78 in distance at 291 yards at the time.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Driving distance stats only go back to 1980, so I can’t go to 76, but in 80, Floyd was T78 at 258 yards. Course played 7030 yards in 1976. It played 6925 in 1997, when Tiger averaged 40 yards longer, and yet he only scored 1 stroke better.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, distance isn’t the boogie man people want it to be.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > And Augusta was 450 yards shorter in 1976 than it is today. The average driving distance on Tour back then was probably about 255 with the leader probably around 275. Distance from modern equipment has fundamentally changed how these courses are played by the Tour and have required them to add substantially more length.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If the profile of the *winner has remained unchanged. If just as many guys who win majors with shorter but accurate driving, great irons, and putting, as guys who bomb the ball.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If the fundamental skills and play required to win championship golf tournaments has remained unchanged.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > That shoots down the argument that, while courses are lengthened, the nature of the game and the way courses are played has actually changed.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We actually saw a decrease in driving distance from 2018 to 2019 on the pga tour. Not cause guys can’t hit it farther. There’s just a point where distance over accuracy stops working.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Like I’ve said before, JB Holmes came out on tour, no problem carrying 330. He averaged like 320. But he couldn’t win. So, he toned it down, went to a fade, and dropped his driving distance substantially. And the poor guy still can’t win a major ; )

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Exactly. They are lengthening the courses to maintain the integrity. Trying to keep the average pro to have to hit a mid iron into a par 4. There's always going to be the power players. If they can combine power and accuracy, good for them! They should dominate courses. Don't punish guys for being good! Imagine when Jack was dominating, and people would be like oh he's not winning cuz he's good, just hits it really far. Come on now. We want more and better athletes to play the game, not less.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Instead of lengthening the courses, they could shorten the ball to maintain the integrity. Which is> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @ebrasmus21 said:

> > > > > > > > > > It’s 460cc you guys. Think about that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 460cc. Am I the only one who gets that, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Jack could do more with a wooden spatula than these modern “pros”

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, this is a good point. For a pro is like

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > With all the multiple threads on this topic I still have some unanswered questions. In no particular order:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1. Is Tiger Better then Jack?

> > > > > > > > 2. Did the old pros “play with power”?

> > > > > > > > 3. Would Jack be a bomber with modern technology?

> > > > > > > > 4. Is distance ruining the game?

> > > > > > > > 5. Is distance helping the game?

> > > > > > > > 5. Does fitness matter?

> > > > > > > > 6. Does technology matter

> > > > > > > > 7. Does agronomy matter?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > With all these threads it still seems like no one can agree on anything!! Cheers to that :)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Since no one agrees I’ll grace y’all with the answers...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. Yes. Jack will admit it...best way to describe it; Tigers currently is the greatest player, Jack is the greatest champion.

> > > > > > > 2. Yes. Just as some are longer than others today, some were longer than others yesterday.

> > > > > > > 3. Yes. Would he still be Jack Nicklaus; obviously. But would he win 18 majors? Probably not.

> > > > > > > 4. Depends, I’m of the opinion that it evolves.

> > > > > > > 5. Helping how? Designers make more money absolutely. Players enjoying the game? I’m not so sure.

> > > > > > > 5b. Yes.

> > > > > > > 6. How would it not matter?

> > > > > > > 7. F***ing right it plays a role, it is trending towards getting out of hand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's all about the debate my friend. Trying to convince others by presenting facts and opinion in a civilized manor.....without it we are just chimpanzees.

> > > > >

> > > > > While I agree with your sentiment, I think we have very different ideas of what “debate” is. This is all moot to the thread and possibly over the head of many, so carry on, but here’s where I think y’all are wrong and need to improve to convince people and actually make a change (which is the whole point of trying to convince someone).

> > > > >

> > > > > There’s three parts to a debate; a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (abstract, negation, concrete if you follow Hegel). The abstract starts off totally acceptable, however it’s when the negations are presented that I am quite puzzled, because I don’t see a logical negation/antithesis put forward. What I see/read is purely subjective, and when those answers are used your derive answers...those are purely rhetorical not logical, making the synthesis/concrete derived indefensible against any variation of other synthesis’ presented, YET it will be spouted off as gospel. That’s the problem I have and see with these distance debates lately.

> > > > >

> > > > > By no means do I have all the answers, but I am still waiting to find one purely objective answer saying the ball goes to far rendering courses obsolete. Mind you I worked at some of the best clubs in the world, played them, and even been fortunate enough to take up membership at some. Have there been some grumblings? Sure. But we made changes and evolved to meet the challenge of the day. Now whether or not those changes are sustainable...eh I earned many fat bonuses from successful projects whether I agreed or didn’t agree with them.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I agree with this in a lot of ways.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > But I think it goes for both sides. I’ve seen no real objective , concrete answer as to why the rollback would kill the game either. Lots of opinion. But no study or poll or anything has been posted. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that both sides are self serving ( myself absolutely) in those OPINIONS.... and that is met with down right rage. I’m not sure why?

> > >

> > > There's a few reasons why a rollback of equipment won't work for me and most of the people I know:

> > >

> > > If you reduce distance you slow down the game and that is the biggest enemy of the game.

> > >

> > >

> > > If you reduce distance most golfers I'm associated with won't watch golfers on TV that hit it the same distance as they do. They want to watch

> > > great athletes do great things.

> > >

> > >

> > > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow.

> > >

> > >

> > > Just my opinion~

> >

> > I agree with this. The only thing I’ll add is that it would be nice to see these guys play more shorter, strategic courses that rely more on playing shots into fairways and playing shots into greens, short par 4s with trouble in the fairway and trouble at the green.

> >

> > More variety would be nice.

>

> This is why *your sweet idea of a smaller driver head is ideal ; )

>

>

> A guy can still carry it 300+ but he knows a slight mishit will result in a really bad shot. So, guys will be much more measured, not swing out of their shoes since they no longer have a giant driver to cover up mishits. This would reward truly great ball strikers and bring down the average drive a little but also require more skill.

>

> And it won't impact the rest of the bag.

>

> It's perfect and we all you *you to thank for it!

>

>

 

I’m just a man trying to make the world a better place.