|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Results 1 to 41 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22

    What should we do to Stop This?

    Last Friday, I play Shoal Creek here in Birmingham. Rated somewhere around #60-70 in the US by various magazines etc. Host to a US Amateur and 2 PGA Championships - the last in 1990. (Hold that thought).

    We decide to play the 4 Star tees (6779 yds) which are closest to the 5 Star - Championship (7114). The 5 Star tees represent where the tournaments listed above where played from. On most of the holes, the 5 stars were a good 30- 40 yards back. But on a couple....

    Hole #7 plays 440 from the tips and on the day we played - they had the 4 Star tees only five yards in front of this. I hit Driver and 5 iron on the green.

    Hole #10 plays 415 from the tips and same situation. Had the 4 Star tees only five yards up at 410. Hit Driver - 8 iron into the green. I have a friend who is 5' 7"/160 lbs and he hit Driver - Sand wedge.

    My post here is not about how well we hit the ball - but about the frigging equipment and how it is making the courses obsolete.

    My friend and I played again on Sunday at a different course. We started talking about our drives on #10 at Shoal Creek and said at the same time, "That course could not host another championship without being lengthed at least 250 yards".

    The point is - the equipment changes are killing golf courses. Look at Augusta. They had to lengthen the course 200 yards to make it keep up.

    What should be done about this??

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    nothing

    I think I read somewhere that golf handicaps of amateurs have not changed in 20-30 years since so many equpiment changes have taken place. And in the Major Championships there are typically only 1-10 guys ever in negative numbers at any one given time, which is the way it is supposed to be. If every week was major styled courses, then what is the point of the majors ? Newer courses should incorporate a better balance of doglegs and tree lined fairways which place a premium on being able to work a driver shot. My course is that way, big hitters really can't over power the course. I played with a guy who crushed his driver 300-320 yards every time. In the end you gotta have a complete game, and until you are a 0 handicap, then I think you can worry about playing tougher courses.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    I think I read somewhere that golf handicaps of amateurs have not changed in 20-30 years since so many equpiment changes have taken place. And in the Major Championships there are typically only 1-10 guys ever in negative numbers at any one given time, which is the way it is supposed to be. If every week was major styled courses, then what is the point of the majors ? Newer courses should incorporate a better balance of doglegs and tree lined fairways which place a premium on being able to work a driver shot. My course is that way, big hitters really can't over power the course. I played with a guy who crushed his driver 300-320 yards every time. In the end you gotta have a complete game, and until you are a 0 handicap, then I think you can worry about playing tougher courses.
    I think we are talking about two different things here. I agree with you that "newer courses should incorporate a balance of doglegs and tree lined fairways which place a premium on being able to work a driver shot". My home course, (which I played on Sunday after the Shoal Creek round) has these exact design elements - and it is in A+ condition with excellent bent grass greens. But it is not considered a great course by any stretch of the imagination.

    In this thread, I'm not talking about what new courses should have as design elements or what amateur players should have as skills (but I DO agree with you about these things).

    We're talking about specific golf tournaments - some of which are over 100 years old (Open Championship and US Championship) which are played repeatedly on the same courses over and over - where equipment changes are making the courses easier to play.

    Let's get practical here and talk about the majors - all four of them in the US and UK. One tournament is played on the same course every year. The other three are played on (basically) the same 40-50 courses over and over. Look at the Open Championship. It will be on St. Andrews, Carmoustie, Royal Troon every few years. U.S. Open - we'll see it in Baltrusrol, Oakmont, Merion, etc, over and over...I just don't think they are going to move these tournaments to new courses with more tree lined fairways with lot's of doglegs where you've got to work a driver...

    What inspired me to write this is I am a 49 year old 9.6 index who was played several holes (essentially) from the championship tees on a course that has hosted 2 majors and the holes were just not long enough for a major to be played there again. If I can hit Driver, 8 iron for a birdie - something's not right here

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    Corey Pavin

    Last time the US Open was at Shinocock (sp?) Corey Pavin won. The shortest hitter on tour. He won in the midst of quite a few big hitters, Lehman and Norman. Again, the majors usually only have 1-10 doods in negative numbers at any given time, so what is the problem ? My home course will be the site of a Regional US Open qualifier next year. It is only 6,900 yards from the tips.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Spanish Bay
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0
    There was an interesting article in Golf Magazine a few months ago about equipment. They had Luke Donald hit some clubs from the 50's and some older balata balls as well. The outcome was very interesting. Newer balls had 25-30 yards over the old balatas with a new driver. Older persimmon driver Vs. New Titanium was something like 40 yards, and he had a hard time getting the older driver in the air at first. Irons weren't that much different according to the study, seems that the drivers and balls have made the biggest changes over the years. It could be that golfers just aren't as good as they used to be? Maybe a player from the 50's was as good with the five iron as todays player is with the seven iron, so even if they weren't hitting it as far, they were still hitting it just as accurate. Driver, 5 iron, putt for birdie looks the same on the scorecard as Driver, wedge putt for birdie.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    I've never understood how anyone could debate this point. New equipment (clubs and especially balls) is making courses play shorter. So, older courses are either made obsolete, or they have to change. Who benefits? When will it stop? Wouldn't it be cool if we could compare scores make by Tiger to those by Ben Hogan, on the same course? But, we can't, because the courses are so much different, and the equipment so different, from those in Hogan's day.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Congressional
    Posts
    996
    Rep Power
    22
    Well you could turn pro, or you could just go out and just play. Something like 90 percent of golfers can't break 90 so it's a non issue. As for the rest of what you say about the first course you mention did you ask the pro there why the tees were forward? What did you shoot?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by fred3
    Well you could turn pro, or you could just go out and just play. Something like 90 percent of golfers can't break 90 so it's a non issue. As for the rest of what you say about the first course you mention did you ask the pro there why the tees were forward? What did you shoot?
    1) There's no need to ask the pro why the tees were forward - they weren't. The 4-Star tees were only five yards behind the 5-star championship tees - which is where the PGA Championship was played.

    2) 85.

    We're not talking about amateur golfers. We're talking about the best professionals in the world playing in majors.

    Is there some confusion?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave T
    I've never understood how anyone could debate this point. New equipment (clubs and especially balls) is making courses play shorter. So, older courses are either made obsolete, or they have to change. Who benefits? When will it stop? Wouldn't it be cool if we could compare scores make by Tiger to those by Ben Hogan, on the same course? But, we can't, because the courses are so much different, and the equipment so different, from those in Hogan's day.
    Yup, this is my point. I would love to be able to compare Hogan's scores to Tiger's.

    Well it seems I have one poster who understands:

    1) This is not about amateurs.
    2) The golf courses we play are not relevant to this discussion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    Last time the US Open was at Shinocock (sp?) Corey Pavin won. The shortest hitter on tour. He won in the midst of quite a few big hitters, Lehman and Norman. Again, the majors usually only have 1-10 doods in negative numbers at any given time, so what is the problem ? My home course will be the site of a Regional US Open qualifier next year. It is only 6,900 yards from the tips.
    Corey Pavin is the exception rather than the rule. If you will check your record book - short hitters are winning very very few majors.

    You helped prove my point.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    It does happen tho

    I think that what is currently happening is that a lot of the big hitters have some serious all around game. They are putting better, chipping and pitching better, and their sand games are top too. The advantage that the shorter hitters had up to say 5-10 years ago, was that they typically always had better short games and were laser accurate with their shots, because that is what they had to excel at to keep up.

    Plus, I seriously doubt that you played that course in PGA Championship conditions. The rough being significantly higher, the fairways being 30% narrower, the absolute toughest pin positions, where if you are not close, your always looking at a 3 putt, etc. Also, I thought you only played a couple of holes where the length was close to 5 star.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    Yes, people are in better condition, and there are more long hitters that also have a short game. But, there's no question that equipment (including balls) is a huge factor (the biggest factor, I believe) in the increased distance among tour players, and that that's what's causing older courses to become obsolete. And, that's a shame.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    I think that what is currently happening is that a lot of the big hitters have some serious all around game. They are putting better, chipping and pitching better, and their sand games are top too. The advantage that the shorter hitters had up to say 5-10 years ago, was that they typically always had better short games and were laser accurate with their shots, because that is what they had to excel at to keep up.

    Plus, I seriously doubt that you played that course in PGA Championship conditions. The rough being significantly higher, the fairways being 30% narrower, the absolute toughest pin positions, where if you are not close, your always looking at a 3 putt, etc. Also, I thought you only played a couple of holes where the length was close to 5 star.
    Mike:

    You are making some very valid points but I honestly think you're still missing what I am trying to say...

    You are definitely correct that the course was not in PGA Championship condition. Indeed - A) the rough is very much higher and B) the fairways are definitely narrower - when the course is set up for a major tournament. I attended both of the PGA Championships at this course and the rough is 4 inches deeper and the fairways 40% narrower than when it is set up for normal member/guest play. And just for the sake of your argument, let's also say that the pin positions for a tournament would also be much harder than the ones we played. I hear you on this...

    BUT, on the holes I quoted, I hit my drives in the middle of the fairway. If the course were set up for the tournament on the day I played, I am very confident that those 2 drives would have been in the fairway. (I saw those holes during the tournament.) And on these very long Par 4's, played just 3-5 steps from where Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino and Nick Faldo teed off 14 years ago - ole' geezer here was hitting short to mid-irons into the greens.

    And that is the point of the entire post.

    The point is that the equipment we have now - enables a very average amateur player (like me - index 9.6 - 49 year old potbelly) to hit the ball so far - that when he hits the ball (admittedly) very well - he is hitting in short to mid irons on long Major championship Par 4's!! The follow on point is that if an average amateur can do this - the touring pro's would be absolutely murdering a golf course that only 14 years ago - they struggled on. (I think the winning score in 1990 was about 9 under). If they played the same course today (with the deep rough and narrower fairways) - I'll bet the winner would be -14. And if we continue to let the equipment trend to continue - ten years later it would be -18 and ten years later -21. At that point - trying to make a realistic comparison with the players who played the course 25 years earlier would be impossible.


    JA??

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pine Barrens
    Posts
    3,479
    Rep Power
    23
    I'm not sure what's a shame about any of this. People evolve, technology evolves, games evolve.
    What are we trying to hold on to? It would be a shame if in the year 2300 the pros are still hitting from 7,000 yd. tips.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by buddha33
    I'm not sure what's a shame about any of this. People evolve, technology evolves, games evolve.
    What are we trying to hold on to? It would be a shame if in the year 2300 the pros are still hitting from 7,000 yd. tips.
    OK - I hear your point about people and technology evolving. It is very realistic to expect that people will be bigger and faster in the year 2300 and that all of the athletic records we have today will be shattered. No doubt that will happen.

    So let's say that in the year 2300 the average length of a championship golf course will need to be 8000 yards long to host a major championship. Due to evolution.

    No more Masters. Nope. No more getting in front of your TV on Sunday in April to watch this tournament.

    Why?

    Because there is not enough room around the perimeter of Augusta National Golf Course to expand the course from 7300 yards to 8000 yards. The course is land locked. Couldn't have any PGA tournament there (much less a major) because players would be shooting 55. Who would care? Where would the drama be when the average drive is 390?
    There would not be a legitimate Par 5 on Augusta National.

    Majors on Pinehurst, Baltusrol, Carnoustie, Pebble Beach, Merion. All gone. There's no room to expand these courses.


    All new courses would have to be built like a "hole in a doughnut" with tremendous undeveloped acreage on the perimeter - so the course can be continually expanded as evolution makes players hit the ball farther and farther. But what about the holes in the middle of the course? Nowhere to go - no land to make these holes longer - so they can stay up with the equipment/evolution.
    ?????

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    assumptions

    You are making "assumptions" that length will continue to to increase. It is very possible, that physical technology will only go so far. In the year "2300", you and I won't be around to watch the Masters. The changes they made in length recently, did make for a challenging tournament, with 11 guys finishing under par. How long will this last ? It would be interesting to see. The old courses may be obsolete, I do not think that they are yet, but they will make new more amazing courses based on current distances and challenges. New course design will have to take these into account.

    In the end, it is scoring average, and (according to my statistics) the scoring averages of Tour players has only dropped approximately ONE stroke since 1980. So, whatever the USGA is doing to modify courses and put limits on technology, is keeping up with the current distance trends...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    You are making "assumptions" that length will continue to to increase.

    I'm not assuming anything. Equipment changes are undeniably causing increased ball flights. This is irrefutable and not based on an assumption. It is empirical.

    It is very possible, that physical technology will only go so far. In the year "2300", you and I won't be around to watch the Masters.

    What does this have to do with this discussion?

    The changes they made in length recently, did make for a challenging tournament, with 11 guys finishing under par.

    The reason they did this was because of equipment changes. Check the interviews with Hootie Johnson in various golf magazines. This is the central premise of the entire dicussion.

    How long will this last ? It would be interesting to see. The old courses may be obsolete, I do not think that they are yet, but they will make new more amazing courses based on current distances and challenges. New course design will have to take these into account.

    If new course designs "have take this into account" - then logically the old courses will be obsolete - which is the point I am making. Say your grandchildren move into an area that has a 100 year old, landlocked golf course - hasn't any room for expansion to keep up with equipment changes. Noone will respect this course, because it's too short. They will have to go find the "new more amazing courses that are based on current distances and challenges" on the edge of town - where they have room for an 8000 yard course.

    In the end, it is scoring average, and (according to my statistics) the scoring averages of Tour players has only dropped approximately ONE stroke since 1980. So, whatever the USGA is doing to modify courses and put limits on technology, is keeping up with the current distance trends...
    The changes that HAVE been made in the past 20 years (particularly US Open courses) include much deeper rough than in the past, changes in bunker design to make them more penal - and faster, more undulating greens with bentgrass vs. bermuda. But these have nothing to do with course length.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    Yes, sure - if distances continue to increase, it won't be the end of golf. They can always build new courses. But, why bother? Why is this a good thing? Wouldn't we be better off if they could still play on the same courses? Maybe "evolution" would make some courses be obsolete. But, I think we'd be better off if the equipment, at least, didn't do it. There are a lot of people that feel this way. As far as I know, the only thing preventing the USGA and PGA from putting more stringent requirements on equipment is a fear of lawsuits by the manufacturers. The're still smarting from the Ping lawsuit. So, it really is too bad when fear of lawsuits is having a detrimental effect on golf.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    20
    there's an article in one of the current golf magazines (Golf Digest?) about how tour players have actually lost a couple of yards off the tee recently as compared to the giant upward trend of the last few years. the Masters this year was simply incredible I thought and showed how someone playing at the top of the game can beat out others at the top of their game. It wasn't just huge drives that really won the Masters for Lefty either ... he made his putts and clutch ups and downs. the game is still exciting and there are limitations and rules in place so that technology doesn't make historic courses obsolete.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    What limitations? Technology already has made some historic courses obsolete, and would have made others obsolete, too, if they hadn't been modified.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    20
    there's nothing wrong with modifying a course. and why cry over spilt milk? they upgrade and demolish football stadiums wherein history has been made. and there are limits of headsize, cor inter alia.

    why has the average drive length leveled off instead of remaining on the upward trend?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    Well, if you can modify a course, then we're not too badly off. It would be nice if you didn't have to, though. The more important point, though, is that lots of courses can't be modified. As Bravo says - you run out of room.

    I don't get your comparison with football stadiums - all football fields are basically the same.

    As far as driver distance levelling off - why do you say that? It's been mostly increasing every year. There have been a few dips, but overall, it's been going up. Hank Kuehne averaged 321 last year. That's 15 yards more than the next highest, which was 306 the previous year. 306 the year before that, 301 the year before, then 305, then down to 299. 10 years ago, it was at 283...

    - Dave

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    20
    the real question is how do we stop THIS:

    local course has a killer hole in which you must lay up your drive then approach over a pond. They erect a bunch of townhomes right behind the hole and then the owners start to complain about golf balls hitting their houses. So they shortened the 410 yarder where you once had to have a perfect drive or face a 200 yd approach to the green. Was very cool. Stupid golf course townhomes.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave T
    Well, if you can modify a course, then we're not too badly off. It would be nice if you didn't have to, though. The more important point, though, is that lots of courses can't be modified. As Bravo says - you run out of room.

    I don't get your comparison with football stadiums - all football fields are basically the same.

    As far as driver distance levelling off - why do you say that? It's been mostly increasing every year. There have been a few dips, but overall, it's been going up. Hank Kuehne averaged 321 last year. That's 15 yards more than the next highest, which was 306 the previous year. 306 the year before that, 301 the year before, then 305, then down to 299. 10 years ago, it was at 283...

    - Dave
    Veterans Stadium and the new Lincoln whatever field are two separate entities. RFK versus FedEx field? forget about it. but they were obsolete. i miss RFK's atmosphere but i enjoy being able to go to a Skins game (it really is a bad analogy, sorry).

    Regarding the driver distances I'm just repeating what I read.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    my point is

    you started this post, saying essentially that Tour courses are becoming obsolete because you are, based on technolocigal advances, able to play them like the pros from 14 years ago, because of distance gains with technology. What should we do about it ?

    I have developed my argument that these courses are not obsolete from the Tour players perspective, and the USGA has made changes to make them more challenging and making Par golf meaningful, for the Majors especially, thus keeping up in some way with the increased distance technologies. Shorter players do occasionally win. Scoring averages having only increased by 1 stroke while driving averages have gone up "only" 35 yards (for the big hitters) in 23 years, from 1980 to 2003. Granted thats 490 total yards for the course (14 holes). You also made an assumption that the great courses will become obsolete in 2300, you are assuming that distances will continue to increase linearly. You do not know that for sure.

    For weekend warriors such as most of the people here, I am pretty darn sure these courses will always challenge us, and the USGA will be able to, and has made adjustments necessary to ensure that, particularly the Majors, most Tour events are extremely competetive.

    Based on my research, you know, actual numbers and not hand waving here-say, distance players only own a ONE stroke advantage over shorter hitters on Tour. This trend can be shown from 1980 to today. ONE stroke scoring average advantage, thats it ! Additionally, the technological gains in distance have only increased the tour scoring average (if we assume technology drove this) by ONE stroke since 1980. ONE stroke, thats it !

    So my question to you is, how has a ONE stroke advantage based on Long Distance Tour players verses Shorter Distance Tour player (1980 to 2003 stats), and a ONE stroke advantage for technological gains for all Tour players (from 1980 to 2003 stats) made these courses obsolete ???????????????????????? Given that the USGA has made changes to Tour Event course layouts and has some limitations on equipment, there are only 2 strokes of advantage I see to have been gained in 23 years. That does not sound like things becoming obsolete to me...

    So to answer your original question, What should we do about it ? I say, with numbers and stats in hand, "Nothing", because the USGA has done pretty well so far.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Andrews
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    20
    Tell me about it!

    There's a beautiful Donald Ross course in my town, a hundred years old or something. Very historic, hosted US Mid Am recently, etc, etc. A guy moved into a house across the street from a green (a short par 3), and complained when an occassional ball landed in his yard. The house had been there for a gazillion years, and nobody had complained before. Plus, he must have seen that that was a possibility when he moved in. He sued, and finally made them move the green. First, though, he made them move the tee so that balls were less likely to hit his house.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    you started this post, saying essentially that Tour courses are becoming obsolete because you are, based on technolocigal advances, able to play them like the pros from 14 years ago, because of distance gains with technology. What should we do about it ?

    I have developed my argument that these courses are not obsolete from the Tour players perspective, and the USGA has made changes to make them more challenging and making Par golf meaningful, for the Majors especially, thus keeping up in some way with the increased distance technologies.

    I agree with some of this. Deeper rough, tougher bunkers and fast undulating greens are three factors employed on tournament courses now have indeed helped tournament hosts limit scores. I have attended the Masters on various occasions over 25 years and all three of these specific factors have been put into place there. The course had bermuda greens 25 years ago, bentgrass now. The rough is considerably deeper than it used to be and bunkers have been deepened to make recoveries more challenging.

    Shorter players do occasionally win. Scoring averages having only increased by 1 stroke while driving averages have gone up "only" 35 yards (for the big hitters) in 23 years, from 1980 to 2003. Granted thats 490 total yards for the course (14 holes).

    I think the reason that scoring averages have only increased by 1 stroke is because of the other design changes that have been put in place in the past 25 years. If it were NOT for these design changes however, increased equipment designs would have overwhelmed these courses.

    You also made an assumption that the great courses will become obsolete in 2300, you are assuming that distances will continue to increase linearly. You do not know that for sure.

    No I don't know that the trend will continue. But empirical evidence from the past 25 years is undeniable. A steady increase in distance. Unless something is done to Stop It - we're going to get there eventually.

    I'll turn this point around on you - What evidence do you have that the equipment trend will stop? Please respond to this...

    For weekend warriors such as most of the people here, I am pretty darn sure these courses will always challenge us,

    I agree with this, but my post has repeatedly indicated that the discussion is not about amateurs or average golf courses. I am focusing on four golf tournaments which (barring the end of the world as we know it) will continue into the future as being considered the major tests of golf for the finest players in the world AND the specific 40-50 golf courses on which these tournaments are conducted.

    and the USGA will be able to, and has made adjustments necessary to ensure that, particularly the Majors, most Tour events are extremely competetive.

    Mike, I think the tournaments WILL be extremely competitive - meaning that one player or a small group of players will not have unfair advantages over others. I am honestly not talking about the tournaments become non-competitive. This is not about relative competitiveness between members of a tournament field. I think if we took the players and put them on a 5000 yard Par 72 course - it would be very very competitive, because on a relative basis - the players' skills are very close.

    The core of my discussion is 40-50 great, great golf courses - some of which are the oldest in the world, on which the very game we love was birthed, being unable to "keep up" as equipment changes force them into obsolescence. There's not any more room to expand Augusta National. Washington Road runs down one side and Augusta CC occupies the backside.

    Let's use your figures. You're indicating an increase of 490 yards over a 23 year period. I accept that, and golf courses are growing longer and longer to accommodate this. Check the average length of a course opened right now vs one 23 years ago. I'll bet that course designers would tell you that newly opened courses are 400 yards longer than they were 23 years ago. And the reason is because of equipment.

    Based on my research, you know, actual numbers and not hand waving here-say, distance players only own a ONE stroke advantage over shorter hitters on Tour. This trend can be shown from 1980 to today. ONE stroke scoring average advantage, thats it ! Additionally, the technological gains in distance have only increased the tour scoring average (if we assume technology drove this) by ONE stroke since 1980. ONE stroke, thats it !

    So my question to you is, how has a ONE stroke advantage based on Long Distance Tour players verses Shorter Distance Tour player (1980 to 2003 stats), and a ONE stroke advantage for technological gains for all Tour players (from 1980 to 2003 stats) made these courses obsolete ???????????????????????? Given that the USGA has made changes to Tour Event course layouts and has some limitations on equipment, there are only 2 strokes of advantage I see to have been gained in 23 years. That does not sound like things becoming obsolete to me...

    Your discussion is focusing on the PGA Tour as a whole and I will accept that there has only been a one stroke advantage from 1983 to 2003. I don't have any charts with me - but I will bet you $100 that the average length of a PGA Tour event in the past 23 years has increased considerably. One of the reasons is that we are seeing quite a few tournaments held on new(er) courses - which when they opened were longer. Because of equipment changes.

    But, respectfully, my discussion has never been about me, or my course, or amateurs or everyday courses that we all play or the PGA Tour average. It has been focused on: A) 40-50 great golf courses, which have hosted 90% of the Majors in history and B) How equipment changes will eventually (if not checked) will cause these courses to become obsolete because they do not have room to expand them.
    So to answer your original question, What should we do about it ? I say, with numbers and stats in hand, "Nothing", because the USGA has done pretty well so far.
    My final point here is: Let's don't get to the point where we are saying, "Aw, to hell with St. Andrews, that old geezer of a course has long since been surpassed by newer, more modern courses, which are a better test of golf". Because if we don't do something to stop the distance trend that you have so well documented above -that's what is going to happen...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    that sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave T
    Tell me about it!

    There's a beautiful Donald Ross course in my town, a hundred years old or something. Very historic, hosted US Mid Am recently, etc, etc. A guy moved into a house across the street from a green (a short par 3), and complained when an occassional ball landed in his yard. The house had been there for a gazillion years, and nobody had complained before. Plus, he must have seen that that was a possibility when he moved in. He sued, and finally made them move the green. First, though, he made them move the tee so that balls were less likely to hit his house.
    I mean, could he have simply asked that they put some tall trees along the one side or something. There are a lot of houses that run along the right side of the 17th par 5 at my course, and are shielded by a ton of tall trees. However, I have put a few pushed high fades in some peoples yards. Should I yell "fore" when that happens ?

    But we digress, Bravo will argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with his discussion...

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    I mean, could he have simply asked that they put some tall trees along the one side or something. There are a lot of houses that run along the right side of the 17th par 5 at my course, and are shielded by a ton of tall trees. However, I have put a few pushed high fades in some peoples yards. Should I yell "fore" when that happens ?

    But we digress, Bravo will argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with his discussion...
    You did a good job of debating and we're still fellow posters here.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    yes, a good debate...

    Although I feel like I have helped you make some of your points along the way. ;)

    I guess I can concede a point (not really made) but I do not think that there is any other "sport" that contains the game improvement upgrades that golf does. There are no footballs that go farther, a place kicker cannot wear a squared toed shoe, no baseball bats can contain a cork plug, but Tiger's driver can contain a tungsten plug. When I think of it in those terms, your issue becomes a little clearer.

    So, I guess golf has become, based on the amateurs life-time of direct involvement with the game recreationally and tons and tons of money spent, a sport that is progressing with game improvement aids that have also accentuated the Pro Tour player's talents.

    I would also contend, that there are a heck of a lot more athletic and younger individuals on tour then 20 years ago, which may also help explain driving averages going up as well.

    Leveling Off:

    I contend that golf distance improvement will level off because of basic physics and the physical limitations of the golfer himself. A human can only swing the club so fast. You can only apply a maximum amount of energy to the ball. You cannot, ultimately, increase the incoming dynamic energy to infinity, only how the ball and club and shaft react to make the impact more efficient. Eventually, you may get to a 100% collision efficiency rating. But once you get there, where do you go ? Balls, shafts and club heads with powered cores (things that add energy) ? I have heard of a spring faced driver, a spring is an energy storing device. So, maybe they are actually doing this. This is a little hand wavy, but I am an Engineer and need to do a little research on this subject. C.O.R. limitations have recently been developed that supposedly limit energy transfer.

    So, now that I see your point a little better, I would draw the line on any golf improvements to balls, clubs, and shafts that are limited to 100% impact transfer efficiency. Once you reach this efficiency, then it is all up to how well and fast the golfer can swing, which are his own attributes. You can potentially model these situations to see how "far" things might get. The USGA should model these types of situations and see if the 40-50 classic courses will be able to be up to snuff. Like maybe golf simulation games, Tiger Woods 2004 Tour is pretty impressive.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    PGA West in La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    20

    okay, i'll bite (more like nibble really)

    i'm very much enjoying y'alls debate but one point that i feel inclined to chime in on (to be honest it's the only point i'm even marginally quilified to do so with actually) is the statement that:

    "I do not think that there is any other "sport" that contains the game improvement upgrades that golf does."

    besides golf my other "obsession" is cycling. unfortunately it is also one of the few other sports out there that can be just as cost/equipment intensive (especially if racing). anyway, back to my point, cycling is a sport that has gone to HUGE lengths to contain equipment upgrades and to maintain the individual's ability as the deciding factor at the pro level. if you look back to just a few years ago you will see many bikes with funky tube shapes, different size wheels, and weighing in at frightingly low weights etc. but you won't see those any more because the governing body has deemed them unacceptable and states a bicycle must be of the double triangle design with wheels of equal size weighing a minimum of x lbs. apparently there were too many advantages gained by technology. they've even went so far as deeming a specific position on a bike as illegal! (the "superman" position - in case you cared).

    i think that in both these cases the real reason for the curtailing of technology is nostalgia. we want to see the records of our childhood idols remain in tact and don't want them removed from the pedastal that we have placed them on. on a personal level i don't fall victim to this too much but that's only because my boyhood idols are just now retiring from their respective sports (sorry, i'm just barely 30). i'm sure that as time passes i will start to cry foul as someone approaches Cal Ripken's game streak or when Maguire's single season home run record is challenged... ;)

    to answer the original question, i say let's do nothing. allow the changes to occur and for the new major courses to replace the old ones. by no means do we lose respect for the old, quite the contrary but we still must move forward in creating new courses that one day will become replaced old ones. whether it's courses or athletes, my idols aren't my father's idols and my son's idols won't be mine. didn't "the lion king" teach us anything... it's the circle of life.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pine Barrens
    Posts
    3,479
    Rep Power
    23
    You'd better start crying foul, Chemboy, 'cause Bonds obtained the home run record a couple years back. Of course, given the size of his head, I'd guess there was some 'juice' involved.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mike 34
    Although I feel like I have helped you make some of your points along the way. ;)

    I guess I can concede a point (not really made) but I do not think that there is any other "sport" that contains the game improvement upgrades that golf does. There are no footballs that go farther, a place kicker cannot wear a squared toed shoe, no baseball bats can contain a cork plug, but Tiger's driver can contain a tungsten plug. When I think of it in those terms, your issue becomes a little clearer.

    So, I guess golf has become, based on the amateurs life-time of direct involvement with the game recreationally and tons and tons of money spent, a sport that is progressing with game improvement aids that have also accentuated the Pro Tour player's talents.

    I would also contend, that there are a heck of a lot more athletic and younger individuals on tour then 20 years ago, which may also help explain driving averages going up as well.

    Leveling Off:

    I contend that golf distance improvement will level off because of basic physics and the physical limitations of the golfer himself. A human can only swing the club so fast. You can only apply a maximum amount of energy to the ball. You cannot, ultimately, increase the incoming dynamic energy to infinity, only how the ball and club and shaft react to make the impact more efficient. Eventually, you may get to a 100% collision efficiency rating. But once you get there, where do you go ? Balls, shafts and club heads with powered cores (things that add energy) ? I have heard of a spring faced driver, a spring is an energy storing device. So, maybe they are actually doing this. This is a little hand wavy, but I am an Engineer and need to do a little research on this subject. C.O.R. limitations have recently been developed that supposedly limit energy transfer.

    I hope you are right. It will be a wonderful thing and the right thing for the game.

    So, now that I see your point a little better, I would draw the line on any golf improvements to balls, clubs, and shafts that are limited to 100% impact transfer efficiency. Once you reach this efficiency, then it is all up to how well and fast the golfer can swing, which are his own attributes. You can potentially model these situations to see how "far" things might get. The USGA should model these types of situations and see if the 40-50 classic courses will be able to be up to snuff. Like maybe golf simulation games, Tiger Woods 2004 Tour is pretty impressive.

    As I started reading your post, I am thinking, "This guy has to be an engineer" and then I see that indeed you are. I've been playing golf with a group of engineers for a long time. Facinating the way that you are trained to approach issues...

    Yes, we need to do something and I am not at all qualified to put forth any suggestions (as you have) on how it would be done. And you are also right that the USGA/R&A as the governing bodies of golf need to be in control.

    Dave T said it very well in his post here however that what makes the USGA's job much tougher is lawsuits by the equipment manufacturers like the one by Ping several years ago. The USGA HAS however advanced the COR limitations (as you documented) and hopefully they will have the guts to stiffen their resolve on other equipment issues as well. (Interestingly Jack Nicklaus has been a huge proponent of limiting equipment performance and has been very public about his feelings on this issue).

    You have also made a very valid point about the players physical conditioning. Part of the issue of recently increased distances IS the fact that players are active in the weightroom now. Go back 15 years and it was unheard of. While it is likely that we will see a small amount of distance improvement in the future that can be attributed to the physical characteristics of the players - the "big surge" that resulted from players hitting the weight room for the first time - has come and gone.

    After you do some research, go up to Far Hills, New Jersey and volunteer your services. Golf needs help on this critical issue from qualified golfing engineers such as yourself.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    PGA West in La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    20

    say it ain't so!

    Quote Originally Posted by buddha33
    You'd better start crying foul, Chemboy, 'cause Bonds obtained the home run record a couple years back. Of course, given the size of his head, I'd guess there was some 'juice' involved.
    i was kidding of course, hence the wink. fwiw, i live in the bay area where sports pretty much are centered around whether or not Bonds hit a homer today.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    good point

    i think that in both these cases the real reason for the curtailing of technology is nostalgia. we want to see the records of our childhood idols remain in tact and don't want them removed from the pedastal that we have placed them on. on a personal level i don't fall victim to this too much but that's only because my boyhood idols are just now retiring from their respective sports (sorry, i'm just barely 30). i'm sure that as time passes i will start to cry foul as someone approaches Cal Ripken's game streak or when Maguire's single season home run record is challenged... ;)

    Your point about nostalgia was a good one. I was thinking about that after my last post, and especially after watching, just last night, a presentation on the Golf Channel of the 1986 Masters when Jack won last night. I distinctly remember watching that at age 15 and my golf hero of early youth pulled of an incredible win by posting -9 that the rest of the field failed to match. Kite, Seve B., Norman, Pavin, Crenshaw, Watson all were just not able to muster the putts and shots Jack did under extreme pressure. It was really sweet to see it again.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20
    After you do some research, go up to Far Hills, New Jersey and volunteer your services. Golf needs help on this critical issue from qualified golfing engineers such as yourself.

    Only if they pay me a lot more than I am making now. ;)

    Anyways, wish I could do some research in that area, but I certainly do not have enough chops in mechanical engineering to match what they have going on, thanks for the thought tho.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by chemboy2
    i'm very much enjoying y'alls debate but one point that i feel inclined to chime in on (to be honest it's the only point i'm even marginally quilified to do so with actually) is the statement that:

    "I do not think that there is any other "sport" that contains the game improvement upgrades that golf does."

    besides golf my other "obsession" is cycling. unfortunately it is also one of the few other sports out there that can be just as cost/equipment intensive (especially if racing). anyway, back to my point, cycling is a sport that has gone to HUGE lengths to contain equipment upgrades and to maintain the individual's ability as the deciding factor at the pro level. if you look back to just a few years ago you will see many bikes with funky tube shapes, different size wheels, and weighing in at frightingly low weights etc. but you won't see those any more because the governing body has deemed them unacceptable and states a bicycle must be of the double triangle design with wheels of equal size weighing a minimum of x lbs. apparently there were too many advantages gained by technology. they've even went so far as deeming a specific position on a bike as illegal! (the "superman" position - in case you cared).

    i think that in both these cases the real reason for the curtailing of technology is nostalgia. we want to see the records of our childhood idols remain in tact and don't want them removed from the pedastal that we have placed them on. on a personal level i don't fall victim to this too much but that's only because my boyhood idols are just now retiring from their respective sports (sorry, i'm just barely 30). i'm sure that as time passes i will start to cry foul as someone approaches Cal Ripken's game streak or when Maguire's single season home run record is challenged... ;)

    to answer the original question, i say let's do nothing. allow the changes to occur and for the new major courses to replace the old ones. by no means do we lose respect for the old, quite the contrary but we still must move forward in creating new courses that one day will become replaced old ones. whether it's courses or athletes, my idols aren't my father's idols and my son's idols won't be mine. didn't "the lion king" teach us anything... it's the circle of life.
    In my view, this is Not about nostalgia. It is about consistency and legitimacy.

    You've brought up baseball and I think baseball is a great analogy here. Let's say that major league baseball did not limit the equipment they use now. Permitted aluminum bats that were corked and allowed various manufacturers of balls to introduce new technology that permitted the ball to fly significantly farther and longer.

    Very quickly all of the home run records, records for slugging percentage, total bases would go out the window. This means that the legitimacy of these new records would be tainted by the equipment issue.

    Remember how everyone followed with phenomenal interest the McGwire/Sosa battle with the the alltime record? The interest was generated largely because the existing record stood so long - that their quests for achievement had tremendous legitimacy. So if baseball's management allowed this constant creep of equipment improvement - new records would be established much more frequently and would be viewed as being "cheap" and not nearly as valuable as those set before.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Congressional
    Posts
    996
    Rep Power
    22
    I'd be more concerned with your inability to hit such short irons into such long holes and still shoot an 85. Seems to me that you're not qualified to judge what or how a course should be set up and what the expectations of those who set it up are looking for. You leave out green speed, narrowness of the fairways, pin location, etc, etc ad infinitum. Imagine if you will you in your Honda Accord(just a guess) driving on a professional Nascar track. No big crowds, no real pressure. What you say doesn't fit the real situation. There is no issue. High scores, low scores. It matters not. It'll still produce a winner and if you were to play the course with the pros in the PGA you most likely wouldn't come close to breaking 100.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22

    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by fred3
    I'd be more concerned with your inability to hit such short irons into such long holes and still shoot an 85. Seems to me that you're not qualified to judge what or how a course should be set up and what the expectations of those who set it up are looking for. You leave out green speed, narrowness of the fairways, pin location, etc, etc ad infinitum. Imagine if you will you in your Honda Accord(just a guess) driving on a professional Nascar track. No big crowds, no real pressure. What you say doesn't fit the real situation. There is no issue. High scores, low scores. It matters not. It'll still produce a winner and if you were to play the course with the pros in the PGA you most likely wouldn't come close to breaking 100.
    I think you have captured the essence perfectly. My entire post has been about my (in)ability to play the course. This is just what Mike and I have debated above and you are right on target in your analysis. This is all about amateurs playing major championship courses poorly...

    Profound.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Augusta National
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    20

    Jack Nicklaus

    He overpowered Augusta when he won it in the 60's. I saw a special on the first time he won, and he overpowered it according to the announcers, they were amazed at his driver length and also the irons he was using into greens. But he did it with comparable equipment, as far as I know, and he simply was a powerful hitter with all around game and nerves of steel. So, I wonder if Augusta made adjustments because of Jack ?

    I would go with what Jack says on these issues because I believe that, possibly, courses might have changed their standards and lengths because of his power and dominance during the 60s. So he lived it and he has the heart of the game in mind and is a devout course architect. Watch the Memorial tournament this weekend. I have played his Muirfield Village course on a game simulator, and that is one tough course.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    PGA West in La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    20

    hmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo35223
    In my view, this is Not about nostalgia. It is about consistency and legitimacy.

    You've brought up baseball and I think baseball is a great analogy here. Let's say that major league baseball did not limit the equipment they use now. Permitted aluminum bats that were corked and allowed various manufacturers of balls to introduce new technology that permitted the ball to fly significantly farther and longer.

    Very quickly all of the home run records, records for slugging percentage, total bases would go out the window. This means that the legitimacy of these new records would be tainted by the equipment issue.

    Remember how everyone followed with phenomenal interest the McGwire/Sosa battle with the the alltime record? The interest was generated largely because the existing record stood so long - that their quests for achievement had tremendous legitimacy. So if baseball's management allowed this constant creep of equipment improvement - new records would be established much more frequently and would be viewed as being "cheap" and not nearly as valuable as those set before.
    i do remember and i too was someone that followed with great interest. i agree that the a major reason for all the interest was in fact the longevity of the record that was in jeopardy. however, weren't these records set by players using the best equipment that their era had to offer? why should current era players be forced to play with something other than the latest technology in order to protect records from the past?

    what i think is pretty much at the core here is being able to compare current eras with eras of the past (maybe not what you initially intended with your first post but at the core of one of the tangents). the only way i think this can truly be done is to compare the individuals accomplishments with that of their peers. equipment only plays a minor part in this. golf, baseball, or any other sport at the pro level, is being changed because the opportunity to get to that level is more open. realize i'm saying opportunity, not that more people make it there, quite the contrary. there is simply greater competition so the folks that do make it to the top are truly the elite in that field.

    staying with baseball, the infrastructure of teams and their respective farm teams insures that only the very best make it to the "bigs." as competition increases the work ethic of the competator also must increase. that's why guys are getting bigger and faster (whether naturally or with help is irrelevant) and that's why records, homerun specifically, are being challenged more often now.

    to get back to golf, look at the recent issue of GD (i think it's that one, the one w/Phil on the cover). there is an article on the collegiate players and all the weight training that they are doing. if you have the skills then it stands to reason that simply being in better shape and being stronger will allow you to hit the ball farther but with the same accuracy. this also helps to explain the success of players that are marrying the long game with a good short game.

    golf is also similar to baseball wrt to a "farm" system. can't we look at the nation wide tour in this light? i would think that this tour is helps to make sure that the truly elite players are making it to the pga tour. so if stronger/better players is what the pga tour is seeing then there must come a time when the courses must adapt to the evolving golf athlete in order to maintain the challenge.

    one last thing and i'll stop pulling things out of my rear, i think safety is a big reason that professional baseball doesn't use aluminum. (it's also the reason that it is being debated whether or not it should be used in college basebal) the batters are stronger and the pitchers are throwing harder, basic physics will tell you that the ball would be screaming off the aluminum bat compared to a wooden one. you couldn't pay anyone enough money to play third base at just 90ft away if the batter had an alum bat in his hands!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Where does the snow stop.
    By mohawk in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 09:56 AM
  2. Stop the Trolling!!!
    By Ghost_Of_Benguk in forum Non-Golf Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-10-2006, 02:23 PM
  3. I have been told to stop
    By onetime in forum Non-Golf Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-27-2005, 01:00 PM
  4. stop hittin it fat!!!!!!!!!
    By crimdog in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-08-2004, 06:52 PM
  5. Stop the fighting!
    By omeletpants in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 11:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •