Power on the PGA Tour......

[Obee]

The problem with the shorter courses is that the Tour players don't like having driver taken out of their hands. And that's really all it is. They get "bored."

 

I get it, it does take away a large part of the game. But I would love to see them played more short courses were drivers taken out of their hands on a good number of holes.

 

But as far as "obsolete" goes. None of the courses are obsolete. They are just different.

[Obee]

In addition, if they played shorter courses more regularly on the PGA tour, we would see a lot more wins by the likes of Matt Kuchar, Zach Johnson, Steve Stricker, Kevin Na, et al.

 

I wish there was a much greater mix of short and long courses on the PGA Tour.

[TimK1]

You can make any course hard. Growing the rough, making greens more slick. Narrowing the fairways more with some new bunkers. I think a lot of the old courses can't handle the crowds anymore. Yes, a lot of the classics were built before all the modern equipment and ball but I think you can still make them hard.

 

[smashdn]

One club, the driver - $300-$600

Whole Iron set, 7-8 clubs - $500-$1000

 

Which one has more margin you think? Follow the money guys.

[ebrasmus21]

> @smashdn said:

> > @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.

 

My tongue n cheek, rhetorical questions have been answered very well by a number of posters.

 

My first two clubs as a kid were a mcgregor 3i blade and a persimmon 3w. Not the easiest clubs to hit.

[LICC]

> @Obee said:

> The problem with the shorter courses is that the Tour players don't like having driver taken out of their hands. And that's really all it is. They get "bored."

>

> I get it, it does take away a large part of the game. But I would love to see them played more short courses were drivers taken out of their hands on a good number of holes.

>

> But as far as "obsolete" goes. None of the courses are obsolete. They are just different.

 

"Obsolete" is not the best description, but all the courses I listed are not feasible for a Tour event due to, among other reasons, their being too short to present an interesting scoring challenge to Tour pros.

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

>

> 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. **Move up a box.**

>

>

> 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. **They will still be light years better in every other facet of the game. Ask them to watch an LPGA event. They are darn good, making thoughtfully executed shots. In fact, you can learn a lot more as an average male by watching the LPGA than you can watching the PGA tour. You simply cannot do what the PGA guys can do. But can the best women in the world.**

>

>

> Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow. **Yet we did it for years up until about 1995.**

>

>

> Just my opinion~

 

How far you hit it is way down the list for how fast your round is. https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf

[LICC]

> @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!

>

>

 

The problem with the shorter, strategic courses for the Tour is that it would be hard to be "strategic". They would have to have narrow corridors likely lined by trees, or forced layups on most holes. And that can be one-dimensional target golf and boring to watch.

[Titleist99]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> >

> > 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. **Move up a box.**

> >

> >

> > 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. **They will still be light years better in every other facet of the game. Ask them to watch an LPGA event. They are darn good, making thoughtfully executed shots. In fact, you can learn a lot more as an average male by watching the LPGA than you can watching the PGA tour. You simply cannot do what the PGA guys can do. But can the best women in the world.**

> >

> >

> > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow. **Yet we did it for years up until about 1995.**

> >

> >

> > Just my opinion~

>

> How far you hit it is way down the list for how fast your round is. https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf

 

Totally disagree with this....based on my own experience and observation on the golf course a golfer hitting 105 shots take longer than a golfer hitting 68 shots. Not to mention the time it takes the 105 shooter to look for his or her golf ball and additionally flag down the beer cart....

 

I do agree with your comments regarding the lady circuit but that is a totally different discussion..

 

Lets be clear, the 105 shooter thinks he hits it 250 but in reality he only hits it 200 yards off the tee...

[Obee]

> @LICC said:

> > @Obee said:

> > The problem with the shorter courses is that the Tour players don't like having driver taken out of their hands. And that's really all it is. They get "bored."

> >

> > I get it, it does take away a large part of the game. But I would love to see them played more short courses were drivers taken out of their hands on a good number of holes.

> >

> > But as far as "obsolete" goes. None of the courses are obsolete. They are just different.

>

> "Obsolete" is not the best description, but all the courses I listed are not feasible for a Tour event due to, among other reasons, their being too short to present an interesting scoring challenge to Tour pros.

 

I just fundamentally disagree with this. Approach play and short game is my favorite part of the game, by far. I love to watch how different players attack different pins in different ways.

 

Yes, there would be many holes where driver is not the best option on some holes and ALL the pros would be forced to play from 90 to 150. I LIKE that and want to see more of it on Tour, not less or virtually none, like today.

[bscinstnct]

> @Obee said:

> In addition, if they played shorter courses more regularly on the PGA tour, we would see a lot more wins by the likes of Matt Kuchar, Zach Johnson, Steve Stricker, Kevin Na, et al.

>

> I wish there was a much greater mix of short and long courses on the PGA Tour.

 

Obee! How's it going.

 

What you think of ebrasmus (R2D2) sweet idea of smaller driver heads?

 

I was thinking it's a great solution.... "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."

 

Like, I think TW won the Tiger Slam with a 260CC driver. How about if they made that the biggest?

[Titleist99]

> @ebrasmus21 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @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.

>

> My tongue n cheek, rhetorical questions have been answered very well by a number of posters.

>

> My first two clubs as a kid were a mcgregor 3i blade and a persimmon 3w. Not the easiest clubs to hit.

 

Traditionalist want you to go back and use those clubs again.....LOL!

[LICC]

> @Obee said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Obee said:

> > > The problem with the shorter courses is that the Tour players don't like having driver taken out of their hands. And that's really all it is. They get "bored."

> > >

> > > I get it, it does take away a large part of the game. But I would love to see them played more short courses were drivers taken out of their hands on a good number of holes.

> > >

> > > But as far as "obsolete" goes. None of the courses are obsolete. They are just different.

> >

> > "Obsolete" is not the best description, but all the courses I listed are not feasible for a Tour event due to, among other reasons, their being too short to present an interesting scoring challenge to Tour pros.

>

> I just fundamentally disagree with this. Approach play and short game is my favorite part of the game, by far. I love to watch how different players attack different pins in different ways.

>

> Yes, there would be many holes where driver is not the best option on some holes and ALL the pros would be forced to play from 90 to 150. I LIKE that and want to see more of it on Tour, not less or virtually none, like today.

 

Even with today's longer courses, the majority of par-4s are wedges in for the Tour pros. With the courses I listed, you would have every par-4 at a wedge in, and the majority of par-5s would be eagle opportunities.

[Titleist99]

> @TimK1 said:

> You can make any course hard. Growing the rough, making greens more slick. Narrowing the fairways more with some new bunkers. I think a lot of the old courses can't handle the crowds anymore. Yes, a lot of the classics were built before all the modern equipment and ball but I think you can still make them hard.

>

 

What if I tell you that the USGA could set up a course whereas no touring pro would break par.....would you believe it?

 

The pros wouldn't play it because they don't like being embarrassed and no one but the traditionalist would watch it...

[Obee]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @TimK1 said:

> > You can make any course hard. Growing the rough, making greens more slick. Narrowing the fairways more with some new bunkers. I think a lot of the old courses can't handle the crowds anymore. Yes, a lot of the classics were built before all the modern equipment and ball but I think you can still make them hard.

> >

>

> What if I tell you that the USGA could set up a course whereas no touring pro would break par.....would you believe it?

>

> The pros wouldn't play it because they don't like being embarrassed and no one but the traditionalist would watch it...

 

100% true. I believe Merion held up very, very well for the U.S. Amateur a few years back. And it was played at like 6900 or something, on average?

[Titleist99]

> @Obee said:

> In addition, if they played shorter courses more regularly on the PGA tour, we would see a lot more wins by the likes of Matt Kuchar, Zach Johnson, Steve Stricker, Kevin Na, et al.

>

> I wish there was a much greater mix of short and long courses on the PGA Tour.

 

Approx. 49 tournaments on the PGA TOUR. I think that they have a great mixture of long and short courses but remember the long ball sells tickets. I'm also of the firm believe that any PGAtour player can catch lightning in a bottle and win at any venue anywhere (especially one of my favorites Kevin Na) because those guys are good!

[Irishman1979]

When guys are hitting 5 irons into par 3's that are 245 yards over a lake ( 13th at Medinah comes to mind) there is an issue.

 

I have an idea. At each tour event there is a room where they walk in and they can choose any brand of club they want. The catch is that they have to play it as is. Each set will come in the length they need according to their height but thats the only thing they get to choose along with the shaft they prefer.

 

No more "Oh can you make my irons 4 degrees stronger so my 5 iron turns into a 3 or 2 iron?"

 

Watch how much the game changes on tour if they play by this rule.

 

[Titleist99]

> @Obee said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @TimK1 said:

> > > You can make any course hard. Growing the rough, making greens more slick. Narrowing the fairways more with some new bunkers. I think a lot of the old courses can't handle the crowds anymore. Yes, a lot of the classics were built before all the modern equipment and ball but I think you can still make them hard.

> > >

> >

> > What if I tell you that the USGA could set up a course whereas no touring pro would break par.....would you believe it?

> >

> > The pros wouldn't play it because they don't like being embarrassed and no one but the traditionalist would watch it...

>

> 100% true. I believe Merion held up very, very well for the U.S. Amateur a few years back. And it was played at like 6900 or something, on average?

 

YEP YEP! …. the only reason a great golf course become obsolete is the fact that thay can't fit grandstands on the property.....LOL! Hey!....come to think of it, one course just purchased property for the specific addition of grandstands and hospitality suites....I can't think of the course but this was recently.....

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @gvogel said:

> > @"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.

 

Totally.

 

"Whatever number makes it so we hit it as far as the players today is how much further we used to hit the small ball versus the standard ball."

-Jack Nicklaus

[mahonie]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > 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. **Move up a box.**

> > >

> > >

> > > 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. **They will still be light years better in every other facet of the game. Ask them to watch an LPGA event. They are darn good, making thoughtfully executed shots. In fact, you can learn a lot more as an average male by watching the LPGA than you can watching the PGA tour. You simply cannot do what the PGA guys can do. But can the best women in the world.**

> > >

> > >

> > > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow. **Yet we did it for years up until about 1995.**

> > >

> > >

> > > Just my opinion~

> >

> > How far you hit it is way down the list for how fast your round is. https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf

>

> Totally disagree with this....based on my own experience and observation on the golf course a golfer hitting 105 shots take longer than a golfer hitting 68 shots. Not to mention the time it takes the 105 shooter to look for his or her golf ball and additionally flag down the beer cart....

>

> I do agree with your comments regarding the lady circuit but that is a totally different discussion..

>

> Lets be clear, the 105 shooter thinks he hits it 250 but in reality he only hits it 200 yards off the tee...

 

Single cap player at my course had a bad reputation for being a slow player and despite numerous requests from numerous players refused to change his ways. When every competition turned into a 5 hour round because of one player holding everybody up, it’s get a bit much. Basically, everyone refused to play with him until he eventually got the message and left. Competitions are now back to 3.5 hours :-)

[Titleist99]

> @mahonie said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > >

> > > > 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. **Move up a box.**

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 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. **They will still be light years better in every other facet of the game. Ask them to watch an LPGA event. They are darn good, making thoughtfully executed shots. In fact, you can learn a lot more as an average male by watching the LPGA than you can watching the PGA tour. You simply cannot do what the PGA guys can do. But can the best women in the world.**

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow. **Yet we did it for years up until about 1995.**

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just my opinion~

> > >

> > > How far you hit it is way down the list for how fast your round is. https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf

> >

> > Totally disagree with this....based on my own experience and observation on the golf course a golfer hitting 105 shots take longer than a golfer hitting 68 shots. Not to mention the time it takes the 105 shooter to look for his or her golf ball and additionally flag down the beer cart....

> >

> > I do agree with your comments regarding the lady circuit but that is a totally different discussion..

> >

> > Lets be clear, the 105 shooter thinks he hits it 250 but in reality he only hits it 200 yards off the tee...

>

> Single cap player at my course had a bad reputation for being a slow player and despite numerous requests from numerous players refused to change his ways. When every competition turned into a 5 hour round because of one player holding everybody up, it’s get a bit much. Basically, everyone refused to play with him until he eventually got the message and left. Competitions are now back to 3.5 hours :-)

 

Funny how peoples experiences differ, I envy your club. Rarely have we had high handicappers finish 18 holes in 3.5 hours.

 

We have something to strive for.....hope you appreciate that fast play.

[Obee]

Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

 

Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

 

[CrushSticks]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

 

My own analysis shows that of a dream player that doesn’t exist and is a statistical leader in both proximity, and putting. That player doesn’t exist. My stats show that it is possible to do this, but it would literally be one magical player performing to the top of his statistical abilities for 4 straight rounds. The mean would bear out over time, so while one or two players might shoot 25 under, which as I said, already happens, most would still gravitate towards the mean.

 

You suggested that “everyone” would shoot 25 under. I know you don’t truly mean everyone, but you are suggesting that it would become a norm for a large portion of the field, and frankly, there is just no chance at that. Find me a tournament from last season where more than 5 players took it below 20 under. Now we are taking off 25 yards per hole and all of a sudden the field is all going deeper. I just don’t buy it. I would love to see it and be proven wrong, and it honestly wouldn’t bother me because I still think it would bring some interest to the tour to play some different courses.

 

 

[jholz]

> @Obee said:

> Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

>

> Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

>

 

Merion is a wonderful example to buck the trend, I agree. Probably my favorite U.S. Open from the past 10-15 years and it definitely shows that a shorter course can provide an adequate challenge for Tour players.

 

That being said, part of how they achieved that at Merion was through some absolutely ridiculous par threes. Something about a 250 yard par three just rubs me the wrong way.

[Titleist99]

> @Obee said:

> Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

>

> Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

>

 

As I've said before the USGA can set up a course where as no one breaks par. All they have to do is put up the water hoses,

 

raise the mowers and tuck the pins....until there is a penalty for wayward drives the Pros will continue to bomb it.

 

 

Just my opinion~

[mahonie]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > 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. **Move up a box.**

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 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. **They will still be light years better in every other facet of the game. Ask them to watch an LPGA event. They are darn good, making thoughtfully executed shots. In fact, you can learn a lot more as an average male by watching the LPGA than you can watching the PGA tour. You simply cannot do what the PGA guys can do. But can the best women in the world.**

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Golf is entertainment. Watching a touring pro hit 275 yard drives is right up there with watching grass grow. **Yet we did it for years up until about 1995.**

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Just my opinion~

> > > >

> > > > How far you hit it is way down the list for how fast your round is. https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf

> > >

> > > Totally disagree with this....based on my own experience and observation on the golf course a golfer hitting 105 shots take longer than a golfer hitting 68 shots. Not to mention the time it takes the 105 shooter to look for his or her golf ball and additionally flag down the beer cart....

> > >

> > > I do agree with your comments regarding the lady circuit but that is a totally different discussion..

> > >

> > > Lets be clear, the 105 shooter thinks he hits it 250 but in reality he only hits it 200 yards off the tee...

> >

> > Single cap player at my course had a bad reputation for being a slow player and despite numerous requests from numerous players refused to change his ways. When every competition turned into a 5 hour round because of one player holding everybody up, it’s get a bit much. Basically, everyone refused to play with him until he eventually got the message and left. Competitions are now back to 3.5 hours :-)

>

> Funny how peoples experiences differ, I envy your club. Rarely have we had high handicappers finish 18 holes in 3.5 hours.

>

> We have something to strive for.....hope you appreciate that fast play.

 

Most definitely. First time I played it, 28 years ago, we went round 3 times...only time I’ve played 54 holes in a day!

 

Course is 6100 yards from the tips so not very long...great fun to play if you’re straight, demoralising if you’re not. Every hole is risk/reward...with probably a bit more risk than reward, in my experience at least lol. Power is no advantage apart from on a couple of holes and you have to be straight with that power or it will punish you. To get into position to score well you need to have good control of the ball and it helps if you can move the ball both ways.

 

Minor Assistant Pro tournament was held here a couple of years ago with 17 in the field. The stats speak for themselves:

 

 

 

[Obee]

> @jholz said:

> > @Obee said:

> > Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

> >

> > Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> > Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> > 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> > 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> > 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> > 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

> >

>

> Merion is a wonderful example to buck the trend, I agree. Probably my favorite U.S. Open from the past 10-15 years and it definitely shows that a shorter course can provide an adequate challenge for Tour players.

>

> That being said, part of how they achieved that at Merion was through some absolutely ridiculous par threes. Something about a 250 yard par three just rubs me the wrong way.

 

Agreed, but even if they played it at 207, there probably would have only been 1, or maybe 2 players break par. It certainly wasn't that one par 3 that make the course play that tough. I'll be the stroke average was 3.4ish or so. Maybe lower...

[jholz]

> @Obee said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @Obee said:

> > > Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

> > >

> > > Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> > > Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> > > 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> > > 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> > > 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> > > 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

> > >

> >

> > Merion is a wonderful example to buck the trend, I agree. Probably my favorite U.S. Open from the past 10-15 years and it definitely shows that a shorter course can provide an adequate challenge for Tour players.

> >

> > That being said, part of how they achieved that at Merion was through some absolutely ridiculous par threes. Something about a 250 yard par three just rubs me the wrong way.

>

> Agreed, but even if they played it at 207, there probably would have only been 1, or maybe 2 players break par. It certainly wasn't that one par 3 that make the course play that tough. I'll be the stroke average was 3.4ish or so. Maybe lower...

 

Yeah, I agree. I would have liked to see all of those par threes play in the 200-220 range - something just a bit more reasonable. They still would have played hard, and wouldn't have altered the final scores by a whole lot.

 

As it was, they ended up being kind of a joke thrown into the middle of what was an otherwise fabulous event. But hey, that kind of describes the USGA too.

 

[Titleist99]

> @jholz said:

> > @Obee said:

> > Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

> >

> > Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> > Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> > 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> > 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> > 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> > 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

> >

>

> Merion is a wonderful example to buck the trend, I agree. Probably my favorite U.S. Open from the past 10-15 years and it definitely shows that a shorter course can provide an adequate challenge for Tour players.

>

> That being said, part of how they achieved that at Merion was through some absolutely ridiculous par threes. Something about a 250 yard par three just rubs me the wrong way.

 

Your comment regarding the par 3's is fair....the trend on the tour recently is brutal par three's of 190-210 yards....advantage, great iron players.

[jholz]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @Obee said:

> > > Below is the length that Merion played for the 2013 US Open. You do NOT need for a course to be long in order for it to play super tough. The WINNER shot +1. That should really tell you something.

> > >

> > > Round Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In Total

> > > Par 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 36 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 70

> > > 1 Yards 340 567 246 640 499 489 382 360 237 3,760 301 375 386 102 446 413 440 243 500 3,206 6,966

> > > 2 Yards 356 557 203 628 504 491 368 363 219 3,689 313 363 405 123 453 414 434 206 501 3,212 6,901

> > > 3 Yards 342 556 245 604 510 477 363 351 231 3,679 280 370 403 98 476 397 446 254 530 3,254 6,933

> > > 4 Yards 360 525 266 571 495 490 340 353 246 3,646 290 356 419 121 452 422 423 229 511 3,223 6,869

> > >

> >

> > Merion is a wonderful example to buck the trend, I agree. Probably my favorite U.S. Open from the past 10-15 years and it definitely shows that a shorter course can provide an adequate challenge for Tour players.

> >

> > That being said, part of how they achieved that at Merion was through some absolutely ridiculous par threes. Something about a 250 yard par three just rubs me the wrong way.

>

> Your comment regarding the par 3's is fair....the trend on the tour recently is brutal par three's of 190-210 yards....advantage, great iron players.

 

Which is just how I think it should be. Iron play (particularly long iron play) is what separates the good from the truly great.