distance debate

[rd1959]

5 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Actually I think that is untrue.  I can't recall for sure but I think there have been a few videos out there of people testing grooveless wedges and they spin nearly as much if not the same with full shots from a normal lie, but you get a flier every time in the wet or rough.  I will have to see if I can find the video(s) I recall seeing.  It was rather unexpected is what I remember.

 

Hydrophobic finishes is an interesting thought of how they might try and get around a no groove rule.  See, fun to think about.

Rick Shiels did a video about this. The results were surprising.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Then stop using outlier drives with long total distances as your justification and focus on carry. If you think 306yd avg carry by the absolute best in the game is too much, fine then stick to that. 

 

It's ridiculous to keep bringing up these abnormal rollouts because, guess what, they'll still affect the game even if you got what you wanted with a large equipment rollback. 

Math:

306yd + 44yd rollout to get to get to your 350 yard drive that you think is happening all the time

10% total carry reduction

(306 * .9) + (44 * .9) = 315yds, OMG it's still over 300!

Seems better, rather than a 460 yard par 4 being driver flip wedge.
 

[clevited]

18 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Seems better, rather than a 460 yard par 4 being driver flip wedge.
 

 

But that doesn't ultimately change anything in a meaningful way which is why we push back and say, why do it if it won't change the game enough to accomplish the goal?  A goal which is extremely unclear and poorly defined.  

[TLUBulldogGolf]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

But that doesn't ultimately change anything in a meaningful way which is why we push back and say, why do it if it won't change the game enough to accomplish the goal?  A goal which is extremely unclear and poorly defined.  

Ok then do it more. The goals have been enumerated, what’s the point of me defining it if you don’t agree anyway. In fact, you would claim that if they did ‘enough’, they will just find yardage to make up the difference.

Edited August 2, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Ok then do it more. The goals have been enumerated, what’s the point of me defining it if you don’t agree anyway. In fact, you would claim that if they did ‘enough’, they will just find yardage to make up the difference.

Well 20% - 25% would be the number.  Hope everyone is OK with that (ams too - no bifurcation per USGA current intent).

[clevited]

21 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Ok then do it more. The goals have been enumerated, what’s the point of me defining it if you don’t agree anyway. In fact, you would claim that if they did ‘enough’, they will just find yardage to make up the difference.

 

Again, you confuse me with someone else or something.  I don't blame you because it can be hard to keep things straight in these lengthy threads but no, I don't claim they will find a way to make up the difference.  I claim that those that can, will pop off the self imposed cap and swing harder more often and eventually, over time, the long driver guy that also has a stellar rest of his game will become the common player on tour.  Plenty of male athletes capable of 200+ ball speed today, an extreme nerf of ~20% is what is needed which will just make those with that kind of speed flourish even more and make distance an even larger difference maker than it is today.

 

Edit:  Just to clarify, I don't think the nerf I proposed above (and a million times in these threads) will be overcome because the nerf takes into account the longest of the long.  They will be still longer than Jack on average, in fact, they will probably be similar to the longest averages we see on tour today, but they effectively won't be able to go any further.  The distance ceiling will be much more firm than it currently is today and will require rarer athletic breeds of players to reach it. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by clevited

[gvogel]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Again, you confuse me with someone else or something.  I don't blame you because it can be hard to keep things straight in these lengthy threads but no, I don't claim they will find a way to make up the difference.  I claim that those that can, will pop off the self imposed cap and swing harder more often and eventually, over time, the long driver guy that also has a stellar rest of his game will become the common player on tour.  Plenty of male athletes capable of 200+ ball speed today, an extreme nerf of ~20% is what is needed which will just make those with that kind of speed flourish even more and make distance an even larger difference maker than it is today.

This is a funny take.  You don't claim that "they" will make up the difference, but then you go on to describe just how they will make up the difference.

[clevited]

Just now, gvogel said:

This is a funny take.  You don't claim that "they" will make up the difference, but then you go on to describe just how they will make up the difference.

 

I anticipated such a naive response.  Absolutely not.  I added an edit to my original post to address one such as yours.  

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

I totally agree......I took it the same way. I actually resented the specious comment, but I let it go.

As I do when you call my comments nonsense.

[clevited]

10 minutes ago, gvogel said:

This is a funny take.  You don't claim that "they" will make up the difference, but then you go on to describe just how they will make up the difference.

 

I will give you some credit as "some" will be able to make up "some" or perhaps most of the difference but really this is a misinterpretation of what I have been saying.  Mr. Bulldog's post I read as accusing me of downplaying even the required nerf by postulating that I will just say they will make up the difference which was never my position.  I used the make up the difference argument to justify the 20% number I frequently bring up (as does thinkingplus).  

 

I hope that is clear.

[Double Mocha Man]

4 hours ago, cardia10 said:

So a speed slot benefits a golfer less skilled in hitting the ball further.

 

Yes, it rewards accuracy... the ability to hit that usually narrow speed slot.  It requires a high level of knowledge about a particular course.  Just like knowing #9 and #14 greens slope away from you, front to back.  Like knowing how to putt when the stimpmeter is running at 12.  Like knowing that a 15mph wind, into your face, will ask you to hit 2 clubs more or hit a knock-down shot.  Same wind with you doesn't ask you to hit 2 fewer clubs.  The genius is in the details. There's more to the game than bomb and gouge.

[cardia10]

2 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Yes, it rewards accuracy... the ability to hit that usually narrow speed slot.  It requires a high level of knowledge about a particular course.  Just like knowing #9 and #14 greens slope away from you, front to back.  Like knowing how to putt when the stimpmeter is running at 12.  Like knowing that a 15mph wind, into your face, will ask you to hit 2 clubs more or hit a knock-down shot.  Same wind with you doesn't ask you to hit 2 fewer clubs.  The genius is in the details. There's more to the game than bomb and gouge.

All of the game takes thought but you either hit it far or you can’t. No one here or on tour says I wished I hit it shorter. It isn’t fun, exciting and it seems like only a handful of people (mainly short hitters or 80 year olds who played persimmon) and the USGA think it is an issue. I don’t go to Augusta every year in April to see who can hit it the shortest and hope they win. I want to see the best overall player and distance is a big part of that. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by cardia10

[TLUBulldogGolf]

11 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

All of the game takes thought but you either hit it far or you can’t. No one here or on tour says I wished I hit it shorter. It isn’t fun, exciting and it seems like only a handful of people (mainly short hitters or 80 year olds who played persimmon) and the USGA think it is an issue. I don’t go to Augusta every year in April to see who can hit it the shortest and hope they win. I want to see the best overall player and distance is a big part of that. 

Attacking the posters instead of the arguments again I see. Who said anything about seeing someone hit it the shortest? Augusta has been able to tweak their course to mostly match the technology, many courses didn’t have that luxury. 

[cardia10]

Just now, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Attacking the posters instead of the arguments again I see. Who said anything about seeing someone hit it the shortest? Augusta has been able to tweak their course to mostly match the technology, many courses didn’t have that luxury. 

Not sure who is getting attacked. The only people Ive mentioned are the constant complainers and the USGA. If we only wanted to hear one side of the argument, we would read the USGA articles or discuss their one sided distance survey. That wouldn’t make this much of a discussion board then. Discussing it is most of the fun anyway. 

[Double Mocha Man]

23 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

All of the game takes thought but you either hit it far or you can’t. No one here or on tour says I wished I hit it shorter. It isn’t fun, exciting and it seems like only a handful of people (mainly short hitters or 80 year olds who played persimmon) and the USGA think it is an issue. I don’t go to Augusta every year in April to see who can hit it the shortest and hope they win. I want to see the best overall player and distance is a big part of that. 

 

I am all for hitting it long.  Hence my 5 wedges.  I have no issue with that.  Just for the record, I am opposed to any roll back of the ball or other equipment.  And if there is a rollback let there be bifurcation.  And let the OEM's go wild for the amateurs, unleashing their R & D departments, adding 50 yards to our drives and a much tighter dispersion to our irons.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

23 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

Not sure who is getting attacked. The only people Ive mentioned are the constant complainers and the USGA. If we only wanted to hear one side of the argument, we would read the USGA articles or discuss their one sided distance survey. That wouldn’t make this much of a discussion board then. Discussing it is most of the fun anyway. 

“Mainly short hitters or 80 year olds who played persimmon”. I’m neither, engage with the arguments.

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Yes, it rewards accuracy... the ability to hit that usually narrow speed slot.  It requires a high level of knowledge about a particular course.  Just like knowing #9 and #14 greens slope away from you, front to back.  Like knowing how to putt when the stimpmeter is running at 12.  Like knowing that a 15mph wind, into your face, will ask you to hit 2 clubs more or hit a knock-down shot.  Same wind with you doesn't ask you to hit 2 fewer clubs.  The genius is in the details. There's more to the game than bomb and gouge.

Extreme accuracy and the right trajectory........Have that ball tumbling.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

4 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I will give you some credit as "some" will be able to make up "some" or perhaps most of the difference but really this is a misinterpretation of what I have been saying.  Mr. Bulldog's post I read as accusing me of downplaying even the required nerf by postulating that I will just say they will make up the difference which was never my position.  I used the make up the difference argument to justify the 20% number I frequently bring up (as does thinkingplus).  

 

I hope that is clear.

I suppose I did strawman you a bit, it just seems odd that a certain amount of nerf would do the trick and anything less than that isn’t worth it, I know we’ve gone round and round on this so it’s probably not worth rehashing. I don’t think 10% is an insignificant nerf such that it’s not worth doing. 

[clevited]

45 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I suppose I did strawman you a bit, it just seems odd that a certain amount of nerf would do the trick and anything less than that isn’t worth it, I know we’ve gone round and round on this so it’s probably not worth rehashing. I don’t think 10% is an insignificant nerf such that it’s not worth doing. 

 

I can try and restate the basic points of how I view what would be the solution and why keeping in mind I don't believe there is a problem.

 

1) Ball speed nerf is the simplest way to attack this.  That is my firm belief.

2) Currently, there are players on tour that can eclipse 200 mph if they wanted to.

3) There are currently way more players on tour that can do that vs just 10 years ago.

4) Educated assumption is that this trend will continue (all while the max average distance on tour really won't change much due to what I claim to be a natural ceiling created by the golf courses themselves)

5) Long drive pro's with great overall golf games are becoming more and more common.

6) Jamie Sadlowski, and Kyle Berkshire have elite level games and can utilize over 200 mph ball speed off the tee and under very good control.

7) Educated assumption is that Jamies and Kyles will become more and more common over time as more and more athletic people pick up the game (which I speculate is due to money to be made, spread of the game, increased middle class wealth, increased leisure time for honing skills of such a sport, availability of fitting and custom clubs, and the advent of youtube I will include as it gives yet another avenue to make money playing the sport).

8 ) Because of the above, I think the ruling bodies would be daft to not consider the future of elite golf having more and more of these guys with 200+ mph ball speed.

9) 10% (ball speed, not distance) drops back a guy like Kyle who can hit 215+ mph ball speed on the course (and control it) which can net him 360+ yards of carry at sea level (normal flat conditions), to 325+ yards of carry (same normal flat conditions).  This is carry, not total.  In other words, 10% still allows a guy to be "driver wedge" as is so overly touted in here.  You will not notice much difference between a guy like that and how the longest play the game today.

10) 15-20% is usually what I say is the right amount but lets go with 20%.  20% drops Kyle down to roughtly 290+ carry.  Emphasis on carry.  At that 20% nerf, a guy like Kyle would be able to average at a maximum, something similar to what the longest pro's do today which you guys absolutely loathe and say takes skill out of the game because all they do is hit driver wedge.  You will however see a tour average driving distance stay a lot lower, you potentially have a larger gap in "talent" show up again as the need for athletic ability in distance will become even more out of balance than you guys claim it is today.  Guys like Kyle are unlikely to become the norm, but even if they do, that incredibly firm cap will now be in place such that it would take much more of an exponential effort to eclipse it (this assumes the ruling bodies do their jobs and keep tech in check and don't allow some crazy new thing like insanely light driver shafts or something which they already screwed up on if you ask me)

 

In short, I think 200+ mph ball speed elite level golfers will become more and more common and therefore would require a heavy, heavy roll back of ball velocity to combat which I think is the simplest and most sure fire way to address the "problem" rather than ball spin or driver size and COR.  (I of course think this is not needed as courses naturally limit useful distance today thus allowing shorter players to compete with longer players vs what it would be if you nerfed the ball the amount needed).

 

Wall-o-text but I hope that makes my thoughts clear.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by clevited

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well 20% - 25% would be the number.  Hope everyone is OK with that (ams too - no bifurcation per USGA current intent).

 

I measured one with GPS the other day that went 320 and was playing the blue tees (very back).  Had a 1/2 wedge and made birdie.  If I lose 25% I'll move up a box.  Problem solved.

 

On the other hand if I somehow push that 320 out to 350 on that hole I suppose I could just chip it on or putt it if it is dry enough.  There will be someone who will or already can drive that hole.  It is the 14th handicap hole on the course so not a world beater but it does have OB left and water right, greenside bunkers on right and back left.  394 yards.

[smashdn]

12 hours ago, cardia10 said:

All of the game takes thought but you either hit it far or you can’t. No one here or on tour says I wished I hit it shorter. It isn’t fun, exciting and it seems like only a handful of people (mainly short hitters or 80 year olds who played persimmon) and the USGA think it is an issue. I don’t go to Augusta every year in April to see who can hit it the shortest and hope they win. I want to see the best overall player and distance is a big part of that. 

 

You can physically carry it far or you can't.  A smart short carrying player can still make up some distance (maybe not all) on a longer hitter by knowing where to hit it and how to hit it, to get the most run out.

 

Until you have played with equipment where you can't just drive it a long way, most often quite high, you don't know that you are missing out on a whole other set of variables that must be contended.  I'd wager most of us rarely think about the trajectory of our ball flight save for perhaps wedge shots.  I rarely do with modern equipment.  Grab a persimmon driver and you'd see it becomes pretty important to distance you can get from them.  Also, you have a much harder time just going over stuff with them.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You can physically carry it far or you can't.  A smart short carrying player can still make up some distance (maybe not all) on a longer hitter by knowing where to hit it and how to hit it, to get the most run out.

 

Until you have played with equipment where you can't just drive it a long way, most often quite high, you don't know that you are missing out on a whole other set of variables that must be contended.  I'd wager most of us rarely think about the trajectory of our ball flight save for perhaps wedge shots.  I rarely do with modern equipment.  Grab a persimmon driver and you'd see it becomes pretty important to distance you can get from them.  Also, you have a much harder time just going over stuff with them.

 

"Also, you have a much harder time just going over stuff with them."

 

If you learn to hover the club for a tee shot, you might find that to no longer be true.  I was thinking about this the other day, why I find it so easy to elevate even the lowest lofted clubs, and my wooden clubs.  It is because I hover.  I always have.  Your low point is no longer the turf and you essentially create an imaginary plane that you swing tangent to and don't have fear of skiing anything.  

 

In other words, it isn't hard to go over stuff with them, its just a change in technique away from being practically the same.

[cardia10]

26 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You can physically carry it far or you can't.  A smart short carrying player can still make up some distance (maybe not all) on a longer hitter by knowing where to hit it and how to hit it, to get the most run out.

 

Until you have played with equipment where you can't just drive it a long way, most often quite high, you don't know that you are missing out on a whole other set of variables that must be contended.  I'd wager most of us rarely think about the trajectory of our ball flight save for perhaps wedge shots.  I rarely do with modern equipment.  Grab a persimmon driver and you'd see it becomes pretty important to distance you can get from them.  Also, you have a much harder time just going over stuff with them.

I think this fits exactly what I'm saying, as an amateur, we are rarely called on to alter our trajectory and why should we care if we clip that tree, we aren't playing for millions. The game has evolved from persimmon 30-50 years ago. To roll back for .01% of the golfing population makes no sense at all. The beauty is, if you enjoy hitting it shorter and playing a shot making game at courses that no longer require it, you are free to buy an old set of clubs and go for it.  That in no way means all of wants to or should have to do it because a small percentage of the golfing population figured out how to swing faster, play better and hit the ball further with the equipment made within the rules. For the USGA to overlook the 99% of golfers they represent show how of touch they are with the common golfer, and hasn't that always been the issue with the game. The stay off my grass crowd runs the show while us commoners just continue to pay the way and allow them to represent us this way.

Edited August 3, 2022 by cardia10

[smashdn]

12 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

I think this fits exactly what I'm saying, as an amateur, we are rarely called on to alter our trajectory and why should we care if we clip that tree, we aren't playing for millions. The game has evolved from persimmon 30-50 years ago. To roll back for .01% of the golfing population makes no sense at all. The beauty is, if you enjoy hitting it shorter and playing a shoemaking game at courses that no longer require it, you are free to buy an old set of clubs and go for it.  That in no way means all of wants to or should have to do it because a small percentage of the golfing population figured out how to swing faster, play better and hit the ball further with the equipment made within the rules. 

 

That line of thinking has me going here > if you enjoy the game more because it is easier, and you are an amateur (especially one not playing in events or really concerned with handicaps) why not find non-conforming equipment that makes the game even easier for you?

 

I am not necessarily against bifurcation, in either direction.  That .01% needs to be playing with equipment that restores balance to the importance of the facets of the game.  Perhaps on the other end of the spectrum, there is 5-10% that need to be playing with much easier and hotter equipment.

 

I do play persimmons and blades regularly on courses that modern technology has simply blown past.  It helps me to focus on quality of the strike and path of the club as persimmon exacerbates spin in most all directions.  Also, the reduction in distance has me with approaches more than 150 yards more often than with the modern stuff.  

 

I use the old clubs for enjoyment but it also serves as a sort of "weighted bat" or smaller basketball hoop.  When I go back to the modern clubs it feels ultra-easy and forgiving.  I have to scramble more for score with the old clubs.  They add a certain amount of extra challenge and pressure that tends to sharpen my game overall.  I can tell that I get sloppy when I have played the modern clubs several rounds in a row.  When I go back to the old clubs it is immediately humbling.

 

Here is an example of a course that is simply not very safe to play with the modern driver, specifically the modern driver in the hands of folks who spray it.  https://www.bgky.org/golf/paul-walker/scorecard  Great course for a Sunday bag of only irons or maybe irons and four wood or set of persimmon woods.  It plays just fine that way though bordering on still short.

[cardia10]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

That line of thinking has me going here > if you enjoy the game more because it is easier, and you are an amateur (especially one not playing in events or really concerned with handicaps) why not find non-conforming equipment that makes the game even easier for you?

 

I am not necessarily against bifurcation, in either direction.  That .01% needs to be playing with equipment that restores balance to the importance of the facets of the game.  Perhaps on the other end of the spectrum, there is 5-10% that need to be playing with much easier and hotter equipment.

 

I do play persimmons and blades regularly on courses that modern technology has simply blown past.  It helps me to focus on quality of the strike and path of the club as persimmon exacerbates spin in most all directions.  Also, the reduction in distance has me with approaches more than 150 yards more often than with the modern stuff.  

 

I use the old clubs for enjoyment but it also serves as a sort of "weighted bat" or smaller basketball hoop.  When I go back to the modern clubs it feels ultra-easy and forgiving.  I have to scramble more for score with the old clubs.  They add a certain amount of extra challenge and pressure that tends to sharpen my game overall.  I can tell that I get sloppy when I have played the modern clubs several rounds in a row.  When I go back to the old clubs it is immediately humbling.

 

Here is an example of a course that is simply not very safe to play with the modern driver, specifically the modern driver in the hands of folks who spray it.  https://www.bgky.org/golf/paul-walker/scorecard  Great course for a Sunday bag of only irons or maybe irons and four wood or set of persimmon woods.  It plays just fine that way though bordering on still short.

I was just in Scotland and walked Musselburgh and understand that some courses just can't take the innovation. Those courses should be left to us mere mortals. I always enjoy taking an old set of blades out to really get honed in and focused. The rounds are exponentially easier without them but no matter how easy, my score seems to end up the same. My handicap has stayed the same as well going from blades to cavity backs. Probably due to my resistance to lessons or learning my lesson with the lob wedge, but do enjoy taking a half set out sometimes (score also stays around the same.) I think the ball rollback for the pros would be easier for us all to handle, but the USGA has never had a history of only implementing things that affected the .001%. The rest up us are always lumped in during that 5 year exploratory period and lose. The groove rule is the prime example and accomplished zero other than an additional cost to manufacturing companies. It was a whiff, but they will never admit it. Maybe they should really focus on growing the game instead of overcomplicating it.

[ThinkingPlus]

58 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I measured one with GPS the other day that went 320 and was playing the blue tees (very back).  Had a 1/2 wedge and made birdie.  If I lose 25% I'll move up a box.  Problem solved.

 

On the other hand if I somehow push that 320 out to 350 on that hole I suppose I could just chip it on or putt it if it is dry enough.  There will be someone who will or already can drive that heole.  It is the 14th handicap hole on the course so not a world beater but it does have OB left and water right, greenside bunkers on right and back left.  394 yards.

That's nice for you.  I'm glad you have that opportunity.  Most women and some seniors don't. I suppose they should just suck it up so Merion and TOC can still be "relevant" for elite men's tournaments.  They should just take one for the team so that the RBs can once again claim that the game is being played "properly" where there is no bomb and gouge.  It's for the "good" of the game, right? BS and always will be.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

If I lose 25% I'll move up a box. 

 

By my computations that gives you 80 yards from the back tees to the next set of tees.  Now, if you accept the new rolled back equipment and still hit from the back tees then you'll be hitting eight more clubs into that green if you have 10 yd. gaps in your irons.  Doesn't sound pretty.

[smashdn]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That's nice for you.  I'm glad you have that opportunity.  Most women and some seniors don't. I suppose they should just suck it up so Merion and TOC can still be "relevant" for elite men's tournaments.  They should just take one for the team so that the RBs can once again claim that the game is being played "properly" where there is no bomb and gouge.  It's for the "good" of the game, right? BS and always will be.

 

If you have been following along, I would not mind bifurcation.  I was only adding in that for some a 25% reduction would not be intrusive as it has been made out to be.  I count myself not really as the .01% of golfers skill-wise but certainly on the right hand slope of the bell curve in the distance category.

 

The problem with seniors and women not being able to move up is a current issue and an issue experienced with young kids as well.  Some more forward thinking courses have created teeing areas ahead of the "traditional" most forward tees and had them rated.  While this was done specifically for junior golfers in most cases I don't see why they cannot be utilized by anyone that wants to.  They have even rated those new teeing areas.

 

It is far easier and less expensive for a course to add in shorter teeing areas than it is to add in ones further back, especially when there is no where left to go back.

 

Yes, that is for the good of the game.

[cardia10]

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

If you have been following along, I would not mind bifurcation.  I was only adding in that for some a 25% reduction would not be intrusive as it has been made out to be.  I count myself not really as the .01% of golfers skill-wise but certainly on the right hand slope of the bell curve in the distance category.

 

The problem with seniors and women not being able to move up is a current issue and an issue experienced with young kids as well.  Some more forward thinking courses have created teeing areas ahead of the "traditional" most forward tees and had them rated.  While this was done specifically for junior golfers in most cases I don't see why they cannot be utilized by anyone that wants to.  They have even rated those new teeing areas.

 

It is far easier and less expensive for a course to add in shorter teeing areas than it is to add in ones further back, especially when there is no where left to go back.

 

Yes, that is for the good of the game.

Totally agree here, we have to get out of the color coding for teeing grounds. Scotland was very interesting when playing there. The caddy asked your handicap then asked about how far you hit it off the tee then walked you to the correct tee. I took there advice and had a great time. Some of our group played what would be considered womens teeing distances here but it all came out very equal and fun for the group. We have instilled too much shame for playing the correct set of tees for whatever reason.

[smashdn]

24 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

By my computations that gives you 80 yards from the back tees to the next set of tees.  Now, if you accept the new rolled back equipment and still hit from the back tees then you'll be hitting eight more clubs into that green if you have 10 yd. gaps in your irons.  Doesn't sound pretty.

 

I wouldn't still be hitting from back there.  Those would truly become the championship tees at that point.  My game/distance would not support that.

 

That is sort of the point though.  By handicap I am only a stroke or two better than an average male golfer.  By driving distance I am maybe in the upper 15%?  I shouldn't be back on the back tees and still having half wedges into par fours.  The par fives on this course are 522, 498, 529 and 550.  Only the last one is not reachable due to being pretty severely uphill from the very back box to the crest of the hill midway down the fairway.  Longest par four is 436 but is also a dogleg left with a small creek on the left.  If you just carry that you can leave yourself less than 150 easily.  Hit a high draw on a more aggressive line you can have less than 100 yards in.