distance debate

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

This is a non issue point.  Courses grow because its nothing more than a pissing contest to attract players.  Long courses are not good/challenging courses.  It is a problem with course designers, not distance.

Says you.  Let's ask a golf course designer why courses are designed longer now than 20 years ago.

 

Or did you forget the part about elite player distance growing at a faster rate over the past 20 years than the previous 60.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

This is a non issue point.  Courses grow because its nothing more than a pissing contest to attract players.  Long courses are not good/challenging courses.  It is a problem with course designers, not distance.

 

Perry Maxwell really screwed up at Southern Hills didn't he?

 

https://thefriedegg.com/why-is-the-12th-green-directly-in-front-of-the-13th-tee-at-southern-hills/

[Nard_S]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

Welcome to the current age of properly optimized golf clubs.  You have been missing out.  Also congratulations, tech now allows you to get the most out of what you have which is fair. Before you were losing yards needlessly, but with low spin comes less accuracy, so keep that in mind.  It is a trade off.

They are properly optimized for small percentage.A low spin head that gets tour use is not suitable for almost all golfers. Even the 300 club at the range or muni. Most of them hit them with way too much spin via approach angle and the tech is nothing more than a band aid. Own great gear have not missed a thing other than the addiction to chase ''improvement'' with a new purchases every year. I've held off until I felt ready to delve into adjusting approach angle thing and getting more positive at impact. An R510 TP is good primer for that. An old King Cobra or McHenry metals too.I don't care to mask my weaknesses with "tech". I don't care to to conflate gains of technology with gains of ability. It makes nothing better. The game itself as it is now defined has degraded and lost something. Like factory food at restaurants replacing meals from scratch. Lost an organic component that will never return. Golf will get diabetes too and die.

 

 

 

 

[clevited]

1 hour ago, So_Cal said:

LOL no.  That just shows how out of touch you are with elite athleticism.  

 

Looked up NCAA data on average linebacker in the FBS is 6 foot 1 inch, 223 lbs.  

FCS is 6ft 0 inches and 217 lbs.  

 

He isn't all that far off and I said he might be comparable.  I don't think I am very out of touch at all.

[clevited]

1 hour ago, So_Cal said:

At least you admit not one golfer is athletic enough to make it in the NFL or NBA.  Case closed.

 

This was never the arguement you know that right?  So players get compared to the "size" or "look" of a player of another sport, so what?  All that does is illustrate that the tour player is much more built/athletic looking (may indeed be much more athletic than any of us know in other sports but probably not elite cause it takes more than body size and raw athleticism to be elite in any sport).

 

You are expanding this to an arguement nobody is making but yourself.  Nobody is saying Brooks would be an elite athlete in the NFL, nobody is saying he is an actual linebacker.  To say someone looks like that is a compliment to their above average physique, and speculation can be had as to what that might mean as far as their athleticism is concerned.  

 

Edit: Just to be clear, they are elite athletes within their sport.  Do you know the only other sports that tend to have guys swing as fast as the longest tour pro's do?  They are baseball and hockey.  Pitchers, power hitters, hockey players with heavy slap shots tend to have a leg up as far as raw speed in concerned.  Pro tour players just happen to be on that level only much more refined from years of practice.  Yes, many elite golfers are elite athletes in their sport because it does take significant flexibility, strength and endurance to swing as hard as they do and thus hit it as far as they do.

Edited September 1, 2022 by clevited

[clevited]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Says you.  Let's ask a golf course designer why courses are designed longer now than 20 years ago.

 

Or did you forget the part about elite player distance growing at a faster rate over the past 20 years than the previous 60.

 

Making a course longer doesn't make it better.  The problem is not a problem.  Designers are daft for thinking that was the proper response.  The proper response is to let people play your course and score.  If however a designer or club owner can't handle what people shoot or how they play it (ego issue imo) then they can choose to do whatever they want.  It is a CHOICE not a NECESSITY.  Anyone complaining about it made the choice to change their course or build an extremely long one for "x" perceived reason(s).  

 

Edit:  Added clarity.

Edited September 1, 2022 by clevited

[So_Cal]

32 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Looked up NCAA data on average linebacker in the FBS is 6 foot 1 inch, 223 lbs.  

FCS is 6ft 0 inches and 217 lbs.  

 

He isn't all that far off and I said he might be comparable.  I don't think I am very out of touch at all.

I’m 6’2 240 and average 305 off the tee in my 40’s.  Doesn’t mean I can play linebacker.  Brooks’ athleticism is way too poor to play football at a high level.   He would be hurt badly. 

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

I’m 6’2 240 and average 305 off the tee in my 40’s.  Doesn’t mean I can play linebacker.  Brooks’ athleticism is way too poor to play football at a high level.   He would be hurt badly. 

 

Nobody said that in this forum to my knowledge.  Where are you getting this?  Why are you assuming people here think that?  Do you read what you post before posting?

[Simpsonia]

Why is only the NFL and NBA being discussed in regards to golfers becoming world class athletes? 

 

How about these guys, are they not world class athletes that are arguably some of the best in their sport of all time?

Lionel Messi: 5'7" 148lbs

Christiano Ronaldo: 6'2" 187lbs

Rafael Nadal: 6'1" 187lbs

Neymar: 5'9" 150lbs

Wayne Gretzky: 6'0" 185lbs

Shawn White: 5'9" 154lbs

Floyd Mayweather: 5'8" 150lbs

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

12 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Why is only the NFL and NBA being discussed in regards to golfers becoming world class athletes? 

 

How about these guys, are they not world class athletes that are arguably some of the best in their sport of all time?

Lionel Messi: 5'7" 148lbs

Christiano Ronaldo: 6'2" 187lbs

Rafael Nadal: 6'1" 187lbs

Neymar: 5'9" 150lbs

Wayne Gretzky: 6'0" 185lbs

Shawn White: 5'9" 154lbs

Floyd Mayweather: 5'8" 150lbs

 

 

Those guys aren't elite athletes because they can't play in the NFL or NBA. 😉 Well maybe Rafa is built like a... kicker.  LOL!!!

[mahonie]

30 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Those guys aren't elite athletes because they can't play in the NFL or NBA. 😉 Well maybe Rafa is built like a... kicker.  LOL!!!

There are no other sports I can think of, outside of golf where you can play at elite level when you are 50+ years old. I hit the ball much further at 52 than I did at 22...also putt so much better but definitely not saying that I am at elite level btw

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

Why is only the NFL and NBA being discussed in regards to golfers becoming world class athletes? 

 

How about these guys, are they not world class athletes that are arguably some of the best in their sport of all time?

Lionel Messi: 5'7" 148lbs

Christiano Ronaldo: 6'2" 187lbs

Rafael Nadal: 6'1" 187lbs

Neymar: 5'9" 150lbs

Wayne Gretzky: 6'0" 185lbs

Shawn White: 5'9" 154lbs

Floyd Mayweather: 5'8" 150lbs

 

 

They’re not as good of athletes as NFL and NBA players.  Not big, fast or strong enough to make it in NBA or NFL.  Messi vs LeBron, LOL.  Good for the lesser sports that they play.  

[So_Cal]

25 minutes ago, mahonie said:

There are no other sports I can think of, outside of golf where you can play at elite level when you are 50+ years old. I hit the ball much further at 52 than I did at 22...also putt so much better but definitely not saying that I am at elite level btw

Agree.  Golf is a game not a sport IMO.  If you can look like Pat Reed/Tim Herron and be a top level player it’s not a real sport.  Golf is a great game though. 

[mahonie]

2 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Agree.  Golf is a game not a sport IMO.  If you can look like Pat Reed/Tim Herron and be a top level player it’s not a real sport.  Golf is a great game though. 

Golf is the BEST game...by miles.

 

Also the 'best game to be bad at'...not sure who said that first.

 

The other thing that should be said is that modern technology flattens the skill level. People are playing now that would never have considered the persimmon, blades and balata game. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing.

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, mahonie said:

Golf is the BEST game...by miles.

 

Also the 'best game to be bad at'...not sure who said that first.

 

The other thing that should be said is that modern technology flattens the skill level. People are playing now that would never have considered the persimmon, blades and balata game. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing.

Definitely good for high handicaps but bad for separating very good from great drivers.  

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, mahonie said:

There are no other sports I can think of, outside of golf where you can play at elite level when you are 50+ years old. I hit the ball much further at 52 than I did at 22...also putt so much better but definitely not saying that I am at elite level btw

That's because golf is all about how many not how far.  Short game, putting, and wedges don't require great strength or size, but can be improved through practice as one ages.  Also the experience and smarts matter.

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, subrew said:

 

 

 

At what point does trying to lengthen every 530yd Par 5 into 580-600 yards become dumb, when you can just make it a 530yd Par 4.  

 

Do the purists think a Par 70 or 71 course not meet with tradition?  I'm honestly not sure how many times this occurs on the PGAT.  I see quite a few LPGA events run as Par 71.

 

 

I'm having a random thought, what if the holes and courses weren't rated for pro golf?  Lowest total score is what wins so why have the mind games of comparing it to relative par?

 

Not that I'm in favor of doing such a thing, I like it the way it is but at the end of the day lowest total score wins.

[farmer]

OT, bur there are a lot of NFL players who might be elite soccer players if they had grown up playing soccer.  Would anyone doubt that DK Metcalf could have been an elite player?  6'2". 230, 4.33, he would be the both the biggest and the fastest guy on the pitch.

bek has an interesting idea.  Play 72 holes, lowest score wins, without regard to par.

[smashdn]

22 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Making a course longer doesn't make it better.  The problem is not a problem.  Designers are daft for thinking that was the proper response.  The proper response is to let people play your course and score.  If however a designer or club owner can't handle what people shoot or how they play it (ego issue imo) then they can choose to do whatever they want.  It is a CHOICE not a NECESSITY.  Anyone complaining about it made the choice to change their course or build an extremely long one for "x" perceived reason(s).  

 

Edit:  Added clarity.

 

I don't think it is fair/valid to target designers here.  Nor do I think it a fair or valid argument (implied or otherwise) that making a course longer is an attempt to make it better.

 

Adding distance was/is the result to keep certain holes engaging and keep features at distances away from the tees that keep them in play.  Yes, you can certainly leave a course alone and let what will happen happen.  But you then run the risk of players losing interest or it no longer being appropriate for certain levels of play.  Factually the lowest score wins.  Functionally you have state associations, leagues, mini-tours, etc. attempting to "test" golfers via the courses.  A distance commensurate with skill is part of that test.

 

So while you can choose to dig in your heels and refuse to adapt to the increased distances the ball flies at your course, you do so at your own peril and at the risk of becoming, call it not attractive, to tournaments and events.  If that is not something your club or course cares anything about then the point is moot.  If it is, you had better adapt or you will soon no longer have that opportunity or have it at a much reduced frequency.

 

Do you fault a course with a long history of and club culture of supporting high level tournament golf from wanting to continue to do so?

 

 

As far as designers are concerned, most of them that have existed are dead.  Their works are what are being altered.  Designers and architects build what the client wishes and provides design ideas and consultation to achieve a course or club's goals.  You want to host elite level tournaments, you will need to meet certain criteria including distance and difficulty.  It is just the nature of the beast.  

 

You may argue it the wrong idea but you are going to need to change the mindset of most all of organized golf to get what you are advocating if you think they are going to just leave their courses alone.

Edited September 2, 2022 by smashdn

[Pastit]

On 9/1/2022 at 9:31 PM, mahonie said:

There are no other sports I can think of, outside of golf where you can play at elite level when you are 50+ years old. I hit the ball much further at 52 than I did at 22...also putt so much better but definitely not saying that I am at elite level btw

I bet age is not the only changed variable, that’s the trouble with bland analyses. 

[mahonie]

9 hours ago, Pastit said:

I bet age is not the only changed variable, that’s the trouble with bland analyses. 

My point is that there is no way I should be able to hit the ball further now than when I was at my physical prime. I couldn't swing flat out with a persimmon driver and keep a balata ball on the planet...the side spin I generated was uncontrollable unless I swung slower to ensure I got that small clubhead square. Modern equipment means that you can swing out of your boots and still hit it relatively straight.

 

Driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now when it was always the hardest...that's not right.

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, mahonie said:

My point is that there is no way I should be able to hit the ball further now than when I was at my physical prime. I couldn't swing flat out with a persimmon driver and keep a balata ball on the planet...the side spin I generated was uncontrollable unless I swung slower to ensure I got that small clubhead square. Modern equipment means that you can swing out of your boots and still hit it relatively straight.

 

Driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now when it was always the hardest...that's not right.

Wish driver was easiest for me. I find PW to be easiest.

[Pastit]

2 hours ago, mahonie said:

My point is that there is no way I should be able to hit the ball further now than when I was at my physical prime. I couldn't swing flat out with a persimmon driver and keep a balata ball on the planet...the side spin I generated was uncontrollable unless I swung slower to ensure I got that small clubhead square. Modern equipment means that you can swing out of your boots and still hit it relatively straight.

 

Driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now when it was always the hardest...that's not right.

I assumed you meant the above. But it’s not that easy. The first generation of 460’s I saw high handicappers hit were all over the place, and hit mainly off the toe. I played persimmon until c 2000 as I was very straight and long enough. But once some pals off the same mark ( 8-10 handicap ) were passing me by > 40yds with trampoline designs I’d to change. Otherwise I was hitting 5 woods into greens v 8 irons.  
 

But the later generations of 460’s have helped veteran golfers hugely. I’ve just gone to a TM 300 mini-driver and I don’t see much lost distance over a SIM 2 MAX with same shafts. All that’s needed for amateur golf are tree-planting schemes and pinch points at 290yds out from tees. 

[The Mad Bomber]

4 hours ago, mahonie said:

My point is that there is no way I should be able to hit the ball further now than when I was at my physical prime. I couldn't swing flat out with a persimmon driver and keep a balata ball on the planet...the side spin I generated was uncontrollable unless I swung slower to ensure I got that small clubhead square. Modern equipment means that you can swing out of your boots and still hit it relatively straight.

 

Driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now when it was always the hardest...that's not right.

I've been beating my head against this wall for a while now, but some people are still insisting that todays players are just more athletic and that's a big part of the reason they're hitting it further. It's just such incoherent nonsense. I'm a mile longer now than I was at my fastest - 21 years old (I'm 43 now) and I had a solid 8-10 mph of extra clubhead speed at 21 to boot. Even when I first moved into a metal driver, we still only had the Professional 100 and that thing spun like crazy. Head to head, with the same driver, a Professional 100 vs. a Left Dash would be an absolute joke. 99% of the distance gains in golf have come from equipment. I can assure you, I'm a FAR worse 'athlete' now than I was 20+ years ago.

[gvogel]

When the next TaylorMade players wins the Masters, I hope their acceptance speech goes something like this:

 

"I'd like to thank the design team at TaylorMade who provided 75 driver heads for me to try, and the TaylorMade club fitter who helped me try over 150 combinations of club face angles and head weighting.  And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't include the rep from Fujikura who found the right Ventus shaft and tipping requirements for me to play my best golf.  I would also like to thank my strength and fitness coach who found 2 more yards, on top of the 15 that TaylorMade and Fuji found."

 

Anyone remember a time when players found their gamer driver in the trunk of another players car? (Sam Snead, the George Izett in Henry Picard's trunk.)  (Or Ben Hogan, the extra McGregor driver in Byron Nelson's trunk.)  I think that it was a better game when the players had to choose their equipment by themselves, without a team helping out.

 

And, by the way, any modern course designer fulfilling a contract for a wealthy guy who wanted a pro tournament for his new course, would be crazy not to plan for course additions to make an 8,000 yard course.  Such craziness.  More golf, less steps is my new motto.

[bekgolf]

Risk/reward.  Set the course up for a true risk/reward with severe penalties for missing a fairway and make the fairways narrow.

 

I think I've posted this before, apologies if I have.  Let's see a PGA stop at Sahalee.  It will never happen again as the course was too tough for the players the first and only time the PGA had a tournament there.

 

My point is that it isn't equipment as much as it's easy course set ups.  Why are the courses set up for long hitters?  Because that's what the viewers (read as people the sponsors want to sell products to) want to see.  I'm guilty of it. 

 

One of the best tv golf memories I have is Bryson hitting a 360+ yard drive to hit the green, then making a super long putt (46ft?) for eagle.  This was on the opening hole of the Ryder cup last year and he was in match play against Sergio Garcia.

 

It was much more exciting than seeing someone tee off with an iron to middle of fairway, short iron from there to a birdie opportunity, yawn.

 

 

[kasting333]

8 hours ago, mahonie said:

Driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit now when it was always the hardest...that's not right.

Are you talking about just making contact? Or that it’s easy to consistently hit long/straight drives?

[GriperRiper]

On 9/1/2022 at 2:56 PM, So_Cal said:

They’re not as good of athletes as NFL and NBA players.  Not big, fast or strong enough to make it in NBA or NFL.  Messi vs LeBron, LOL.  Good for the lesser sports that they play.  

what about O lineman, or kickers, or someone like big ben?....and have you ever seen a NBA player try to do any other sport other then basketball?.....ALL pro sports players have ELITE skills in there sport, I never understand the basketball and football is what means your a good athlete, granted this is coming from a hockey guy who KNOWS not a single one of they could step on the ice and play even a beer leauge game....and messi vs lebron in what? soccer? you think lebron has a chance? and of course messi vs. lebron in basketball is a joke, i think it would be interesting to watch them in a race though.

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, GriperRiper said:

what about O lineman, or kickers, or someone like big ben?....and have you ever seen a NBA player try to do any other sport other then basketball?.....ALL pro sports players have ELITE skills in there sport, I never understand the basketball and football is what means your a good athlete, granted this is coming from a hockey guy who KNOWS not a single one of they could step on the ice and play even a beer leauge game....and messi vs lebron in what? soccer? you think lebron has a chance? and of course messi vs. lebron in basketball is a joke, i think it would be interesting to watch them in a race though.

Golfers are way below NBA / NFL players.  Pat Reed on an NBA court.  😂 

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, kasting333 said:

Are you talking about just making contact? Or that it’s easy to consistently hit long/straight drives?

I'm talking about your second statement.

 

Before 460cc heads and the Pro V1 came along, the maximum, relatively consistent, straight-ish distance I was getting out of my game with persimmon and balata was 220 yards. I just couldn't get a persimmon headed driver in the fairway often enough, it was always 2 fairways over to the right! I could just about control a 3-wood, hence the 220 yard maximum distance.

 

Using the PGA Tour convention that the first cut is classed as fairway (?), nowadays I'm consistently hitting 60-70% and getting it out to 260 yards with a controlled swing, a few yards more if I swing flat out.