News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2024, 08:54:22 PM »
All good, Erik.  The joke wasn’t meant for your benefit.  I wouldn’t dare presume someone without a sense of humor would find anything humorous.
I'm glad that you can convince yourself that being a butthead or taking shots is "humor."  :P  You do you.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2024, 09:22:00 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2024, 09:22:04 PM »
Glad you convince yourself that being an a$$hole means you’re smart.


All you had to do was not say anything.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2024, 12:41:44 PM »
Glad you convince yourself that being an a$$hole means you’re smart.

All you had to do was not say anything.
Yeah, what an asshole I was saying "Not necessarily" and "The wind blowing 10 MPH might change your lines but your strategy isn't all that different. I appreciate the sarcasm, but it falls flat." in response to your posts taking shots at me.

I'm not the asshole in this one.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2024, 03:17:22 PM »
Seeing as you’re the only guy on here who feels the need to publicly list the names of those you ignore, maybe its you and not us.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2024, 03:34:44 PM »
Enough, gentlemen.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2024, 03:40:28 PM »
Sven, welcome to the club. Tim, Garland, and I can now have a four ball.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was strategy way different when greens were slower?
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2024, 12:54:32 PM »
Strategy has faded with time. I don't think the greens were crazy slow 50 years ago but they were less receptive mainly due to the ball and clubs and perhaps even the conditioning of the fairways.


The Modern Ball and Clubs have done the most damage to strategy. 50 years ago you had to learn a golf course and if you got wrong sided you had play away from the pin perhaps just happy to get on the green.


Its a different game now. For really good players there is very little strategy, they just hit THE NUMBER.



So true.


A couple comments on greens. They used to slope more, so the strategy was often to be under the hole. With more slope, sidehill putts were more challenging. Also, greens were not uniform... with some being firm, others softer, so golfers had to figure out how to attack each greensite.


As for the problems you pointed out, there are solutions... but would the governing bodies have the gonads to implement them? Not likely... unfortunately.


The solutions...


The book In Search of the Perfect Golf Swing revealed that balls struck from the fairway had the same amount of spin whether they had grooves or not, but this differed from the rough. That research is from the 1960's, and grooves have obviously changed dramatically, but the research offers a simple solution...


Eliminate grooves, and put a limit of the abrasiveness of the face. Now you would put a premium on hitting fairways... as balls would come out of the rough like knuckle balls. I know this firsthand from playing ample hickory golf.


Next. Limit the number of clubs to 9 or 10. Now you'd find out who the shotmakers are. And... you'd eliminate the number of wedges these guys carry. The average golfer would benefit from a simplified set.


let all the technology remain... except...


...reduce the distance the ball flies.



Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back