Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[QuigleyDU]

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It's odd to me how few people will find this comment to be profoundly offensive. I guess that it is open season on some personal stereotypes.

> > >

> > > That's a good point. I wouldn't characterize Tiger Woods as a stuffy rich white man in a smoking jacket.

> >

> > Sure pick the one guy. haha. I am talking about your run of the mill Augusta National member.. You cannot tell me most of them fit the bill.. It is silly to be offended by that statement. It is actually silly to be offended by any statement here since there was not a single name attached how can it be personal?? I didn't even point it at @"15th Club"

> >

>

> The guys and girl at Augusta National run a pretty good tournament. There has been plenty of excitement there over the years, with some great stories, and some great champions identified. Argue all you want, but Augusta seems to be the one tournament that TV watchers in the US like the most.

>

> As long as they run a tournament with exciting finishes, I'll be watching. If they decide they want to reign in the ball so that the par 5's retain some semblance to actual par 5's, it won't bother me one bit.

>

> And if that ball reduces my 210 yard driver to 195, I can deal with that.

 

That is true. It is their even and I will stand behind whatever decision they make. While I know I am in the minority, the Masters although I enjoy it, (this year was amazing) is not may fav major each year. I think that has more to do with the production of it then the actual event itself. I think although deserving of much of it, is too hyped. I get tired of the fake birds, hushed voices, and patronizing tones of holy ground.

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

> Sounds like a cool hole. If you try to bomb it over the trees and miss left, right, or short, it sounds like there is some trouble involved. Maybe I'm not envisioning it correctly, but it sounds like a strategic decision to go for it.

 

You can't get it over the trees and end up short. If you can get it that high you are on the green or on the slope in back of it (maybe in the tennis courts if you got 340 in you). The pond and strategy is now out of play for the longest guys. There is only one "right" way to play it if you have the distance. The only risk on that line is not making it over the trees. Then you are screwed. So you either know you got it and go for it, or revert to the old way to play the hole.

 

If you miss left you are so far left you might be good. If you miss right you may end up in the volleyball court but are likely just caught on the slope or knocked down by some pine trees.

 

Anywho, here is a picture of the hole. You can see you can't extend the tee back any farther due to the previous green. You either lay back to the lime green oval and stay on the flat and same level as the green. If you miscalculate it and go too far you can end up in the bunker or down in the orange hole well below the green. And now I guess you can drive the green. Tennis courts and pool are OB of course. The green sits below the cart path about 25 foot or so. They benched the green into a pretty steep slope.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It's odd to me how few people will find this comment to be profoundly offensive. I guess that it is open season on some personal stereotypes.

> > >

> > > That's a good point. I wouldn't characterize Tiger Woods as a stuffy rich white man in a smoking jacket.

> >

> > Sure pick the one guy. haha. I am talking about your run of the mill Augusta National member.. You cannot tell me most of them fit the bill.. It is silly to be offended by that statement. It is actually silly to be offended by any statement here since there was not a single name attached how can it be personal?? I didn't even point it at @"15th Club"

> >

>

> The guys and girl at Augusta National run a pretty good tournament. There has been plenty of excitement there over the years, with some great stories, and some great champions identified. Argue all you want, but Augusta seems to be the one tournament that TV watchers in the US like the most.

>

> As long as they run a tournament with exciting finishes, I'll be watching. If they decide they want to reign in the ball so that the par 5's retain some semblance to actual par 5's, it won't bother me one bit.

>

> And if that ball reduces my 210 yard driver to 195, I can deal with that.

 

That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

[hollabachgt]

 

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

 

> > Maybe it doesn't. I suppose it all depends on the design. But it sure makes for a weird looking course. I already cited the quote from Dr. Mackenzie. I think I'll do it again, just to make myself happy:

> >

> > **“Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play.”** –Dr. Alister MacKenzie

> >

> > So your special plan to challenge the longest hitters with narrowed fairways and longer rough just makes for bad, boring golf for them. I guess I don't revile long hitters as much as you do.

> >

>

> And, yet, Pasatiempo. Pretty narrow off the tee, the rough is definitely penal, and it's anything but firm and fast. At 6500 yards, it still hosts the Western Intercollegiate, and those elite DI players certainly don't burn the place down scoring wise. Anybody know what Mackenzie said his favorite US design was?

>

 

You're presuming that the presentation today is exactly what the good doctor would have prescribed. Based upon these [aerials](http://golfcoursehistories.com/Pasa.html "aerials") the golf course is much more narrow than it was when it first opened and in the decade to follow. The fact that the course, in a lesser state today than how it was intended by the original architect, is still able to test elite players is a testament to the original design quality to a much greater extent that the modern presentation.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It's odd to me how few people will find this comment to be profoundly offensive. I guess that it is open season on some personal stereotypes.

> > > >

> > > > That's a good point. I wouldn't characterize Tiger Woods as a stuffy rich white man in a smoking jacket.

> > >

> > > Sure pick the one guy. haha. I am talking about your run of the mill Augusta National member.. You cannot tell me most of them fit the bill.. It is silly to be offended by that statement. It is actually silly to be offended by any statement here since there was not a single name attached how can it be personal?? I didn't even point it at @"15th Club"

> > >

> >

> > The guys and girl at Augusta National run a pretty good tournament. There has been plenty of excitement there over the years, with some great stories, and some great champions identified. Argue all you want, but Augusta seems to be the one tournament that TV watchers in the US like the most.

> >

> > As long as they run a tournament with exciting finishes, I'll be watching. If they decide they want to reign in the ball so that the par 5's retain some semblance to actual par 5's, it won't bother me one bit.

> >

> > And if that ball reduces my 210 yard driver to 195, I can deal with that.

>

> That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

 

I will only deal with it. If it means I get to play Augusta. If not then I am out.

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

>

> Look no further than the Shriner Hospital Tournament (Oct 2019)....The winner was Kevin Na, self-proclaimed short knocker. You will be hard pressed to find a better putter or better shot maker. I stopped reading your post after that because your credibility was shot...

>

>

> By the way....I think that he has won three of his last thirty tournaments…..

 

Kevin Na is good. But you just brought up a silly season tournament on a course built in 1991 with a length of 7255 (at elevation) and par 71. He won at -23.

 

If the results of one golf tournament with a field missing some of the best golfers on tour causes my credibility to be shot, I could have saved you some time and told you to take a look at the last few years' results from the RBC Heritage. There have been some real short knockers win there. I wonder why that is?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > Sounds like a cool hole. If you try to bomb it over the trees and miss left, right, or short, it sounds like there is some trouble involved. Maybe I'm not envisioning it correctly, but it sounds like a strategic decision to go for it.

>

> You can't get it over the trees and end up short. If you can get it that high you are on the green or on the slope in back of it (maybe in the tennis courts if you got 340 in you). The pond and strategy is now out of play for the longest guys. There is only one "right" way to play it if you have the distance. The only risk on that line is not making it over the trees. Then you are screwed. So you either know you got it and go for it, or revert to the old way to play the hole.

>

> If you miss left you are so far left you might be good. If you miss right you may end up in the volleyball court but are likely just caught on the slope or knocked down by some pine trees.

>

> Anywho, here is a picture of the hole. You can see you can't extend the tee back any farther due to the previous green. You either lay back to the lime green oval and stay on the flat and same level as the green. If you miscalculate it and go too far you can end up in the bunker or down in the orange hole well below the green. And now I guess you can drive the green. Tennis courts and pool are OB of course. The green sits below the cart path about 25 foot or so. They benched the green into a pretty steep slope.

>

>

>

 

That IS a cool hole! Thanks for the visual. Man, that water looks pretty close to the front edge, and that cart path looks pretty close to the back edge. I understand what you say about the slope behind the green, but I bet it's no picnic to chip off that slope rather than hit one from the flat. I'm not sure how tall those trees are, but it must take a darn good shot to drop one over them onto that shallow green. That string of trees green high right probably catch a few from guys who go for it and bail out. Thanks again!

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

> That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

 

 

It would go along way. And if it would establish that upper limit there (for many years if not forever into the future) it would give courses a litmus with which they could plan. For the last twenty years the target has been continually moving and really only moving for the upper end of their users. The bottom end performance has remained largely the same but the upper end has kept getting longer. The span of ranges the golf courses are attempting to accomodate with the design has grown.

 

Three tee boxes does not seem adequate. Hazards in the driving range (from the back) at 250-270 is not adequate any longer. A 500 yard par five is not long anymore. How far does a par five need to be to be a true three shot hole where the drive takes concentration and execution, the second shot poses a strategic ask and requires execution, and finally the shot into the green? 650? 670? More?

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @hollabachgt said:

>

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

>

> > > Maybe it doesn't. I suppose it all depends on the design. But it sure makes for a weird looking course. I already cited the quote from Dr. Mackenzie. I think I'll do it again, just to make myself happy:

> > >

> > > **“Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play.”** –Dr. Alister MacKenzie

> > >

> > > So your special plan to challenge the longest hitters with narrowed fairways and longer rough just makes for bad, boring golf for them. I guess I don't revile long hitters as much as you do.

> > >

> >

> > And, yet, Pasatiempo. Pretty narrow off the tee, the rough is definitely penal, and it's anything but firm and fast. At 6500 yards, it still hosts the Western Intercollegiate, and those elite DI players certainly don't burn the place down scoring wise. Anybody know what Mackenzie said his favorite US design was?

> >

>

> You're presuming that the presentation today is exactly what the good doctor would have prescribed. Based upon these [aerials](http://golfcoursehistories.com/Pasa.html "aerials") the golf course is much more narrow than it was when it first opened and in the decade to follow. The fact that the course, in a lesser state today than how it was intended by the original architect, is still able to test elite players is a testament to the original design quality to a much greater extent that the modern presentation.

 

Sure, it's not exactly the same. It's 90 years old. I will say, of all MacKenzie-designed courses, Pasatiempo remains the truest to its original design, because:

 

"Of all MacKenzie-designed courses, Pasatiempo remains the truest to its original design; the only major changes being the addition and growth of trees and a small reduction in the number of bunkers. Even equipment changes have not diminished the golfing challenges Pasatiempo presents. Dr. MacKenzie’s magnificent golf course on Monterey Bay has truly has withstood the passage of time."

 

https://www.pasatiempo.com/index.php/history/alister-mackenzie

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

 

 

I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

 

It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

 

These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

>

>

> It would go along way. And if it would establish that upper limit there (for many years if not forever into the future) it would give courses a litmus with which they could plan. For the last twenty years the target has been continually moving and really only moving for the upper end of their users. The bottom end performance has remained largely the same but the upper end has kept getting longer. The span of ranges the golf courses are attempting to accomodate with the design has grown.

>

> Three tee boxes does not seem adequate. Hazards in the driving range (from the back) at 250-270 is not adequate any longer. A 500 yard par five is not long anymore. How far does a par five need to be to be a true three shot hole where the drive takes concentration and execution, the second shot poses a strategic ask and requires execution, and finally the shot into the green? 650? 670? More?

>

 

Well, to be fair, a 500-yard par 5 hasn't been long for elite players since before you and I were born.

Anecdotally, I routinely play a 540-yard par 5 that is a true three shot hole for nearly everyone. Hard dogleg right off the tee with a bunker through the fairway to the left at about 260, OB beyond that. Cut the corner over the trees, and a long hitter could have ~200 in, but the hole keeps turning right and has old growth eucalyptus trees guarding the front right of the green, so you'd have to drop in a 6-7 iron or less to avoid going over the green (not in my bag). Second shot has to be threaded between two fw bunkers and not be too far right (the eucalyptus trees) or too far left (bunkered from the green to about 100 yards out). Finally, your approach is to a two-tiered green.

 

Long story short, the answer depends on the design.

[smashdn]

A course with no trees only has what is on the ground and wind to offer as challenges.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

>

>

> I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

>

> It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

>

> These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

>

 

How does Pasatiempo continue to challenge elite DI players on an annual basis at 6500 yards when it remains the truest to Dr. Mackenzie's original design of all his courses? It doesn't play firm and fast . . . there isn't much of a ground game into the greens on 1, 3, 4 (depending on the pin), 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 (depending on the pin), 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, or 18. Pretty much target golf into those greens. I wonder why it was his favorite US design, and the one that has objectively stood the test of time the best . . .

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

>

>

> I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

>

> It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

>

> These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

>

 

15, lets reset. Lets talk with a bit of civility, and respect for a min. You honestly believe this is the biggest issue facing the game of golf? that maybe 12 courses can no longer host PGA events for the top 1/2 percent of golfers? This thread on both's sides is loaded with opinions. I have yet from you, or me or really anyone read an actual fact other than yes the golf is going further than it did 10-15 years ago. Yes that is a fact.

 

Bu there is no other greater issue facing the game of golf as a whole? I apologize, I just do not see how that can be true that a relatively few golfers, and a relatively few courses are affecting the whole game in such a manor.

 

I work as a fitter. I see golfers every day. Distance is not an issue for 99% of golfers or courses. If we want to talk about efforts to maintain courses. The cost associated with that. Minus bagging on Titleist without including every other ball manufacturer because they are all in this together. The decision affects all of them the same. the rising and falling tide lifts and lowers all boats you know.

[Titleist99]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

>

>

> I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

>

> It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

>

> These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

>

 

Yes, these threads need to pop up to remind people that golf is a sport that need to be played outdoors, that in

itself requires it to be a reactionary sport. The landscape changes due to wind, rain, drought, hurricanes, tree

disease or a redesign by Jack Nicklaus.

 

 

I will become an advocate of rolling back the equipment when someone goes to Bethpage Black, Oakmont Golf course,

or Augusta National for that matter.....take any Touring Pro with them, comeback to me and tell me how they brought those

courses to their knees.....until then don't talk to me about our lack of respect for the old courses.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

> >

> >

> > I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

> >

> > It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

> >

> > These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

> >

>

> 15, lets reset. Lets talk with a bit of civility, and respect for a min. You honestly believe this is the biggest issue facing the game of golf? that maybe 12 courses can no longer host PGA events for the top 1/2 percent of golfers? This thread on both's sides is loaded with opinions. I have yet from you, or me or really anyone read an actual fact other than yes the golf is going further than it did 10-15 years ago. Yes that is a fact.

>

> Bu there is no other greater issue facing the game of golf as a whole? I apologize, I just do not see how that can be true that a relatively few golfers, and a relatively few courses are affecting the whole game in such a manor.

>

> I work as a fitter. I see golfers every day. Distance is not an issue for 99% of golfers or courses. If we want to talk about efforts to maintain courses. The cost associated with that. Minus bagging on Titleist without including every other ball manufacturer because they are all in this together. The decision affects all of them the same. the rising and falling tide lifts and lowers all boats you know.

 

 

Read better!

 

You ask; "You honestly believe this is the biggest issue facing the game of golf?"

 

And no, that isn't what I wrote. I'll quote what I wrote: "These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact."

 

So what I wrote was that the rollback argument was "the most important Rules controversy in golf right now." And in your fury to argue with me, you read me as claiming it as the most important issue in the game of golf. Not, as I wrote, the "most important _Rules controversy _in golf right now."

 

You know, I am still waiting for you to back up your trashtalk about how it is "old pros" who are backing the rollback arguments to somehow protect old golfing records. I am not buying that myth. I want that discrete fight with you on these very narrow terms.

 

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

> >

> >

> > I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

> >

> > It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

> >

> > These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

> >

>

> Yes, these threads need to pop up to remind people that golf is a sport that need to be played outdoors, that in

> itself requires it to be a reactionary sport. The landscape changes due to wind, rain, drought, hurricanes, tree

> disease or a redesign by Jack Nicklaus.

>

>

> I will become an advocate of rolling back the equipment when someone goes to Bethpage Black, Oakmont Golf course,

> or Augusta National for that matter.....take any Touring Pro with them, comeback to me and tell me how they brought those

> courses to their knees.....until then don't talk to me about our lack of respect for the old courses.

 

Huh? Augusta has been pillaged by Tiger multiple times.

 

What about Pebble when it’s crispy ? What did Tiger do to that pre lengthening ? That’s what I’m seeing locally. Courses that will never be lengthened turned into pitch and putts.

[Titleist99]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> >

> > Look no further than the Shriner Hospital Tournament (Oct 2019)....The winner was Kevin Na, self-proclaimed short knocker. You will be hard pressed to find a better putter or better shot maker. I stopped reading your post after that because your credibility was shot...

> >

> >

> > By the way....I think that he has won three of his last thirty tournaments…..

>

> Kevin Na is good. But you just brought up a silly season tournament on a course built in 1991 with a length of 7255 (at elevation) and par 71. He won at -23.

>

> If the results of one golf tournament with a field missing some of the best golfers on tour causes my credibility to be shot, I could have saved you some time and told you to take a look at the last few years' results from the RBC Heritage. There have been some real short knockers win there. I wonder why that is?

 

I just gave you what you asked for....Now you are moving the goal post...……

 

 

"I really do think the product of the PGA Tour is not good. Players are largely one dimensional. There are no "characters" to get behind. There is seemingly one way to win most weeks, one formulaic, by-the-numbers way to play golf. Where are the short off the tee guys that can knock down the flag? Where are the guys who are light's out putters a la Ben Crenshaw?"

 

Like I said that short knocker has won three times in his last thirty events....

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > Does anyone remember the name of the last thread that went crazy like this? I want to dig through and see if it was anymore productive..

> > >

> > >

> > > I can tell you very clearly what is "productive." It is simple the understanding that this issue is out there, and is contentious. Most golfers are largely unaware of the controversy. They don't know the arguments. And most are completely unaware of the potential litigation threats, and Titleist's determined advocacy. Titleist, and its contracted Tour stars, will have a huge head start in any messaging campaign when the ruling bodies finally determine to take action as they must and will.

> > >

> > > It is the existence of the fight, that I am most interested in publicizing. I am not going to change your mind; no more than I will change Wally Uihlein's mind or E. Michael Johnson's mind.

> > >

> > > These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact.

> > >

> >

> > 15, lets reset. Lets talk with a bit of civility, and respect for a min. You honestly believe this is the biggest issue facing the game of golf? that maybe 12 courses can no longer host PGA events for the top 1/2 percent of golfers? This thread on both's sides is loaded with opinions. I have yet from you, or me or really anyone read an actual fact other than yes the golf is going further than it did 10-15 years ago. Yes that is a fact.

> >

> > Bu there is no other greater issue facing the game of golf as a whole? I apologize, I just do not see how that can be true that a relatively few golfers, and a relatively few courses are affecting the whole game in such a manor.

> >

> > I work as a fitter. I see golfers every day. Distance is not an issue for 99% of golfers or courses. If we want to talk about efforts to maintain courses. The cost associated with that. Minus bagging on Titleist without including every other ball manufacturer because they are all in this together. The decision affects all of them the same. the rising and falling tide lifts and lowers all boats you know.

>

>

> Read better!

>

> You ask; "You honestly believe this is the biggest issue facing the game of golf?"

>

> And no, that isn't what I wrote. I'll quote what I wrote: "These threads can and should pop up regularly because it is the most contentious, most urgent, most important Rules controversy in golf right now. These arguments remind people of that fact."

>

> So what I wrote was that the rollback argument was "the most important Rules controversy in golf right now." And in your fury to argue with me, you read me as claiming it as the most important issue in the game of golf. Not, as I wrote, the "most important _Rules controversy _in golf right now."

>

> You know, I am still waiting for you to back up your trashtalk about how it is "old pros" who are backing the rollback arguments to somehow protect old golfing records. I am not buying that myth. I want that discrete fight with you on these very narrow terms.

>

 

I am not fighting with you, that is my opinion. And so far no one has presented any facts to prove me otherwise. You just say you are offended by it.

 

Ok, maybe I misquoted you. But my question still stands that you think this is the biggest rules controversy. I am not buying that either.

 

 

[LICC]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > >

> > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > >

> > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > >

> > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > >

> > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> >

> > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

>

> If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

 

This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> You know, I am still waiting for you to back up your trashtalk about how it is "old pros" who are backing the rollback arguments to somehow protect old golfing records. I am not buying that myth. I want that discrete fight with you on these very narrow terms.

>

 

And I want this discrete fight with you on these narrow terms, but you won't respond, because you cannot reconcile it. I get it. I'm not worth your time, because I raise points you can't counter.

 

Again:

 

What's your take on the USGA's failure to regulate the distance gains ~20 years ago because it didn't want to incur potential legal fees? If a shorter ball is necessary for the good of the game now, it seems that the selfless steward of the game should have put the good of the game ahead of its own financial interests ~20 years ago, no?

 

Also:

 

How does Pasatiempo continue to challenge elite DI players on an annual basis at 6500 yards when it remains the truest to Dr. Mackenzie's original design of all his courses? It doesn't play firm and fast . . . there isn't much of a ground game into the greens on 1, 3, 4 (depending on the pin), 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 (depending on the pin), 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, or 18. Pretty much target golf into those greens. I wonder why it was his favorite US design, and the one that has objectively stood the test of time the best . . .

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @LICC said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > >

> > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > >

> > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > >

> > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > >

> > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> >

> > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

>

> This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

 

Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

[bigred90gt]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > >

> > > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> > >

> > > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

> >

> > This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

>

> Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

 

I never said there were not courses that are more worth watching, but that is a personal choice and anyone is free to only watch those that they wish. For me, I enjoy all golf, regardless of the venue.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> > > >

> > > > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

> > >

> > > This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

> >

> > Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

>

> I never said there were not courses that are more worth watching, but that is a personal choice and anyone is free to only watch those that they wish. For me, I enjoy all golf, regardless of the venue.

 

I agree with that as well. I watch pretty much every event.

[rangersgoalie]

Most golfers don’t know of the most important rules controversy facing the game

 

Agree. A first!

 

Of course, my smart aleck wants to also say, can’t be that pressing if most golfers aren’t worried?:)

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > Look no further than the Shriner Hospital Tournament (Oct 2019)....The winner was Kevin Na, self-proclaimed short knocker. You will be hard pressed to find a better putter or better shot maker. I stopped reading your post after that because your credibility was shot...

> > >

> > >

> > > By the way....I think that he has won three of his last thirty tournaments…..

> >

> > Kevin Na is good. But you just brought up a silly season tournament on a course built in 1991 with a length of 7255 (at elevation) and par 71. He won at -23.

> >

> > If the results of one golf tournament with a field missing some of the best golfers on tour causes my credibility to be shot, I could have saved you some time and told you to take a look at the last few years' results from the RBC Heritage. There have been some real short knockers win there. I wonder why that is?

>

> I just gave you what you asked for....Now you are moving the goal post...……

>

>

> "I really do think the product of the PGA Tour is not good. Players are largely one dimensional. There are no "characters" to get behind. There is seemingly one way to win most weeks, one formulaic, by-the-numbers way to play golf. Where are the short off the tee guys that can knock down the flag? Where are the guys who are light's out putters a la Ben Crenshaw?"

>

> Like I said that short knocker has won three times in his last thirty events....

>

>

But would he win if things were rolled back ? He’s one of the guys ( and I’m a fan of his) who I think live a little by the help that the new ball and driver provide. HEd suffer greatly is my guess , if a spinning ball and small driver is required.

 

[Shilgy]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> > That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

>

>

> It would go along way. And if it would establish that upper limit there (for many years if not forever into the future) it would give courses a litmus with which they could plan. For the last twenty years the target has been continually moving and really only moving for the upper end of their users. The bottom end performance has remained largely the same but the upper end has kept getting longer. The span of ranges the golf courses are attempting to accomodate with the design has grown.

>

> Three tee boxes does not seem adequate. Hazards in the driving range (from the back) at 250-270 is not adequate any longer. A 500 yard par five is not long anymore. How far does a par five need to be to be a true three shot hole where the drive takes concentration and execution, the second shot poses a strategic ask and requires execution, and finally the shot into the green? 650? 670? More?

>

 

But in your previous post(546) you pointed out the short courses on tour and how they present a challenge to the players.

 

Too many are blinded by the “how” the game is played. How many have been told it’s not how, it’s how many? The best players average score is not going down hardly at all. There are certainly more low scoring players today but that is a “depth of field “ topic for another thread.

 

We have threads where guys post that today’s 7 iron is really a 4 iron and in this thread it instead becomes a sky is falling event because a player hit 7 iron into a long hole.

 

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > >

> > > That's about a 7% rollback. Will reducing a 320 yard drive to a shade under 300 restore the intent of the designers of the classic, historic, and precious championship layouts?

> >

> >

> > It would go along way. And if it would establish that upper limit there (for many years if not forever into the future) it would give courses a litmus with which they could plan. For the last twenty years the target has been continually moving and really only moving for the upper end of their users. The bottom end performance has remained largely the same but the upper end has kept getting longer. The span of ranges the golf courses are attempting to accomodate with the design has grown.

> >

> > Three tee boxes does not seem adequate. Hazards in the driving range (from the back) at 250-270 is not adequate any longer. A 500 yard par five is not long anymore. How far does a par five need to be to be a true three shot hole where the drive takes concentration and execution, the second shot poses a strategic ask and requires execution, and finally the shot into the green? 650? 670? More?

> >

>

> But in your previous post(546) you pointed out the short courses on tour and how they present a challenge to the players.

>

> Too many are blinded by the “how” the game is played. How many have been told it’s not how, it’s how many? The best players average score is not going down hardly at all. There are certainly more low scoring players today but that is a “depth of field “ topic for another thread.

>

> We have threads where guys post that today’s 7 iron is really a 4 iron and in this thread it instead becomes a sky is falling event because a player hit 7 iron into a long hole.

>

 

Yep. But most of those guys are hitting a real 7 iron. Or at least a 7 that’s a 6.

 

Depth of field is part of it too. Depth is deeper because of equipment ( partially). Sure fitness is better for short hitters too .... but the modern driver and ball is certainly helping the short guy keep up. It’s been admitted here several times recently in the am senior ranks. So surely it’s true of all humans and all levels ?

[LICC]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > >

> > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > >

> > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > >

> > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > >

> > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> >

> > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > >

> > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > >

> > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > >

> > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > >

> > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> >

> > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

>

> Man, I feel like you see that some but it is not like they do that on every hole and every course. I agree that it is a bit of a mindset but in practice I do not think it is as wide spread as some think.

 

You see it on practically every par-4.

[LICC]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> > > >

> > > > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

> > >

> > > This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

> >

> > Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

>

> I never said there were not courses that are more worth watching, but that is a personal choice and anyone is free to only watch those that they wish. For me, I enjoy all golf, regardless of the venue.

 

You said golf fans will enjoy and watch golf no matter how it is played. That just doesn’t hold up to logic.