What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[OrangeGravy]

36 minutes ago, mahonie said:

As I’ve said, I don’t have an answer. Kids don’t want to spend time learning new skills today. All that dumbing down the game has done is dilute what made it great in the first place.

 

I honestly don’t know what the answer is but the direction it’s currently going is not the right way.

I think the dumbing down mahonie is eluding to is the mental/decision making/strategy part of the game and not the physical act of getting the ball from tee to hole. 

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

I think the dumbing down mahonie is eluding to is the mental/decision making/strategy part of the game and not the physical act of getting the ball from tee to hole. 

Did either of you play the old equipment for a reasonable length of time? I have played long enough that the old tech-persimmon and balata- was played with about the same amount of time as the new. Meaning the new about ‘95 and up and the old about ‘70 to ‘95.  I do not see any less strategy and decision making with the new. Unless you are making assumptions about what you see from the elite level professional golf. Did either of you play at that level or basing it on what you see? Odd that we have soooo many discussions about slow play and how the caddie player interaction about strategy and decision making takes too much time and now we are being told there is none of that.

 

Maybe I am missing something though. Do the pros and other amateurs on this board just blindly whale away at the ball with no plan?

[nsxguy]

47 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Maybe I am missing something though. Do the pros and other amateurs on this board just blindly whale away at the ball with no plan?

 

Nah.

 

The mental/decision making/strategy part of the game of playing golf are clearly eluding O.G.

 

Is that what you're alluding to ?

[OrangeGravy]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Did either of you play the old equipment for a reasonable length of time? I have played long enough that the old tech-persimmon and balata- was played with about the same amount of time as the new. Meaning the new about ‘95 and up and the old about ‘70 to ‘95.  I do not see any less strategy and decision making with the new. Unless you are making assumptions about what you see from the elite level professional golf. Did either of you play at that level or basing it on what you see? Odd that we have soooo many discussions about slow play and how the caddie player interaction about strategy and decision making takes too much time and now we are being told there is none of that.

 

Maybe I am missing something though. Do the pros and other amateurs on this board just blindly whale away at the ball with no plan?

I'm just offering an opinion on what HE may have been referring to with his comment. 

[Dr. Block]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Did either of you play the old equipment for a reasonable length of time? I have played long enough that the old tech-persimmon and balata- was played with about the same amount of time as the new. Meaning the new about ‘95 and up and the old about ‘70 to ‘95.  I do not see any less strategy and decision making with the new. Unless you are making assumptions about what you see from the elite level professional golf. Did either of you play at that level or basing it on what you see? Odd that we have soooo many discussions about slow play and how the caddie player interaction about strategy and decision making takes too much time and now we are being told there is none of that.

 

Maybe I am missing something though. Do the pros and other amateurs on this board just blindly whale away at the ball with no plan?

I have played with most of the different era’s equipment (minus hickory). I also played at a high enough level to play varsity all four of my years at one of the biggest high-schools in my state (along with state and regional junior events during those years). I have to say, in my opinion, there is no question in my mind that the game of older and old took more strategy.  Especially when the wind was blowing! 
 

I am not advocating for any changes in anything. I really don’t care anymore at this point. However, clubs aside, just the behavior of the modern golf ball is enough of a reason for me to make this post.  Not only does it go miles, fly straight, somehow spin around the green but not off the driver, but it is nearly impervious to the wind.  It’s almost silly the difference compared to even the balls of the late 90’s. And we all know thinking and strategy goes up when playing in significant wind. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mvhoffman]

Now let's face it, the bombers are not winning every week BUT... I started this post because I don't want to see the "Tiger-proofing" happen again.  I live in PA where there are a lot of old championship courses that are not really used anymore because of the distance.  There are a lot of amazing courses that have been taken out of the rotation due to the tiger proofing era.

[bladehunter]

11 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

I have played with most of the different era’s equipment (minus hickory). I also played at a high enough level to play varsity all four of my years at one of the biggest high-schools in my state (along with state and regional junior events during those years). I have to say, in my opinion, there is no question in my mind that the game of older and old took more strategy.  Especially when the wind was blowing! 
 

I am not advocating for any changes in anything. I really don’t care anymore at this point. However, clubs aside, just the behavior of the modern golf ball is enough of a reason for me to make this post.  Not only does it go miles, fly straight, somehow spin around the green but not off the driver, but it is nearly impervious to the wind.  It’s almost silly the difference compared to even the balls of the late 90’s. And we all know thinking and strategy goes up when playing in significant wind. 

Amen.   There’s a reason why some of us pray for wind and rain on tournament days. It’s the only way to bring the calculation and feel back into the game and eliminate those who can’t mentally hack it.  

[oikos1]

Modern game takes less strategy?  Lol 

 

 

[Soloman1]

It does take less strategy. In the old days, we had to look at a map and make a strategy just to find the golf course. We had to bring dimes so we could make phone calls at pay phones. We had to bring cash because no one took credit cards. We could only buy golf clubs and balls at golf courses because only "green grass" locations would have them. We had to use arithmetic to walk off yardages from painted sticks on the sides of fairways, or rarely, sprinkler heads. We had to "strategize" where the pin was on the green. We had no idea how far bunkers or hazards were without buying a yardage book. I don't know how we did it. We must have been tougher. 🙂 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Soloman1

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Odd that we have soooo many discussions about slow play and how the caddie player interaction about strategy and decision making takes too much time and now we are being told there is none of that.

 

Maybe I am missing something though. Do the pros and other amateurs on this board just blindly whale away at the ball with no plan?

 

Some of that can be attributed to the expansion of some of the Rotella thoughts on pre-shot sequence and mentally preparing for the shot.

 

When I play and walk I am thinking about the next shot as I walking up to my ball.  Got the yardage and an idea of what to do before i pull the club.  I get there and get the bag off my shoulder and hit the ball.  College golf is darn near un-watchable due to how long they take to hit a shot.  Waggles, breathing, closing eyes, pacing, etc.

 

There is strategy with new tech equipment.  It is just a different strategy made possible by the equipment.  You can go over stuff now that you used to have to go around.  You can fly high and drop and stop the ball in the fairway if you are inclined.

[Dr. Block]

On 10/19/2020 at 8:32 AM, oikos1 said:

Modern game takes less strategy?  Lol 

 

 

Bombing the ball over every trap complex and over every dog-leg then sorting the rest of the hole out with some manner of a wedge shot strikes me as less strategy.  The only thing I can think of that is equal in the modern game is getting your approach to the spot that leaves the most makeable putt.  But even that seems less strategic when you are doing it from 50 yards closer.  These are all, of course, generalizations that may not apply to every course they play, but it would account for a lot of them.  

 

It's not that the modern tour player is less capable of exemplary strategic golf, or that they don't demonstrate it quite frequently, it's that the game they play with the modern equipment simply removes the need for a lot of it.  

Edited March 12, 2021 by Dr. Block

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Modern game takes less strategy?  Lol 

 

 

Different at least.  Hard to argue otherwise. If it’s same same. Why does it matter what if they roll anything back ?  Real question.  I don’t get how it’s “ no different “ and yet we will see wailing and gnashing  of teeth if they do roll anything back. 

[Sean2]

23 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

The NGF numbers are always about advancing the perception that anything related to golf is a good investment. It used to be someone had to play 8 rounds per year to be considered a golfer. Now it's anyone who goes once in their life to a TopGolf.

 

Here are some numbers to consider about golf vs. age in the US:

 

< 30 = 5%

30-39 = 12%

40-49 = 22%

50-59 = 24%

60-69 = 18%

70+ = 19%

 

50 and older are 61% of all golfers.

They spend 53% of all the money in golf.

They play 50% of all rounds.

 

I think doing anything to limit the distance now for amateurs is foolish, since the age 50+ golfers are the lifeblood of golf. 

Well, I am 65, and limiting what lack of distance I do have would be...unwanted, lol. 

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Modern game takes less strategy?  Lol 

 

 

Perhaps just on the PGA Tour or PGA type courses. A couple of years back G-Mac did a piece on the Sky Cart at the Irish Open where they discussed the shots he needed for the coming tournament. His response was that he was practising 9 different shots to fit in with the wind and course architecture with most irons from high-draw, low-draw, high-fade, low-fade and everything in-between. When asked why he didn’t practise those shots all the time, his response was that he didn’t need to when playing on the PGA Tour. He worked out the distance left to the pin and tried to hit the nearest club to that number. That is his strategy...that’s it...work out the number and hit it to that.

[oikos1]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Different at least.  Hard to argue otherwise. If it’s same same. Why does it matter what if they roll anything back ?  Real question.  I don’t get how it’s “ no different “ and yet we will see wailing and gnashing  of teeth if they do roll anything back. 

Different makes sense.  Of course it's different.  But that wasn't what was said.  I suppose I could make up what I think was said, but instead here's the quote: "...there is no question in my mind that the game of older and old took more strategy".

[oikos1]

16 minutes ago, mahonie said:

Perhaps just on the PGA Tour or PGA type courses. A couple of years back G-Mac did a piece on the Sky Cart at the Irish Open where they discussed the shots he needed for the coming tournament. His response was that he was practising 9 different shots to fit in with the wind and course architecture with most irons from high-draw, low-draw, high-fade, low-fade and everything in-between. When asked why he didn’t practise those shots all the time, his response was that he didn’t need to when playing on the PGA Tour. He worked out the distance left to the pin and tried to hit the nearest club to that number. That is his strategy...that’s it...work out the number and hit it to that.

Are you seriously trying to make a point that PGA Tour Pros don't strategize when playing a course in a tournament?

[Dr. Block]

27 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Different makes sense.  Of course it's different.  But that wasn't what was said.  I suppose I could make up what I think was said, but instead here's the quote: "...there is no question in my mind that the game of older and old took more strategy".

I see you're coming at me. That's fine.  I was stating my opinion.  Care to refute on the points I made?  Here's a condensed version: Modern ball requires less strategy in windy conditions because it is far less effected, hence the older game with the wound ball required more strategy in high winds.   Modern ball flies so far that most par fours are reduced to a bomb and gauge, also less strategic.  A wedge from any lie can be placed where one wants it much easier then a mid iron, especially on firm greens - point and shoot versus point, shoot, bounce and run.  

 

Now let's hear your side...  

Edited October 19, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

35 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Are you seriously trying to make a point that PGA Tour Pros don't strategize when playing a course in a tournament?

G-Mac obviously doesn’t seem the need to. A certain Mr Woods has said the same on Chronicles of a Champion Golfer. PGA Tour is a one-dimensional facsimile of real golf.

[Dr. Block]

34 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Are you seriously trying to make a point that PGA Tour Pros don't strategize when playing a course in a tournament?

I would call that providing an example supporting his opinion.  

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

Different makes sense.  Of course it's different.  But that wasn't what was said.  I suppose I could make up what I think was said, but instead here's the quote: "...there is no question in my mind that the game of older and old took more strategy".

Well if I give my true opinion , yes. It’s different.  There’s no doubt.  Clubs make strategy different.   I heard a infamous coach call it “ big ball and small ball “ once. By that he meant ... big ball is the modern game.  Small ball is the old game.  Neither had anything to do with the actual size of the golf ball.  Small ball - Which is played between the trees. Not over the trees like today.  
 

just take a set of 2-pw  sw blades out with your choice of  small driver ( 385cc or less ) and let me know if it’s two separate games or not.  
 

sometimes I just concede because it’s tiresome stating  obvious things and nobody hearing them.   But that’s my true opinion.  Or experience.  

[bscinstnct]

As far as strategy...

 

 

Are players, on the whole, hitting shorter irons into greens than they were in decades past?

 

if the answer is yes then it would seem that the game is less strategic now.

 

But we also have to ask the question is scoring average lower now than it was in decades past?

 

If not, why?

 

And even if they are hitting shorter irons going to greens now, if scoring average is not lower, then maybe the total amount of strategy required is equal but more focused on the wedge/green side game. 

 

 

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, Dr. Block said:

I see you're coming at me. That's fine.  I was stating my opinion.  Care to refute on the points I made?  Here's a condensed version: Modern ball requires less strategy in windy conditions because it is far less effected, hence the older game with the wound ball required more strategy in high winds.   Modern ball flies so far that most par fours are reduced to a bomb and gauge, also less strategic.  A wedge from any lie can be placed where one wants it much easier then a mid iron, especially on firm greens - point and shoot versus point, shoot, bounce and run.  

 

Now let's hear your side...  

Coming at you?  No, I commented on your post. 

 

As for strategy, I fail to see how any of your examples support that it took "more strategy" in the old days.  Saying "bomb and gouge" is less strategic because someone might be hitting a different club as opposed to someone who lays up doesn't make one or the other more strategic.  It's just a different strategy.

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, Dr. Block said:

I would call that providing an example supporting his opinion.  

An example that has nothing to do with comparing the strategy of today with the strategy of the past.  He even said it was for a tournament a couple of years ago. 

[Dr. Block]

9 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Coming at you?  No, I commented on your post. 

 

As for strategy, I fail to see how any of your examples support that it took "more strategy" in the old days.  Saying "bomb and gouge" is less strategic because someone might be hitting a different club as opposed to someone who lays up doesn't make one or the other more strategic.  It's just a different strategy.

Did you play the older wound ball in the wind?  You've ignored that point.  

 

 Not saying its a matter of a different club vs a lay-up.  It's a matter of hitting a straight towering short iron/ wedge to a specific part of a green versus the shaping of a mid iron to that same section while accounting for more travel distance on the ball after landing. Not only does clubbing and choosing the right shape/trajectory for such a shot require more strategy, but that connects to the necessity of a much more strategic positioning of the tee shot. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Some of that can be attributed to the expansion of some of the Rotella thoughts on pre-shot sequence and mentally preparing for the shot.

 

When I play and walk I am thinking about the next shot as I walking up to my ball.  Got the yardage and an idea of what to do before i pull the club.  I get there and get the bag off my shoulder and hit the ball.  College golf is darn near un-watchable due to how long they take to hit a shot.  Waggles, breathing, closing eyes, pacing, etc.

 

There is strategy with new tech equipment.  It is just a different strategy made possible by the equipment.  You can go over stuff now that you used to have to go around.  You can fly high and drop and stop the ball in the fairway if you are inclined.

So there’s more strategy, not less?
 

I agree with you that the preshot routines of many are getting ridiculously long.  But that is not the caddie discussion.

5 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Different at least.  Hard to argue otherwise. If it’s same same. Why does it matter what if they roll anything back ?  Real question.  I don’t get how it’s “ no different “ and yet we will see wailing and gnashing  of teeth if they do roll anything back. 

No question the strategy changed. How could it not?  But the post I originally replied to said there was none. And there still is as much as ever for the smart player. 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, mahonie said:

Perhaps just on the PGA Tour or PGA type courses. A couple of years back G-Mac did a piece on the Sky Cart at the Irish Open where they discussed the shots he needed for the coming tournament. His response was that he was practising 9 different shots to fit in with the wind and course architecture with most irons from high-draw, low-draw, high-fade, low-fade and everything in-between. When asked why he didn’t practise those shots all the time, his response was that he didn’t need to when playing on the PGA Tour. He worked out the distance left to the pin and tried to hit the nearest club to that number. That is his strategy...that’s it...work out the number and hit it to that.

Might be why, less the one week last year, his results have not been as good as they were 6+ years ago.

[Dr. Block]

19 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

An example that has nothing to do with comparing the strategy of today with the strategy of the past.  He even said it was for a tournament a couple of years ago. 

Perhaps just on the PGA Tour or PGA type courses. A couple of years back G-Mac did a piece on the Sky Cart at the Irish Open where they discussed the shots he needed for the coming tournament. His response was that he was practising 9 different shots to fit in with the wind and course architecture with most irons from high-draw, low-draw, high-fade, low-fade and everything in-between. When asked why he didn’t practise those shots all the time, his response was that he didn’t need to when playing on the PGA Tour. He worked out the distance left to the pin and tried to hit the nearest club to that number. That is his strategy...that’s it...work out the number and hit it to that.

 

 

There's just as much general inference there to support his opinion as there is for you to purposefully ignore to support yours. 

[Shilgy]

30 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

As far as strategy...

 

 

Are players, on the whole, hitting shorter irons into greens than they were in decades past?

 

if the answer is yes then it would seem that the game is less strategic now.

 

But we also have to ask the question is scoring average lower now than it was in decades past?

 

If not, why?

 

And even if they are hitting shorter irons going to greens now, if scoring average is not lower, then maybe the total amount of strategy required is equal but more focused on the wedge/green side game. 

 

 

Makes sense to me but I am sure others will disagree. 
 

For some the idea of carving a one iron in some manner is the only true strategy, but then that same group wants the US Open to be played with less strategy. Ultra long rough removes much decision making. Hit it in the hay? Gouge it out. In the gunk around the green? Gouge it out....rinse and repeat.

[Shilgy]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Did you play the older wound ball in the wind?  You've ignored that point.  

 

 Not saying its a matter of a different club vs a lay-up.  It's a matter of hitting a straight towering short iron/ wedge to a specific part of a green versus the shaping of a mid iron to that same section while accounting for more travel distance on the ball after landing. Not only does clubbing and choosing the right shape/trajectory for such a shot require more strategy, but that connects to the necessity of a much more strategic positioning of the tee shot. 

I played the old balls for some 30 years. And some of what you say is correct.  But a tour player is not just getting the number and hitting the club as close to that as possible. Well, strike that, a tour player with designs on winning and or just keeping his card does not do that. That is ludicrous. The comment above attributed by GMac I would absolutely bet was him trying to make the same point many here are making. Some of the decisions have changed. Some of the challenges have changed. But they have not been removed they have just been changed.

Don’t believe then try this. Try playing a round with the pins the tour uses. Virtually every single one tucked against the edge of the green. When it’s your turn to play just get the total yardage and hit the club that best fits that number right at the pin.  No wondering where the wind is because we were told on this page it doesn’t matter. Don’t worry about the pond fronting the green ....don’t worry about where the ridge in the green runs relative to the pin and the trajectory. Don’t wonder about the downslope leading to the hay over the green. JUST HIT THE BALL THE NUMBER CLOSEST TO CORRECT!  We were just told that is what GMac does.

Let me know how that works for you. 
 

We just had a thread a few weeks ago about  how the other tour players still rave about Tiger’s iron game . How it is still the best on tour and he flights EVERY SINGLE SHOT.  Maybe GMac and others should learn from that.

 

 

This is getting silly and it’s not even winter yet. Must be something else.

 

I need another wrx break. See ya!

[Dr. Block]

11 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I played the old balls for some 30 years. And some of what you say is correct.  But a tour player is not just getting the number and hitting the club as close to that as possible. Well, strike that, a tour player with designs on winning and or just keeping his card does not do that. That is ludicrous. The comment above attributed by GMac I would absolutely bet was him trying to make the same point many here are making. Some of the decisions have changed. Some of the challenges have changed. But they have not been removed they have just been changed.

Don’t believe then try this. Try playing a round with the pins the tour uses. Virtually every single one tucked against the edge of the green. When it’s your turn to play just get the total yardage and hit the club that best fits that number right at the pin.  No wondering where the wind is because we were told on this page it doesn’t matter. Don’t worry about the pond fronting the green ....don’t worry about where the ridge in the green runs relative to the pin and the trajectory. Don’t wonder about the downslope leading to the hay over the green. JUST HIT THE BALL THE NUMBER CLOSEST TO CORRECT!  We were just told that is what GMac does.

Let me know how that works for you. 
 

We just had a thread a few weeks ago about  how the other tour players still rave about Tiger’s iron game . How it is still the best on tour and he flights EVERY SINGLE SHOT.  Maybe GMac and others should learn from that.

 

 

This is getting silly and it’s not even winter yet. Must be something else.

 

I need another wrx break. See ya!

All I ever tried to say from my first post is that - to me - modern equipment eliminates some amount of strategy. While I can make points I believe to be true, I can't say what that amount is for certain, but I am confident it is there.  That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. 

 

For me weighing in on the GMAC example...I was just saying its a valid support of an opinion based on the level of logic normally practiced around this place.

 

I certainly hope you don't go; I rather enjoy your posts.  You seem to be a solid 4 index on the golf course, but a much more impressive +6 at golfwrx debating.   Don't want you getting rusty now 😉

Edited October 19, 2020 by Dr. Block