Course Setup To Combat Today's Bomb-And-Gouge Game

[NRJyzr]

36 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Except Bryson hit fewer fairways than any Open winner ever. Granted he didn't seem to get too far offline and then scrambled well when he had to. I think the US Open style of setting the course up makes for a great test but it's clear bombing it way down there is still the play. I think the fairways probably need to be a little easier to hit, or else everyone is in the rough and the guy hitting it the farthest down there will have the advantage. 

 

He was better than the field average, though

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, NRJyzr said:

 

He was better than the field average, though

 

So either the field really sucked or they need to make the fairways easier to hit. It wasn't above 50% for any round looking at the stats. 

[NRJyzr]

14 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

I think I read that same article.  It’s why I always laugh at the jacked up loft discussions on irons because that article clearly said many of tour players at the time were Secretly playing jacked up lofts already.

 

 

I laugh at jacked loft discussions myself, but possibly for different reasons than many.

 

Loft is still the primary determinant for each player's distance.  Doesn't matter what number you put on the sole to make yourself feel better about it.

[Kilo1545]

Quote

Loft is still the primary determinant for each player's distance.  Doesn't matter what number you put on the sole to make yourself feel better about it.

 

Yup.

 

If you bend a 7-iron 3-4 degrees strong, it's a 6-iron with a shorter shaft and a 7 on the head.

 

If you take a 6-iron head and put a 7-iron length shaft in it, then it's the same club, but with a 6 on it.

 

The difference is whether you get to talk trash to your buddies or they get to talk trash to you.  Choose wisely.  ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NRJyzr]

2 minutes ago, Kilo1545 said:

Yup.

 

If you bend a 7-iron 3-4 degrees strong, it's a 6-iron with a shorter shaft and a 7 on the head.

 

If you take a 6-iron head and put a 7-iron length shaft in it, then it's the same club, but with a 6 on it.

 

The difference is whether you get to talk trash to your buddies or they get to talk trash to you.  Choose wisely.  ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to add my perspective to that....

 

It doesn't matter if a 34* has 6 on the sole, a 7, an 8, or even a 5.  It's a 34* club, and that's how I think of it.

 

I don't think in terms of taking a 5 iron and stamping a 6 or 7 on the sole.  It's just loft.  I just happen to think the obsession with hitting irons farther is a bit silly.  As are some of the rationalizations.  <shrug>

 

Getting a bit more topical, and probably repeating myself from earlier in the thread, folks are getting excited and even agitated because BAD is hitting an 8i or 9i to a par 5.  It's a 33* or 37* club, it's not that different, if at all, than DL3 or Freddie C in the 95 Masters (using it for example because its readily available on YouTube).  Or even Jack, back in the day.

[Dr. Block]

2 hours ago, Kilo1545 said:

Yup.

 

If you bend a 7-iron 3-4 degrees strong, it's a 6-iron with a shorter shaft and a 7 on the head.

 

If you take a 6-iron head and put a 7-iron length shaft in it, then it's the same club, but with a 6 on it.

 

The difference is whether you get to talk trash to your buddies or they get to talk trash to you.  Choose wisely.  ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you bend any of your irons 3-4 degrees strong, you better be ready to take divots the size of a meatloaf.   That would create a zero or negative bounce iron lol 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

A simple solution is to plant more trees closer to the edge of the fairways. The penalty for being offline is a lost ball or a chip out sideways no matter how long or short you are. The premium then goes back to accuracy and tests the full golf skill set.

 

Planting trees is good for the environment and by making holes narrower you can reduce grass cutting maintenance costs.

 

My home course is 6,100 yards from the tips, par 71 and the course record is 65. Bomb and gouge does not work. Fairways are typically 24 yards wide, 2 yards of semi-rough, then you’re into the trees. Because it’s short, if you get the ball in the right place you can score, hit it offline and every hole is a card wrecker.

 

The balance of risk vs reward is spot on and is great fun and also frustrating in equal measure.

[clinkinfo]

So it’s interesting, there’s another post asking if Bryson is bad for the game.  In that conversation, bomb and gouge play obviously comes up.  But here’s a post I put in there based on something said:

 

“actually, your post kinda raised a question when I read it.   You talk about bomb and gouge being around a long time.....it’s deeper than that.  Not only has it been around, it’s been loved by fans. Remember the Daly Tiger “drive off” going on in San Francisco that year?  That was about as exciting as you can get In golf.

 

But, when we suddenly have a lot of players who can hit it far Does it somehow become boring And potentially worse, bad for the game?  Or is it BD himself that’s the true problem (the attitude, the issues with refs/broadcasts etc)?  I think my answer is, it’s him, not the bomb and gouge. I think history is kinda telling you the same thing. ”
 

I just find it interesting that we’ve embraced the guys in the past who could crush it, it was exciting.  But now that many can do it, the game is in trouble and needs to be protected?  And remember something, despite all the distance averages on tour seemingly rising, there was only 1 person under par at this years US open on a course that’s been around a while!

 

Is that really implying there’s a major issue with our game that needs more regulating?  I don’t think so.  Minor tweaks in setup can obviously level the field.

 

 

[zoots]

13 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Hitting it long and straight-ish is the ultimate skill in golf. BDC this week was very Daly-esque. 
I actually prefer the older style of play as well but accept that every player needs to decide what is their best strategy to lower scores. Bryson’s choice will,be different than Webb or Xander. And neither of them are actually short off the tee.

I agree. That's why Byron Nelson was so exceptional for his time, hitting it so straight using the equipment of the day. I enjoyed watching when guys would have to hit the perfect drive on a par 5 to be able to go for the green in two. Many would have to lay up, because they didn't get it right out the screws and had to  hit a great wedge to score.  BD's biggest advantage this week, IMO, is the extra leverage provided by his short irons being as long as his six, enabling him to get the ball out of long rough much easier.

[airjammer]

21 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

So it’s interesting, there’s another post asking if Bryson is bad for the game.  In that conversation, bomb and gouge play obviously comes up.  But here’s a post I put in there based on something said:

 

“actually, your post kinda raised a question when I read it.   You talk about bomb and gouge being around a long time.....it’s deeper than that.  Not only has it been around, it’s been loved by fans. Remember the Daly Tiger “drive off” going on in San Francisco that year?  That was about as exciting as you can get In golf.

 

But, when we suddenly have a lot of players who can hit it far Does it somehow become boring And potentially worse, bad for the game?  Or is it BD himself that’s the true problem (the attitude, the issues with refs/broadcasts etc)?  I think my answer is, it’s him, not the bomb and gouge. I think history is kinda telling you the same thing. ”
 

I just find it interesting that we’ve embraced the guys in the past who could crush it, it was exciting.  But now that many can do it, the game is in trouble and needs to be protected?  And remember something, despite all the distance averages on tour seemingly rising, there was only 1 person under par at this years US open on a course that’s been around a while!

 

Is that really implying there’s a major issue with our game that needs more regulating?  I don’t think so.  Minor tweaks in setup can obviously level the field.

 

 

Great post! 
 

 We love or loved bombers in the past because of their uniqueness compared to other players. That being said there was a reason that 2000’s Tiger hit 2 irons in us opens and opens instead of driver. His driver was wild and the positions he put himself in were unrecoverable. With modern equipment even with high rough, no lie is unrecoverable other than a pot bunker and water. Bryson certainly doesn’t have more recovery shots than Tiger. Until the us open, Bryson’s wedge game was below tour average and always has been..he didn’t magically fix it. 

 

Tiger in a sense created how this generation plays the game. Lets see if Bryson gets out Brysoned shortly in the future. 

[clinkinfo]

38 minutes ago, airjammer said:

Great post! 
 

 We love or loved bombers in the past because of their uniqueness compared to other players. That being said there was a reason that 2000’s Tiger hit 2 irons in us opens and opens instead of driver. His driver was wild and the positions he put himself in were unrecoverable. With modern equipment even with high rough, no lie is unrecoverable other than a pot bunker and water. Bryson certainly doesn’t have more recovery shots than Tiger. Until the us open, Bryson’s wedge game was below tour average and always has been..he didn’t magically fix it. 

 

Tiger in a sense created how this generation plays the game. Lets see if Bryson gets out Brysoned shortly in the future. 

 

 

but that’s the exact dispute. This quote:

 

”With modern equipment even with high rough...”

 

I would say No, this is incorrect.  It should read:

 

”with modern fitness and the strength of the athletes playing the game now even with high rough...”

 

Because be honest a second, what has changed in irons that allows people to get out of high rough?  What’s different about wedges that allows players an easier time out of the rough?  We actually have outlawed certain groove types that were too “advantageous”.  So what is it in modern equipment’s iron and wedges that are allowing these guys out?

 

point is, I don’t think it’s the equipment, it’s the strength of the players that are getting them out. And again, only 1 person was under par at this US open.  That’s hardly an epidemic.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by clinkinfo

[mahonie]

10 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

but that’s the exact dispute!  This quote:

 

”With modern equipment even with high rough...”

 

I would say No, this is incorrect.  It should read:

 

”with modern fitness and the strength of the athletes playing the game now even with high rough...”

 

Because be honest a second, what has changed in irons that allows people to get out of high rough?  What’s different about wedges that allows players an easier time out of the rough?  We actually have outlawed certain groove types that were too “advantageous”.  So what is it in modern equipment’s iron and wedges that are allowing these guys out?

 

point is, I don’t think it’s the equipment, it’s the strength of the players that are getting them out. And again, only 1 person was under par at this US open.  That’s hardly an epidemic.

 

 

To be fair and to get some context into the debate, BCD did say that he got some great lies in the rough. If his ball was at the roots of some high fescue he’s not getting near the green regardless of his strength or fitness.

[airjammer]

9 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

but that’s the exact dispute!  This quote:

 

”With modern equipment even with high rough...”

 

I would say No, this is incorrect.  It should read:

 

”with modern fitness and the strength of the athletes playing the game now even with high rough...”

 

Because be honest a second, what has changed in irons that allows people to get out of high rough?  What’s different about wedges that allows players an easier time out of the rough?  We actually have outlawed certain groove types that were too “advantageous”.  So what is it in modern equipment’s iron and wedges that are allowing these guys out?

 

point is, I don’t think it’s the equipment, it’s the strength of the players that are getting them out. And again, only 1 person was under par at this US open.  That’s hardly an epidemic.

 

 

I’m certainly not claiming a epidemic.
 

Bryson eluded to that..he pointed out shafts that can actually stand up to the speeds And torques that he and others can create. There is always a reason someone hasn’t done something before. Sometimes people truly hasn’t even thought about it that way, sometimes technology wouldn’t allow it, sometimes the right person has come along. I truly don’t believe nobody hasn’t tried to overpower the us open setups especially Phil or John Daly and I certainly don’t believe Bryson is truly special compared to DJ or Prime Tiger. So that pretty much leaves equipment. 

[elwhippy]

Merion. 

[clinkinfo]

53 minutes ago, airjammer said:

I’m certainly not claiming a epidemic.
 

Bryson eluded to that..he pointed out shafts that can actually stand up to the speeds And torques that he and others can create. There is always a reason someone hasn’t done something before. Sometimes people truly hasn’t even thought about it that way, sometimes technology wouldn’t allow it, sometimes the right person has come along. I truly don’t believe nobody hasn’t tried to overpower the us open setups especially Phil or John Daly and I certainly don’t believe Bryson is truly special compared to DJ or Prime Tiger. So that pretty much leaves equipment. 

you’re right, did not mean to say you did.  I think some in this and other threads are raising a panic flag.
 

im not sure I buy that shafts in irons or wedges would be that much stronger than steel to allow them to get out of the rough.  It’s not the head shape designs, they haven’t changed much.  It’s not the grooves, they are limited.   I don’t see much in modern irons and wedges that would explain why a player today could get it out whereas a player years ago couldn’t.  I understand that driver tech makes them longer off the tee, but I just don’t see much “anti-rough tech” in the irons and wedges.  
 

i really don’t think equipment is getting them out of the rough.  I think what’s changed is fitness and strength.  That’s ALWAYS what it took to get out of heavy rough,  strong arms and a powerful body. Remember those crazy postitions tiger would end up in after somehow escaping the deep rough that every announcer said was impossible?  he was clearly muscling the ball out, it wasn’t his irons doing the work.  The thing is, now there’s professional fitness teams, professional nutrition teams, enhanced gym facilities for the players, analytic training support.  There’s a lot more players now that can hit that shot out of the rough and be successful.  I think it’s an error to assume it’s because their irons and wedges are now better.   It’s because they are stronger IMHO.

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, mahonie said:

To be fair and to get some context into the debate, BCD did say that he got some great lies in the rough. If his ball was at the roots of some high fescue he’s not getting near the green regardless of his strength or fitness.

I agree 100%, and that’s the point in part I think.  Superintendents have to look in areas of the course they never really looked at and make sure the rough, the fescue, and whatever else is supposed to be there to guard is as tough as they want it to be.  These guys are hitting it in places that are kinda new to a lot of us on these courses.  Lines we (and I’m sure superintendents) have not necessarily considered before.   The risks need to be real, not all reward.

Edited September 22, 2020 by clinkinfo

[EmperorPenguin]

My opinion has changed little.  Yes the equipment has changed, but there must be consequences if the golfer chooses to gamble with the driver.  That's why I propose very deep rough outside 330, especially past 350.  Indeed such setup propositions target just a few individuals, but the underdog must have a chance to win.  Bomb and gouge must be addressed because there are little to no consequences of crapping out with gorilla effort.  By growing the rough to, say, a foot long past 350 yards, will no doubt combat the gouge.  The golfer must think on the golf course, assess the situations, and choose wisely.

 

You know what is the greatest distance in golf?  I will not answer here.

[Titleist99]

7 hours ago, tbowles411 said:

I heard a great analogy this morning.  It's like lowering the basketball hoop so we could all dunk.  LOL

That is a great analogy. Some seem to think that driving isn't a golfing skill. the great thing about golf is that everyone plays the same golf course and have the same opportunity to play the same equipment. I say let the game evolve.....if everybody hits it 400 yards of the tee....So be it! The Player with the lowest score in the end WINS..

[The Pearl]

1 hour ago, EmperorPenguin said:

My opinion has changed little.  Yes the equipment has changed, but there must be consequences if the golfer chooses to gamble with the driver.  That's why I propose very deep rough outside 330, especially past 350.  Indeed such setup propositions target just a few individuals, but the underdog must have a chance to win.  Bomb and gouge must be addressed because there are little to no consequences of crapping out with gorilla effort.  By growing the rough to, say, a foot long past 350 yards, will no doubt combat the gouge.  The golfer must think on the golf course, assess the situations, and choose wisely.

 

You know what is the greatest distance in golf?  I will not answer here.

This makes little sense.  Growing the rough to one foot doesn't add any intelligence or strategy to the game.  If a measure becomes penal to the point whereby no golfer will hit to it than it becomes worthless.  They will avoid it.  This idea is just implementing a "roll the ball back" by proxy. 

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

My opinion has changed little.  Yes the equipment has changed, but there must be consequences if the golfer chooses to gamble with the driver.  That's why I propose very deep rough outside 330, especially past 350.  Indeed such setup propositions target just a few individuals, but the underdog must have a chance to win.  Bomb and gouge must be addressed because there are little to no consequences of crapping out with gorilla effort.  By growing the rough to, say, a foot long past 350 yards, will no doubt combat the gouge.  The golfer must think on the golf course, assess the situations, and choose wisely.

 

You know what is the greatest distance in golf?  I will not answer here.

 

Thank you. 

[mosesgolf]

Bryson worked hard to transform his game.  He dedicated himself to take fitness to another level to increase distance knowing that it was going to be an advantage and now there are folks whining and beyotching about it's not fair.  Well if you're tired of being a short knocker and feel you're at a disadvantage then go practice.  

[dhen9]

I think if a designer should choose to do so you find a large property with young, but mature foliage. On the same property you need 4-6 bodies of water and enough elevation to feed those bodies and you put large-ish transitions in some landing areas of par 4-5. Say a creek or a large elevation change (think non mowed ditch) in a 320/350 from the Championship Tees you force the player to hit the perfect "on the screws" drive or risk being in the hazard. The hazard could be very wide with only a meandering creek at the base of the hazard. Also, one could make the rough higher/thicker as the player comes closer to the green. Jack Nicklaus used a wider toothed deep track bunker rake several years ago the players hated the idea of not having perfectly manicured bunkers which are no longer "hazards" for pro golfers. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, dhen9 said:

I think if a designer should choose to do so you find a large property with young, but mature foliage. On the same property you need 4-6 bodies of water and enough elevation to feed those bodies and you put large-ish transitions in some landing areas of par 4-5. Say a creek or a large elevation change (think non mowed ditch) in a 320/350 from the Championship Tees you force the player to hit the perfect "on the screws" drive or risk being in the hazard. The hazard could be very wide with only a meandering creek at the base of the hazard. Also, one could make the rough higher/thicker as the player comes closer to the green. Jack Nicklaus used a wider toothed deep track bunker rake several years ago the players hated the idea of not having perfectly manicured bunkers which are no longer "hazards" for pro golfers. 

Jack certainly does love to find ways to make things tougher, now that he is not playing.

 

 

I read two very relevant articles today...

One was that before the Open last week Bryson and his coach Chris Como met up with a Mark Brodie the stroke gained guy. Broadie  pointed out that if there was no rough it would favor the long players...and if the fairway was reduced to one yard wide it would favor the long players. That is where Broadie felt they got the setup incorrect last week. The fairways were too narrow and that favored the long hit tiers because everyone would miss a lot of fairways.  So all of this talk about Bryson and Wolff just blasting away is silly. They were not as far behind on fairways hit as most folks seem to think. 
 

Second, for those that feel the players of today are NOT better than the players of the past read the interview with Claude Harmon III. He said heck ya the players are better today. If they were not there would be something wrong with every instructor out there. Why do so many seem to think the best players were 50-80 years ago? Seems odd that the best would be found when fewer players played competitively and the game was relatively in its infancy. With all the tools at the disposal of players and instructors today how could the players not be better? And yes, the equipment is better but that does not override the vast number of great players out there today.

 

I have no idea what the answer is. Hell I am not even certain what the real question is! ? The ideas I have read in this thread are mostly nonstarters to me. Adding more trees and closer to the fairway? Sure, how well do you think your grass will grow with that? There is a reason most older clubs are removing trees, not adding them. Lakes or OB on both sides of every hole? Yuck. Everyone says they dislike the courses that wind their way through a neighborhood with houses lining every hole. Or are we just going to arbitrarily say 20 yards off every fairway is OB? 
 

I despise the idea of bifurcation but I too prefer the older style of play. At the pro level it would not matter much. The longest players will still be the best.  I do believe more angles in course design are part of the answer. Doglegs that happen later in the hole from the tour tees would prevent players from cutting the corner. But it would be quite boring to play 14 of those every round.  
 

Sorry for the long rambling post but I feel for the ruling bodies. It is a tough call on what to do...if making any change is even the correct thing to do.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Shilgy

[ThinkingPlus]

How about we have hard pan outside the fairway with scattered shrubbery and a few pot bunkers sprinkled down the fairway?  LOL!

[80sFredriksson]

I have said this many times of course you get bomb and gauge the longer you make the courses, they should never have started this evil spiral of adding length, it is a self fulfilling prophecy and obviously the longer you make the coursed the longer the golfers need to hit it

[mahonie]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Jack certainly does love to find ways to make things tougher, now that he is not playing.

 

 

I read two very relevant articles today...

One was that before the Open last week Bryson and his coach Chris Como met up with a Mark Brodie the stroke gained guy. Broadie  pointed out that if there was no rough it would favor the long players...and if the fairway was reduced to one yard wide it would favor the long players. That is where Broadie felt they got the setup incorrect last week. The fairways were too narrow and that favored the long hit tiers because everyone would miss a lot of fairways.  So all of this talk about Bryson and Wolff just blasting away is silly. They were not as far behind on fairways hit as most folks seem to think. 
 

Second, for those that feel the players of today are NOT better than the players of the past read the interview with Claude Harmon III. He said heck ya the players are better today. If they were not there would be something wrong with every instructor out there. Why do so many seem to think the best players were 50-80 years ago? Seems odd that the best would be found when fewer players played competitively and the game was relatively in its infancy. With all the tools at the disposal of players and instructors today how could the players not be better? And yes, the equipment is better but that does not override the vast number of great players out there today.

 

I have no idea what the answer is. Hell I am not even certain what the real question is! ? The ideas I have read in this thread are mostly nonstarters to me. Adding more trees and closer to the fairway? Sure, how well do you think your grass will grow with that? There is a reason most older clubs are removing trees, not adding them. Lakes or OB on both sides of every hole? Yuck. Everyone says they dislike the courses that wind their way through a neighborhood with houses lining every hole. Or are we just going to arbitrarily say 20 yards off every fairway is OB? 
 

I despise the idea of bifurcation but I too prefer the older style of play. At the pro level it would not matter much. The longest players will still be the best.  I do believe more angles in course design are part of the answer. Doglegs that happen later in the hole from the tour tees would prevent players from cutting the corner. But it would be quite boring to play 14 of those every round.  
 

Sorry for the long rambling post but I feel for the ruling bodies. It is a tough call on what to do...if making any change is even the correct thing to do.

 

Two things from your post.

 

If you think the equipment doesn’t have much impact and that today’s players are so much better, this video demonstrates how much it does impact and how poorly the modern breed take to the the old equipment. You’ll remember Greg Norman and a couple of other driving the old balata ball nearly 300 yards and straight with persimmon. Look at the stats at 1:34:

 

Grass grows fine, even with dense foliage adjacent if it is selected correctly and properly maintained. If they can determine the rate at which grass grows with sub-air, I’m sure a bit of turf care is not beyond them.

[NRJyzr]

6 hours ago, mahonie said:

 

Two things from your post.

 

If you think the equipment doesn’t have much impact and that today’s players are so much better, this video demonstrates how much it does impact and how poorly the modern breed take to the the old equipment. You’ll remember Greg Norman and a couple of other driving the old balata ball nearly 300 yards and straight with persimmon. Look at the stats at 1:34:

 

Grass grows fine, even with dense foliage adjacent if it is selected correctly and properly maintained. If they can determine the rate at which grass grows with sub-air, I’m sure a bit of turf care is not beyond them.

 

It's an interesting video.  ?

 

If Tour Players were forced to play with Clubs of Olde, I think it's fair to say their average distance would decrease.  I also think it wouldn't be as drastic as we see here, because they would adjust.  There are lovely videos out there of Mr Fowler hitting persimmon on TrackMan, or Mr D. Johnson hitting Jack's driver for 318 yds, in spite of not actually "going after it."

 

Point being, they would adjust.  There would be a limit to how much adjustment could be made, but I firmly believe it would be better than we see in this video.

 

The biggest change would be the lower MOI allowing the ball to move around more freely.  I don't care what sort of aerodynamic capabilities you put in a golf ball, hit it with a lower MOI driver, especially with mishits, and it'll start moving laterally, LOL.  Dispersion would increase, and it might add a bit more skill necessary to keep the ball on the planet.  "Might" being an operative word.  ?

Edited September 23, 2020 by NRJyzr

[BlackDiamondPar5]

No need to screw up golf courses. Dial back the ball. Done. 

[oikos1]

6 hours ago, mahonie said:

 

Two things from your post.

 

If you think the equipment doesn’t have much impact and that today’s players are so much better, this video demonstrates how much it does impact and how poorly the modern breed take to the the old equipment. You’ll remember Greg Norman and a couple of other driving the old balata ball nearly 300 yards and straight with persimmon. Look at the stats at 1:34:

 

Grass grows fine, even with dense foliage adjacent if it is selected correctly and properly maintained. If they can determine the rate at which grass grows with sub-air, I’m sure a bit of turf care is not beyond them.

Not this again.  Of course the modern breed take poorly to the older equipment.  They haven't grown up playing older equipment.  Do you seriously think the top golfers in the world today would suck with persimmon and balata had they grown up playing thousands upon thousands of swings with persimmon and balata?

[Nard_S]

22 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

It's an interesting video.  ?

 

If Tour Players were forced to play with Clubs of Olde, I think it's fair to say their average distance would decrease.  I also think it wouldn't be as drastic as we see here, because they would adjust.  There are lovely videos out there of Mr Fowler hitting persimmon on TrackMan, or Mr D. Johnson hitting Jack's driver for 318 yds, in spite of not actually "going after it."

 

Point being, they would adjust.  There would be a limit to how much adjustment could be made, but I firmly believe it would be better than we see in this video.

 

The biggest change would be the lower MOI allowing the ball to move around more freely.  I don't care what sort of aerodynamic capabilities you put in a golf ball, hit it with a lower MOI driver, especially with mishits, and it'll start moving laterally, LOL.  Dispersion would increase, and it might add a bit more skill necessary to keep the ball on the planet.  "Might" being an operative word.  ?

Agree the video is glib on persimmon performance, those guys could do much better. Reeling in MOI on big dog should be a priority but the ball from a dispersion perspective should also be. I played 3 piece wound when I had no business doing so, when i went to a modern (for 90's designed ball), my scores dropped significantly.  Modern ball is a heat seeking missal compared to old wound.

 

As far as course setup, the way some of The Open setups are done are ideal for modern tour player. However, if there is no wind, they are not all that treacherous or difficult. Same goes for Augusta, wind matters a lot there.