distance debate

[Pastit]

4 minutes ago, Hickory4ever said:

I agree that it is a PGA tour issue and that the almighty dollar will be the driving force. I don’t believe the pro tours want to get into the rules business except with a few local rules. Making rules doesn’t make you popular.
 

The next years are going to be interesting, the post Tiger era. TV revenue is such a big contributor that is undergoing a significant shift to online systems which may change the economics somewhat. I also believe that the potential lack of star power could have impacts. I am an avid golf nut that is watching less golf (does not affect my desire to play) because watching Driver short iron to almost all par 4’s and 5’s as entertaining, especially with an army of no names. 
 

I thank everybody for this lively banter as it has kept me entertained during the off season. 

 

 

Explain please ? Last sentence para 2. I’ve problems with semantics therein. 

[MUNIGRIT]

Why do I remember guys like Langer in 93 hitting 4 irons into 13? I wonder what the loft of his 4 iron was is 93 vs a 6 iron today?

 

If they want the course to play as designed then go back to 1930s equipment. The people whining about distance are the people whining about paying taxes if you gave them a million dollars for free.

Edited March 1, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[Titleist99]

Hey! Shouldn't we put those Drivers and Fairway woods back in steel shafts before anything is thought about regarding the golf ball?

[ShupeSC]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

Hey! Shouldn't we put those Drivers and Fairway woods back in steel shafts before anything is thought about regarding the golf ball?

Why?

[PorkChopExpress]

9 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

nothing to do with the expanded driver sweetspot then? Right..

 

btw, tv ratings are in the tank. They arent even as high as pre Tiger, let alone during

 

 

 

wonder what the relation to increased commercials is?

for every 2 shots, there's an hour of commercials.

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, ShupeSC said:

Why?

I'm pretty sure that graphite shafts help the modern player swing faster and therefore longer distance is acquired.

[ShupeSC]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

I'm pretty sure that graphite shafts help the modern player swing faster and therefore longer distance is acquired.

I’d say it’s much more of an advantage to shorter hitters.

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, Pastit said:

I’m nearly 75 and can still eagle a par 5 of 532 yds with modern gear. Albeit on a running links course with 3 wood 2nd. Of course I enjoy it, but the 13th at Augusta is clearly emasculated. 

Surely you can provide better evidence than personal abilities.  Here's some more for you:  Masters 2021 Top Ten finishers (actually 11, two T10) there were 3 eagles out of 44 attempts, or 14%.  There were more bogies or worse than eagles.

 

#13 offers plenty of Sunday excitement, albeit perhaps not for your "masculated" liking.

 

 

[Pastit]

10 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Surely you can provide better evidence than personal abilities.  Here's some more for you:  Masters 2021 Top Ten finishers (actually 11, two T10) there were 3 eagles out of 44 attempts, or 14%.  There were more bogies or worse than eagles.

 

#13 offers plenty of Sunday excitement, albeit perhaps not for your "masculated" liking.

 

 

Evidence is above and from far better commentators than I. Yes it’s enjoyable, it’s a different challenge but you miss the point completely. If all the challenges are removed then it’s not the original Masters. Glad you like it. I could play old or new gear, wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, I’ve still got the old stuff. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Pastit

[clevited]

21 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

no one seems to ease off their three or five wood. 

 

i know i don’t. 

 

you keep pushing this “i don’t like it so it must change” argument. 

 

Been down that road, plenty of proof out there too.  Smaller clubs wouldn't do much of anything for elite golfers.  They hit the middle much more often than not even at full tilt.

Edited March 1, 2022 by clevited

[milesgiles]

20 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

It tells me that they had a scheduling problem and they're going to Arnie's place.......

It tells me that some like easier golf courses without defense...

It tells me that some can't stand a course where you must use strategy...

or it tells me nothing.....

 

What it tells Honda and every other sponsor is do not even think about setting up a course that allows for anything other than bomb and gouge, because the ‘best’ players won’t come

[milesgiles]

22 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Been down that road, plenty of proof out there too.  Smaller clubs wouldn't do much of anything for elite golfers.  They hit the middle much more often than not even at full tilt.

 

What do they need 460cc’s of clubhead for then?

 

Ive not heard a single great player from the previous generation say you could swing flat out with traditional sized clubs. No one did. 

 

To suggest they leant on the driver in a remotely comparable way to the modern player is disengenuous 

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What do they need 460cc’s of clubhead for then?

 

Ive not heard a single great player from the previous generation say you could swing flat out with traditional sized clubs. No one did. 

 

To suggest they leant on the driver in a remotely comparable way to the modern player is disengenuous 

 

I disagree, and I am a lot of things but disingenuous is not one of them.

[oikos1]

33 minutes ago, Pastit said:

Evidence is above and from far better commentators than I. Yes it’s enjoyable, it’s a different challenge but you miss the point completely. If all the challenges are removed then it’s not the original Masters. Glad you like it. I could play old or new gear, wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, I’ve still got the old stuff. 

I didn't realize you were opining for the original "Masters".  For you, is there a time frame for it's beginning or would we just keep reliving Horton Smith's 1934 victory?

 

Do you mean this original Masters:

 

[Pastit]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What do they need 460cc’s of clubhead for then?

 

Ive not heard a single great player from the previous generation say you could swing flat out with traditional sized clubs. No one did. 

 

To suggest they leant on the driver in a remotely comparable way to the modern player is disengenuous 

Unsure if you’ve played or caddied for elite amateurs but, as I’ve said on ANO post, 2 pals of mine could hit greens 310 yds out with Persimmon and Balata. One did 464 yds with my Penna and 9i with myself as caddy.  
 

If you accept this then the explanation is that few Category 1 amateurs could do so. The modern gear has levelled the field, improved amateur and OAP enjoyment but ruined the pro game. 

[Pastit]

3 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

I didn't realize you were opining for the original "Masters".  For you, is there a time frame for it's beginning or would we just keep reliving Horton Smith's 1934 victory?

 

Do you mean this original Masters:

 

Freezing is very good for wasp stings. Can you bother someone else. 

[clevited]

43 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What do they need 460cc’s of clubhead for then?

 

Ive not heard a single great player from the previous generation say you could swing flat out with traditional sized clubs. No one did. 

 

To suggest they leant on the driver in a remotely comparable way to the modern player is disengenuous 

 

I will say my part one time and leave it with the understanding we will disagree.  I know where you stand so this is more for others to see.

 

When a pro typically has a strike pattern like this when taking a full rip with a driver...

 

I am doubtful they are very fearful of a full rip with a 3 wood, especially off a short tee.  Considering I know I am not, and I rarely ever swing easy I have to imagine pros generally aren't either.  It is also easy to find players like Rory on the range hitting fairway woods off the tee or turf with trackman numbers being shown and you can see with some basic calculations that he is swinging with close to the same effort as he is with a driver.  The ball speed he obtains is proportional to driver ball speed given the length differences of the clubs.

 

Edit:  Forgot to address one other thing.  Pro's use the big drivers because they give them an advantage over smaller stuff.  One less bad shot a round is huge when they have a misfire with their swing.  They are also the models being pitched to the consumer.  Why would they be using something completely different when sponsors are trying to sell clubs to the masses?  If everyone had to use the same size fairway sized head, then nobody would have the advantage of a shot or two saving bigger head so they still swing hard if the shots gained from distance remains the same, which it would.

 

There that is all I will say about that and agree to disagree.  

Edited March 1, 2022 by clevited

[Titleist99]

24 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

I didn't realize you were opining for the original "Masters".  For you, is there a time frame for it's beginning or would we just keep reliving Horton Smith's 1934 victory?

 

Do you mean this original Masters:

 

Yep, that's how the architect intended the course to play.....LOL!

[oikos1]

23 minutes ago, Pastit said:

Freezing is very good for wasp stings. Can you bother someone else. 

No problem.  I thought you were defending something of meaning to you.  I guess it didn't mean much.

[MUNIGRIT]

49 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What do they need 460cc’s of clubhead for then?

 

Ive not heard a single great player from the previous generation say you could swing flat out with traditional sized clubs. No one did. 

 

To suggest they leant on the driver in a remotely comparable way to the modern player is disengenuous 

Someone needs to watch some old videos of pros swinging. Jack, Greg Norman, Annie, Hogan, Tiger, Miller, JD, Freddie, Els etc. What they say and what they did has always been totally different. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[Hickory4ever]

2 hours ago, Pastit said:

Explain please ? Last sentence para 2. I’ve problems with semantics therein. 

Sorry, Pastit, what I meant in the sentence was that  didn’t find watching tour players hit a Driver followed by a short iron into just about every par 4  and par 5 that entertaining. 
 

As for MUNIGRITs comment on going back to 1930 equipment, you should try it, I have. Actually, you don’t even have to go back that far, try some of the classic clubs, I do that too. If you are playing a course that was designed prior to 1990, try playing something approximating the equipment used in that era, you might find a new appreciation for the course. 
 

I also enjoy playing the new toys as well, especially on a modern course. 

[milesgiles]

39 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I will say my part one time and leave it with the understanding we will disagree.  I know where you stand so this is more for others to see.

 

When a pro typically has a strike pattern like this when taking a full rip with a driver...

 

I am doubtful they are very fearful of a full rip with a 3 wood, especially off a short tee.  Considering I know I am not, and I rarely ever swing easy I have to imagine pros generally aren't either.  It is also easy to find players like Rory on the range hitting fairway woods off the tee or turf with trackman numbers being shown and you can see with some basic calculations that he is swinging with close to the same effort as he is with a driver.  The ball speed he obtains is proportional to driver ball speed given the length differences of the clubs.

 

Edit:  Forgot to address one other thing.  Pro's use the big drivers because they give them an advantage over smaller stuff.  One less bad shot a round is huge when they have a misfire with their swing.  They are also the models being pitched to the consumer.  Why would they be using something completely different when sponsors are trying to sell clubs to the masses?  If everyone had to use the same size fairway sized head, then nobody would have the advantage of a shot or two saving bigger head so they still swing hard if the shots gained from distance remains the same, which it would.

 

There that is all I will say about that and agree to disagree.  

 

 

1. No way should manufacturers EVER dictate what a pro has to use so that they can make a profit

 

2. At least  you admit that yes, its more forgiving, I want to remove that safety net and see the odd bad shot, you dont seem to mind 

 

so yes agree to disagree 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

I didn't realize you were opining for the original "Masters".  For you, is there a time frame for it's beginning or would we just keep reliving Horton Smith's 1934 victory?

 

Do you mean this original Masters:

 

 

For the 15th time, pre 460 era would do me fine. Perhaps it was a better game with hickory, Im not old enough to know. It was 100% a better game to watch with small headed drivers and a spinnier ball. 

[caniac6]

I played a course today that I haven’t played in over 30 years. We played the back tees, and there is a par 5 with a long carry over water on the tee shot. With the old gear, I couldn’t carry it. Today, with the modern equipment, and at age 67, I carried it with plenty to spare. I’m certainly not long enough to make any course obsolete, but that was a clear example of how much the new clubs and ball have increased distance.

[StudentGolfer4]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

What it tells Honda and every other sponsor is do not even think about setting up a course that allows for anything other than bomb and gouge, because the ‘best’ players won’t come

I’m not sure that’s true and seems like a strange argument. There are plenty of easy tournaments that the top guys skip as well. 
 

The Honda is essentially an alternate field event. The Seminole pro member takes place the following Monday. It had 5 of the worlds top 10 and a handful of other huge names. If given the task, I’m not sure you could find 1 golfer on the planet that would rather play PGA National than Seminole. I guarantee no informed golfer would. 

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I played a course today that I haven’t played in over 30 years. We played the back tees, and there is a par 5 with a long carry over water on the tee shot. With the old gear, I couldn’t carry it. Today, with the modern equipment, and at age 67, I carried it with plenty to spare. I’m certainly not long enough to make any course obsolete, but that was a clear example of how much the new clubs and ball have increased distance.

Advances in equipment is a natural evolution...... you wouldn't use a 1920 baseball glove.

you wouldn't use the old leather basketball......no you wouldn't. The gloves are three times the size and the basketballs are easier to grip with synthetic rubber for the modern game.

Why would anyone not take advantage of the technology of today......

[MUNIGRIT]

How spinny is the feather filled cowhide dome?

[ChipStrokes]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

What it tells Honda and every other sponsor is do not even think about setting up a course that allows for anything other than bomb and gouge, because the ‘best’ players won’t come

is it that? 

 

or did morikawa, xander, and cantlay choose to spend some extra time home in cali before coming east?

 

you’re reaching here, and you’re better than that. it’s an obvious choice for a week off on the schedule. 

[StudentGolfer4]

15 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

is it that? 

 

or did morikawa, xander, and cantlay choose to spend some extra time home in cali before coming east?

 

you’re reaching here, and you’re better than that. it’s an obvious choice for a week off on the schedule. 

I agree. And Cantlay won the pro member event at Seminole! If anything it proves that given the option, elite golfers want to play world class golf courses. Not a course that may be top 50 in Florida. They literally played somewhere else for free. That can’t make the Honda feel very good. 
 

Unrelated but noteworthy. Bryson had to withdrawal. 

[storm319]

2 hours ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

I could not disagree with this any more. In 86 shinnecock hosted the us open at 6900 yards, in 04 is was just shy of 7000 yards. In 2018 is was 7450 

 

In 1999 Pinehurst was 7200 yards par 70. I. 2015 it was 7550

 

Between 2002 and 2009 bethpage was lengthened 200 yards. 

In 2000 the masters played just shy of 7000 yards. In 2021 it was just under 7500. They have made changes to lengthen it again for the 2022 event. 
 

In 98 the Olympic club was 6800 it was 7200 in 2013. (Sure it’s not quite as elite as the others mentioned). 

 

And yes, without question, all of the courses listed above are some of the very best in the country. 
 

To say great courses are not in danger of becoming obsolete is false. I would argue that without the significant lengthening some of them would already be there. 

The examples you provide are not significant if you consider the history of each course. Example, Shinnecock played 4,423 yards when it hosted the 1896 US Open. The course was nearly 2,500 yards longer when it hosted in 1986 and people seem to accept that even though that was far removed from what the architect intended. So the question is, what makes the larger pre-1990 course lengthening acceptable while the much smaller post-1990 lengthening seems to be painted as a crime against humanity?

Basically what’s done is done. Courses aren’t going to give back the expanded land regardless of what happens and reducing a tee box here or there isn’t going to drastically decrease maintenance costs. The real question is whether there a need for courses to be lengthened any further? Based on the trends we have seen in the past 15+ years, I’d say no.