distance debate

[Golferpaul]

5 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 Where are you that they haven’t lengthened any courses? There’s several around me near London, where it’s especially hard to do, but they’ve had to do it 

I think he said " lengthening because their members hit the golf ball too far"

 

I don't know of any course in Austin that has added length because their members hit the golf ball too far.  

[milesgiles]

16 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

a few guys in here (not me personally) have cited several sources showing a plateau in the length of the driving leaders on tour and also that courses have lengthened, on average, something like 50 yards in the last couple of decades. 

 

both of these statements have been brushed off and dismissed by people who feel there’s a huge issue at hand. 

 

thats recall without looking back through the thread. don’t take it as gospel. 

 

1.  there is no plateau identified by the report, and it predicts distance will continue to increase

 

2. courses are going up by an average of 5 yards per year, twice what you claimed. 

 

really, if you just read the report you could save us all a lot of trouble explaining things to you

[MattC555]

5 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 Where are you that they haven’t lengthened any courses? There’s several around me near London, where it’s especially hard to do, but they’ve had to do it 

 

I'm in CT and none that I play have been lengthened within the last decade.  Our courses are longer than what you're saying though, 6600-7200 yards from the tips.  And the shorter ones, sub 6600 yards, are generally tighter.  Black tees around 7000 yards are generally ghost towns.  I had a laugh this past weekend reading that the black tees at Gillette Ridge in Bloomfield, CT require Pro approval.  They are at 7191 yards for what it's worth. 

 

Is there statistical data showing courses are being lengthened worldwide?  Just curious.  I've been playing for 30+ years but have never paid close enough attention to total yardage. 

[ChipStrokes]

16 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

1.  there is no plateau identified by the report, and it predicts distance will continue to increase

 

2. courses are going up by an average of 5 yards per year, twice what you claimed. 

 

really, if you just read the report you could save us all a lot of trouble explaining things to you

championship courses have gained, on average, 300 yards in 100 years

 

public courses 63 yards. 

 

the overall average is 126 yards. 

 

so, 1.26 yards per year.  over 18 holes, that’s .07 yards, per hole, per year. 

 

direct from the usga. see, i can read. 

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/59/02/mapping-the-past--present-and-future-of-golf-courses.html

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[clevited]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

they hold major amateur competitions, play high division scratch games and need to attract good players etc etc. 

 

Its not the majority of courses but its a signficant number, and the new ones that have opened certainly arent opening at moderate total yardages

 

Sounds like they are making a perceived needed business decision.  If that is what they prefer to do, and they can, more power to them.  The fact is, they DO NOT need to lengthen their course to remain a quality/challenging course.  They are doing it to keep up with the Joneses more than anything I would be willing to bet.  You know what would take care of all of this.  If the USGA/RNA made it a rule or recommendation that no course exceed X amount of yards that way you don't have as much of the keep up with the Joneses whining about length and cost.  It would at least be curbed.  (Of course, this can be altered to consider courses at elevation).  

 

The truth of this whole matter is, nobody needs to lengthen courses, it just isn't needed and is a manufactured problem.  It isn't an augment for rolling back equipment at all.  For every course that HAD to lengthen their course, there are 100s that haven't touched their course in decades and are under 7k yards.

[clevited]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

he stated that it was a 'perceived' issue, which is ridiculous. Its an actual issue, but we can certainly debate how many people are affected and how far we should go in fixing it.

 

Just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it is poor form

 

I maintain it is a perceived issue more than a real one when you actually parse it out.  Nobody is sticking their head in the sand, it just isn't an ACTUAL problem.  (Not yelling with the caps, just emphasizing)

[smashdn]

59 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Exactly!  Let the fairways grow to the same height as they were 30 years ago and we would see average drives drop by 20 yards.  Hard, dry fairways mowed to green height is contributing as much to distance as the golf ball.

 

Can the USGA mandate courses mow their fairways at a certain HOC?  Can they make equipment rule changes?

[clevited]

32 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

I'm in CT and none that I play have been lengthened within the last decade.  Our courses are longer than what you're saying though, 6600-7200 yards from the tips.  And the shorter ones, sub 6600 yards, are generally tighter.  Black tees around 7000 yards are generally ghost towns.  I had a laugh this past weekend reading that the black tees at Gillette Ridge in Bloomfield, CT require Pro approval.  They are at 7191 yards for what it's worth. 

 

Is there statistical data showing courses are being lengthened worldwide?  Just curious.  I've been playing for 30+ years but have never paid close enough attention to total yardage. 

 

I have several courses in my vicinity.  3 of which are what I would call, higher end quality wise. That is the biggest attractor besides challenge around here.  Nice, well kept courses with nice rolling speedy greens is a lot of challenge for most average players.  Only one of these courses is over 7k yards and hardly anyone plays the tips (other than myself and a handful of others).  The other 2 courses are shorter (6800 yards max), but plenty challenging as they are guarded by very penalizing trees, and reward precise tee shots more.  The moral of the story is, over here, the courses were designed such that they reign in benefits of distance naturally.  There is only so much help that it is even if you are really really long and accurate.  Get one shot wrong on those shorter courses and you are likely getting a bogey or a double even.  None of these courses have lengthened nor should they.  They are enjoyable, challenging and well kept.  

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Can the USGA mandate courses mow their fairways at a certain HOC?  Can they make equipment rule changes?

 

USGA can suggest mowing height I am sure, but ultimately, a course can do what it wants.  The course owners can't whine about length though if they don't leave the grass higher.

[milesgiles]

36 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

championship courses have gained, on average, 300 yards in 100 years

 

public courses 63 yards. 

 

the overall average is 126 yards. 

 

so, 1.26 yards per year.  over 18 holes, that’s .07 yards, per hole, per year. 

 

direct from the usga. see, i can read. 

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/59/02/mapping-the-past--present-and-future-of-golf-courses.html

 

 

 

80% of which is in the last thirty years. As always, you read the bits that suit your argument and ignore those that dont 

[smashdn]

55 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

equipment rules will kill the golf industry in their efforts to “preserve the integrity of the game”

 

if you freeze things where they are, pros are tapped out distance wise. they’ll continue to try and eek out a yard or two via strength training, perfecting launch conditions, etc, but they’ll pretty much stagnate. 

 

but your average golfer, your consumer, wants to buy a new driver every year to “gain 15 yards”.  those guys will likely stop playing if equipment is rolled back or there’s no more magic bullet to buy. 

 

If it could be promised that there would be no more distance gains I could get on board with that.  Probably USGA too.

 

The problem is the unknown unknowns.  The USGA doesn't know the impact of the various variables nor the impact of the variables impact upon one another and that impact.

 

"We’re committed to our desire to stop the cycle of increased hitting distances. We have the long-term health of the game in mind. How is the game healthy 20, 50, 100 years from now. That’s something we remain committed to."

- Thomas Pagel, USGA Chief Governance Officer

 

Kids don't like eating their vegetables but it might be the best thing for them.

[milesgiles]

23 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Sounds like they are making a perceived needed business decision.  If that is what they prefer to do, and they can, more power to them.  The fact is, they DO NOT need to lengthen their course to remain a quality/challenging course.  They are doing it to keep up with the Joneses more than anything I would be willing to bet.  You know what would take care of all of this.  If the USGA/RNA made it a rule or recommendation that no course exceed X amount of yards that way you don't have as much of the keep up with the Joneses whining about length and cost.  It would at least be curbed.  (Of course, this can be altered to consider courses at elevation).  

 

The truth of this whole matter is, nobody needs to lengthen courses, it just isn't needed and is a manufactured problem.  It isn't an augment for rolling back equipment at all.  For every course that HAD to lengthen their course, there are 100s that haven't touched their course in decades and are under 7k yards.

 

they arent privately owned courses trying to make a profit, they are member owned trying to stay relevant for their members. There is no 'keeping up with the Jones'

[ChipStrokes]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

80% of which is in the last thirty years. As always, you read the bits that suit your argument and ignore those that dont 

ok, and? let’s take away 20% from those numbers. 

 

240 yards for championship courses over 3 decades is hardly significant. 

 

51 yards on public courses over 30 years is nothing. 

[oikos1]

14 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

You aren’t playing with many kids then, every club around me has a dozen who aren’t remotely contained by 6500 yards 

I get it now.  The Brits have too many antiquated courses that have no ability to adapt.

 

Interesting that not so long ago the Brits played their own, smaller ball that apparently went further and straighter:

 

https://www.golfcompendium.com/2020/06/american-ball-british-ball.html

 

At this point, I'd be fine with the R&A rolling back or making their own ball for tournament play in Europe.  Especially since the point keeps being made, by those across the pond themselves, that their golf courses cannot handle the modern game.  No need to change it for the rest of the world.  "One world golf" sounds great on paper but appears to be much more challenging in reality.

 

Edit:  Or change club requirements or tee lenbths for euro golf since that's what miles is on about.

Edited April 19, 2022 by oikos1

[klebs01]

1 minute ago, oikos1 said:

I get it now.  The Brits have too many antiquated courses that have no ability to adapt.

 

Interesting that not so long ago the Brits played their own, smaller ball that apparently went further and straighter:

 

https://www.golfcompendium.com/2020/06/american-ball-british-ball.html

 

At this point, I'd be fine with the R&A rolling back or making their own ball for tournament play in Europe.  Especially since the point keeps being made, by those across the pond themselves, that their golf courses cannot handle the modern game.  No need to change it for the rest of the world.  "One world golf" sounds great on paper but appears to be much more challenging in reality.

This isn’t a Brit issue. The exact same thing is happening in the Midwest. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The dramatic increase in driving distance started in the mid 1990's and flattened ~2006. I'm guessing driven by the introduction and optimization of metal woods and modern ball.  So it seems the cat is already out of the bag. 

 

While increased driving distance doesn't present a problem for golf course design by >99% of the golfers on the course, so it seems we have something like these options, but not limited to:

1. Make no equipment changes and do not lengthen courses -- let distance and scores do whatever they do

2. No equipment changes but keep lengthening courses -- this not sustainable

3. No equipment changes but make any combo of the following golf course modifications;

• make it highly punitive for hitting it farther than X off the tee i.e.  traps, water hazards, shrubs etc.  This could even  include painting an arc line in the fairway and rough thus making it a penalty to hit it past the line 🙂 (yeah silly but I'm brainstorming)
• Growing out the fairway to remove roll
• Growing out the rough to make missing fairways extremely punitive

4. Bifurcate and roll the pro equipment back 20 years.  Seems like a logistical and legal nightmare

5. Roll everything for everyone back 20 years--- no one will be happy. There'd likely be a revolt by >99% of golfers who aren't obsoleting golf courses by distance and are enjoying the distance and control gains of modern equipment.

 

 

[oikos1]

2 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

This isn’t a Brit issue. The exact same thing is happening in the Midwest. 

What exact same thing? 

 

 

[ChipStrokes]

2 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The dramatic increase in driving distance started in the mid 1990's and flattened ~2006.

there’s your plateau, Miles. 

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, oikos1 said:

What exact same thing? 

 

 

those darn kids hitting the ball too far?

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

ok, and? let’s take away 20% from those numbers. 

 

240 yards for championship courses over 3 decades is hardly significant. 

 

51 yards on public courses over 30 years is nothing. 

 

8 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

ok, and? let’s take away 20% from those numbers. 

 

240 yards for championship courses over 3 decades is hardly significant. 

 

51 yards on public courses over 30 years is nothing. 

 

 

its not nothing, and it ignores the length of courses that have opened, how many courses would like to lengthen but cant (most of them in the uk) and yhe increasing age of golfers, which puts the younger ones SOL

[klebs01]

Just now, oikos1 said:

What exact same thing? 

 

 

6400-6500 yard courses that are functionally obsolete for decent players and don’t have the ability to expand. 

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The dramatic increase in driving distance started in the mid 1990's and flattened ~2006. I'm guessing driven by the introduction and optimization of metal woods and modern ball.  So it seems the cat is already out of the bag. 

 

While increased driving distance doesn't present a problem for golf course design by >99% of the golfers on the course, so it seems we have something like these options, but not limited to:

1. Make no equipment changes and do not lengthen courses -- let distance and scores do whatever they do

2. No equipment changes but keep lengthening courses -- this not sustainable

3. No equipment changes but make any combo of the following golf course modifications;

• make it highly punitive for hitting it farther than X off the tee i.e.  traps, water hazards, shrubs etc.  This could even  include painting an arc line in the fairway and rough thus making it a penalty to hit it past the line 🙂 (yeah silly but I'm brainstorming)
• Growing out the fairway to remove roll
• Growing out the rough to make missing fairways extremely punitive

4. Bifurcate and roll the pro equipment back 20 years.  Seems like a logistical and legal nightmare

5. Roll everything for everyone back 20 years--- no one will be happy. There'd likely be a revolt by >99% of golfers who aren't obsoleting golf courses by distance and are enjoying the distance and control gains of modern equipment.

 

 

 

6. Smaller driver clubhead for amateurs in scratch competitions and professionals, everyone else do what they want

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

they arent privately owned courses trying to make a profit, they are member owned trying to stay relevant for their members. There is no 'keeping up with the Jones'

 

Sure there is.  They have to keep up with the course down the road when they do something new and shiny to their course.  Golf is a business.  Length isn't NEEDED.  Let me repeat, length isn't NEEDED.  It is marketing crap, a keep up with the Joneses thing, an elitist thing.  It isn't absolutely unnecessary at all.  

 

If courses are losing business, it is more often (at least around here) because they aren't drawing as many people due to a generation of golfers dying, and the following generation losing interest.  There was a big golf boon for a while, but it had died down over the years.  Golf courses were an in thing for quite a while in my state when Tiger hit the scene.  Renewed interest does that.  When golf is already not as popular for younger generation, it isn't smart to suddenly take away one of the coolest and younger gen attracting things about it which is bombs off the tee.  The game doesn't need crap like that right now, nor does it ever in my opinion.  The game is incredibly hard, it always has been and always will be.  Don't make it any harder to get into.

 

Innovation is better than following the sheep of course lengthening imo.  Make golf cool, make it more inclusive to a younger generation if you want to foster future growth.  Top golf has been a great thing for example.  Some golf courses have created soccer golf as an alternative (maybe kids will try out the real golf after those experiences).  Courses can always make things more difficult or challenging by tweaking it without adding length.  It all costs money, and I think its smarter to work with what you have rather than try and buy up more land and then complain about the costs to water and mow it all.  Around here, the trees live for hundreds of years and grow tall.  They prevent a lot of corner cutting.  If however those trees die, or blow down in a storm, well, the course has to deal with that and that is part of running a golf course.  Their design intent has changed and they have to just roll with the punches or spend a crap ton of money to "do something" about it.  

 

Do you find your short home courses too easy?  You aren't short I don't think.  I have seen you saying you have worked on speed and gained a significant amount I thought.  So again, are your home courses too easy for you or are you just complaining because the younger generation isn't playing the game "right" in your eyes?   The game is still played and in the manner it was intended which was to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.  Some people have the talent to simplify the game more than others and thus score better on average.  Others don't.  

 

 

[milesgiles]

6 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

there’s your plateau, Miles. 

 

professionals are still getting longer. this feeds through once you equalise for age and ability 

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The dramatic increase in driving distance started in the mid 1990's and flattened ~2006. I'm guessing driven by the introduction and optimization of metal woods and modern ball.  So it seems the cat is already out of the bag. 

 

While increased driving distance doesn't present a problem for golf course design by >99% of the golfers on the course, so it seems we have something like these options, but not limited to:

1. Make no equipment changes and do not lengthen courses -- let distance and scores do whatever they do

2. No equipment changes but keep lengthening courses -- this not sustainable

3. No equipment changes but make any combo of the following golf course modifications;

• make it highly punitive for hitting it farther than X off the tee i.e.  traps, water hazards, shrubs etc.  This could even  include painting an arc line in the fairway and rough thus making it a penalty to hit it past the line 🙂 (yeah silly but I'm brainstorming)
• Growing out the fairway to remove roll
• Growing out the rough to make missing fairways extremely punitive

4. Bifurcate and roll the pro equipment back 20 years.  Seems like a logistical and legal nightmare

5. Roll everything for everyone back 20 years--- no one will be happy. There'd likely be a revolt by >99% of golfers who aren't obsoleting golf courses by distance and are enjoying the distance and control gains of modern equipment.

 

 

 

Pretty well summed things up.  Option 1 is great.

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

professionals are still getting longer. this feeds through once you equalise for age and ability 

not through equipment though. 

 

you can’t roll back training and launch parameters. 

[smashdn]

26 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

USGA can suggest mowing height I am sure, but ultimately, a course can do what it wants.  The course owners can't whine about length though if they don't leave the grass higher.

 

That tight fairway lie was supposed to be harder to play from too.  I think it has been said that it is harder to play from for amateur and less skilled players.  We/they prefer a little cushion under the ball.  So yet another example of trying to make things harder but ultimately running into other unintended consequences.

 

Golf has a multitude of instances where the opposite of what you would think happens or holds true.

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Sure there is.  They have to keep up with the course down the road when they do something new and shiny to their course.  Golf is a business.  Length isn't NEEDED.  Let me repeat, length isn't NEEDED.  It is marketing crap, a keep up with the Joneses thing, an elitist thing.  It isn't absolutely unnecessary at all.  

 

If courses are losing business, it is more often (at least around here) because they aren't drawing as many people due to a generation of golfers dying, and the following generation losing interest.  There was a big golf boon for a while, but it had died down over the years.  Golf courses were an in thing for quite a while in my state when Tiger hit the scene.  Renewed interest does that.  When golf is already not as popular for younger generation, it isn't smart to suddenly take away one of the coolest and younger gen attracting things about it which is bombs off the tee.  The game doesn't need crap like that right now, nor does it ever in my opinion.  The game is incredibly hard, it always has been and always will be.  Don't make it any harder to get into.

 

Innovation is better than following the sheep of course lengthening imo.  Make golf cool, make it more inclusive to a younger generation if you want to foster future growth.  Top golf has been a great thing for example.  Some golf courses have created soccer golf as an alternative (maybe kids will try out the real golf after those experiences).  Courses can always make things more difficult or challenging by tweaking it without adding length.  It all costs money, and I think its smarter to work with what you have rather than try and buy up more land and then complain about the costs to water and mow it all.  Around here, the trees live for hundreds of years and grow tall.  They prevent a lot of corner cutting.  If however those trees die, or blow down in a storm, well, the course has to deal with that and that is part of running a golf course.  Their design intent has changed and they have to just roll with the punches or spend a crap ton of money to "do something" about it.  

 

Do you find your short home courses too easy?  You aren't short I don't think.  I have seen you saying you have worked on speed and gained a significant amount I thought.  So again, are your home courses too easy for you or are you just complaining because the younger generation isn't playing the game "right" in your eyes?   The game is still played and in the manner it was intended which was to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.  Some people have the talent to simplify the game more than others and thus score better on average.  Others don't.  

 

 

 

the young players have barely more than an 8 iron on any hole on my 6500 course.. including the par 5s. Ive never seen the fully grown tree they cant hit over 

[smashdn]

14 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

While increased driving distance doesn't present a problem for golf course design by >99% of the golfers on the course, so it seems we have something like these options, but not limited to:

1. Make no equipment changes and do not lengthen courses -- let distance and scores do whatever they do

2. No equipment changes but keep lengthening courses -- this not sustainable

3. No equipment changes but make any combo of the following golf course modifications;

• make it highly punitive for hitting it farther than X off the tee i.e.  traps, water hazards, shrubs etc.  This could even  include painting an arc line in the fairway and rough thus making it a penalty to hit it past the line 🙂 (yeah silly but I'm brainstorming)
• Growing out the fairway to remove roll
• Growing out the rough to make missing fairways extremely punitive

4. Bifurcate and roll the pro equipment back 20 years.  Seems like a logistical and legal nightmare

5. Roll everything for everyone back 20 years--- no one will be happy. There'd likely be a revolt by >99% of golfers who aren't obsoleting golf courses by distance and are enjoying the distance and control gains of modern equipment.

 

 

The repercussions go beyond just scores with option one though. 

 

Option one and two are where we are now.  How do you have option one and mandate courses don't do option two?

[milesgiles]

6 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

not through equipment though. 

 

 

 

what?