[Mark Brown]

Patrick,

I'm not sure about us playing the same length courses.

20 years ago I was playing tees that were 6,200 to 6,300 yards and now it's usually 6,600 to 6,800.

Equipment has helped me hit the ball straighter and longer but the tees I'm usually playing are 400 to 500 yards longer, which eats up the length I've gained.

Also, unfortunately a lot of the courses I play have softer fairways and I'm losing at least 20 yards in roll. Now, if the fairways are real soft I'm starting to move up on some of the holes. It's no fun hitting 4 irons and 5 woods to most par 4s.

Also, the courses I'm playing are much harder and my handicap has gone from a 7 to a 9. Hmm... what are we doing to ourselves?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

The back tees at my home course haven't changed much over the last 40 years due to the confines of the property.

While we have lengthened a few holes from the back tees, almost none of the white and ladies tees have been moved back, in fact, new shorter tees have been added for the ladies and, we've added Senior tees for older members as well.

I suspect that courses tend to play softer because generationally, today's younger players want to tee off at the crack of dawn so that they can get back to their families sooner.  In my dad's generation, they played at 9:00 had lunch and played cards in the afternoon.  The wives came up, teed off at 2:00 and joined them for dinner and dancing.

On many golf courses wednesday afternoons and saturday afternoons were reserved for professional people, doctors, dentists, and lawyers with saturdays for the same group, plus local merchants.  So afternoon play was prevalent.
Today, it seems that early morning play is prevalent and that many courses have lighter afternoon play.

I'd like to think that the courses have gotten harder, but, the sad reality is that I've lost a good deal of distance.
On holes that I used to hit driver, wedge, I was hitting driver, 3-wood.  Fortunately, I've been able to gain back some distance, but, I think my days of playing at 7,200+ yards and having a real chance at a good score will be rare at best.

I see more and more interesting greens flattened in the name of speed and fairness.  Noone stops to think that maybe their greens have exceeded the speed limit as intended by the original architect, and rather then simply dial back, they ruin the character of one of the most important features on their golf course by squeezing the distinctive life out of them, by flattening them.

I see bunkers removed.
I see the faces of bunkers softened
I see bunkers made shallower
I see barriers of rough between bunkers and fairway.

Perhaps Tom Huckaby hasn't seen these things, or perhaps he's seen them, but can't remember them.

JES II's point about member gratification is germane, since to a great degree, that's the driving force within memberships to soften architectural featurs.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Doug Siebert]

Did golfers who had been playing for 20 years in 1970 think that technology had materially changed the game like many of us now say?  What really changed between 1950 and 1970?  The introduction of surlyn?  That may have made golf less expensive for hackers, but it didn't really change the way the game was played.  Some of the technological innovations in golf during that time were negative and later abandoned, like the attempt to use aluminum shafts in clubs -- I think that was for cost savings and not weight reasons, however.

Obviously I wasn't around, but I have a hard time thinking of any major technological improvements from the introduction of steel shafts to the introduction and popularization of game improvement irons.  Then we got metal woods and things have just accelerated from there as more and more money got into golf-related R&D and a lot of smart engineers working in the defense industry were laid off when we figured out there wasn't going to be a nuclear WW III in our future after all.

I mean heck, maybe we can try to construct a timeline of equipment changes that radically changed the game.  My first cut, with my guesses at approximate years:

1847 - intro of gutty
1903 - intro of "modern" rubber core ball (and machine mass production for balls since I think gutties were all hand made?)
1935 - intro of steel shafts (and machine mass production for clubs)
(1939 - intro of SW, I don't consider this to be nearly on the level of the others, but I'm sure some will argue that)
1970 - intro of game improvement irons
1980 - intro of metal woods
1986 - intro of graphite shafts
1994 - intro of larger (> 200cc) driver heads
2000 - intro of jumbo (>= 400cc) Ti drivers
2001 - intro of "optimised" balls (Pro V1)

I see where Titleist is selling Pro V1s as low as $25/dz, so the new one is probably planned to be ramped quickly.  Are they selling the old ones for a song because they think people will want the latest and greatest just because its the latest, or because they know once people play the new one they will be glad they passed on the opportunity to stock up a year's supply of last year's balls at fire sale prices?

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I understand the question perfectly.  The answer remains no.

"Is the impact of high-tech and distance, specialty clubs and the need for speed with the flatening of putting surfaces conveging to form the perfect storm that will render golf less challenging and mundane ?"

No.  I refer you to the definition of mundane.  That hasn't happened, nor will it.  The use of the word "and" means that both descriptors must be true for a positive answer to be correct.  Since the second descriptor is absolutely untrue, then the answer remains no, and can be nothing else.


But let me help you out.  I'll reword it for you into something that I believe is true.

The impact of improved technology in golf, in the form of drivers that are ever-easier to hit long and straight, and utility clubs that make long, high, solid shots off the fairway and out of the rough ever easier, combined with the need for speed in putting surfaces resulting in their flattening all too often, has all converged in the form of a "perfect storm" that has rendered golf less challenging than it ever has been, with the danger that too many players will become less interested in it to the point some might give it up completely if this continues unchecked.

Yes, that is what you meant.  It's just NOT what you said.

Happy to be your editor any time, Pat.

 



 

[frank_D]

brother Patrick_Mucci

less challenging and mundane for whom ?

most technology is way beyond the avid mid and avid high handicapper and much of it is beyond the average avid low handicapper with the infrequently playing low handicapper simply a gifted person capable of getting results from any technology

as for the putting - if the masses have mastered it i wonder why every conceivable head / toe / type / style / shaft lenght / weighted / offset / etc putter is available

QED the game will continue to challenge many if not most despite the "technology" and as for mundane well i don't know if a real golfer can ever be "bored" on a course for long - which i agree is different than calling a routing mundane - which i don't think your asking

[JESII]

There is no reason the arguments against Mr. Mucci's question should revolve around the game becoming easier or mastered by anyone.

I think there is no question that the events mentioned have, and will continue to make the game less challenging. The question is whether or not they are making the game MUNDANE. For something to be mundane it must be in comparison to some other thing. In the case of golf, we all have to look at what we might do with the time we devote to golf if we no longer had access to golf in any form. The point of this is to determine what it is that sets golf apart from that second choice activity and find out if the changing game of golf is decreasing the enjoyment gap between playing golf and that secondary activity.

The mental stimulation and physical achievement factors are absolutely diminished from 20, 40, 60 or 100 years ago and will continue on that course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby & Frank D,

If greens have their contours and slopes flattened, are you unequivically stating that approach shots, recovery shots and putting remains the same ?

That there is no diminishment in the challenge ?

A simple yes or no will do.

[THuckaby2]

No.

Where the hell you got that, however, is the mystery of the year.

 

Did you even bother to read my 1000% improvement of your premise?  Or is it that unpalatable to you that a yokel like me could possibly understand your point, agree with it, and improve upon it?

Go read that again, oh wise but competitive one. Note the part in bold.

"The impact of improved technology in golf, in the form of drivers that are ever-easier to hit long and straight, and utility clubs that make long, high, solid shots off the fairway and out of the rough ever easier, combined with the need for speed in putting surfaces resulting in their flattening all too often, has all converged in the form of a "perfect storm" that has rendered golf less challenging than it ever has been, with the danger that too many players will become less interested in it to the point some might give it up completely if this continues unchecked.


TH

ps:  requests for simple yesses or nos are accomodated if the question is fair and worthy of such.

pss:  my previous perceived "disagreement" with you was solely based on your poor choice of words, as golf is in no danger, by definition, of becoming "less interesting and mundane."  But my definition as stated twice now is correct.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I asked,
Is the impact of high tech and distance, specialty clubs, and the need for speed with the flattening of putting surfacesconverging to form the perfect storm that will render golf LESS CHALLENGING and mundane ?

You responded:

Absolutely not.

And now you admit that the challenge will be diminished.

When you change your mind so often it confuses us.

I appreciate your attempted clarification, but, it's too verbose.

P.S.  You knew what I meant, you just chose to nit pick the choice of words.

[THuckaby2]

I never changed my mind for a milisecond in this thread.  As I have said several times now, the entire basis of my saying "absolutely not" to your first question was based on your very poor choice of words.  I firmly believe the challenge is diminished or lessened or decreased; I did when I first responded here, and I do now.  I just in no way can accept that it becomes "less interesting AND mundane."   Words have meanings, Pat.

In the end, my definition is verbose, for sure.  But it is also correct, and as much as it hurts, you can't help but agree with it, can you?

The ONLY possible answer to your first question is indeed the negative.

That is unless you want to change the meaning of words.  Now you don't want to do that, do you Pat?



 

TH
 ps - oh would that you had used the word "or" instead of "and".. then I could have given you the affirmation you crave so deeply.  But I guess logic as well as vocabulary is left out of that South Bend education.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I never changed my mind for a milisecond in this thread.
Sure you did, when asked if the game was becoming less challenging you said, "absolutely not".  When asked again if flattening greens had diminished the challenge, you said, "yes"]/b]

As I have said several times now, the entire basis of my saying "absolutely not" to your first question was based on your very poor choice of words.

My choice of words was excellent, and conveyed exactly what I wanted to say.
YOU chose to misinterpret them.

How you could misinterpret "less challenging" is beyond me.

And, eliminating contours and flattening greens makes them mundane or ordinary.  If you don't understand the term ordinary it's not my fault.[/color]  

I firmly believe the challenge is diminished or lessened or decreased.  

Then why did you contradict yourself by saying, "absolutely not" ?[/color]

I just in no way can accept that it becomes "less interesting AND mundane."   Words have meanings, Pat.

Yes, they do, and mundane means ordinary, which is what happens to greens when you remove their unique contours and slopes and flatten them.[/color]


In the end, my definition is verbose, for sure.  But it is also correct, and as much as it hurts, you can't help but agree with it, can you?

No, I can't agree, but, TEPaul, the master of verbosity might.[/color]

The ONLY possible answer to your first question is indeed the negative.

Then why do you contradict yourself again, just seven paragraphs above ?  Can't you make up your mind ?[/color]

That is unless you want to change the meaning of words.  Now you don't want to do that, do you Pat?

No. "less challenging" and "mundane" are pretty straight forward and easy for most to understand.  It's unfortunate that you just can't grasp the definition and concept.[/color]

ps - oh would that you had used the word "or" instead of "and".. then I could have given you the affirmation you crave so deeply.  But I guess logic as well as vocabulary is left out of that South Bend education.

I'll try to use small words so that you can understand the concept.

1   If you remove the contours and slopes in greens by
    flattening them you diminish the challenge.

2   If you remove the contours and slopes in greens by
    flattening them you make those greens mundane, or
    ordinary, by removing their distinctive character.

Surely, even you, without TEPaul's assistance, can figure that out.[/color]

[THuckaby2]

Sorry Patrick, you lose.

Every single thing you say there is just plain wrong.

Need I quote the definition of the word "mundane" again?  It certainly does not mean simply "ordinary".  Go read the definition, it might help.

Nope, never did change my mind, not even close.  I also never contradicted myself.  I was asked if all of that made the game "less challenging and mundane"; to which the answer is clearly no... Had you asked if the game was just made less challenging, the obvious answer is yes.  But you didn't ask that, Pat.   Nice try, though.

Had you just said "less interesting or mundane", I would have said yes.  I likely would have added the qualifier "less interesting, yes; mundane, no" because that word is just so wrong for your statement, but what the hell.

I repeat:  words have meaning.  Choose them properly and you might get the results you seek, or expect.

You win all the time, but you've clearly lost this.  The referees have stepped in and ruled it a TKO for Huckaby, in a huge upset.  But it's ok.  Your W/L percentage is FAR better than that of your alma mater's hapless football team.







 

[THuckaby2]

By the way, just for kicks, as the king of parsing words, why don't you point to me what parts of the following statement you disagree with?

"The impact of improved technology in golf, in the form of drivers that are ever-easier to hit long and straight, and utility clubs that make long, high, solid shots off the fairway and out of the rough ever easier, combined with the need for speed in putting surfaces resulting in their flattening all too often, has all converged in the form of a "perfect storm" that has rendered golf less challenging than it ever has been, with the danger that too many players will become less interested in it to the point some might give it up completely if this continues unchecked."

You just said you couldn't agree with this Pat.

Oh my, oh my... did the great Pat Mucci... no I can't say it.... contradict himself?

God I am loving this.  The man has absolutely no leg to stand on here... and new heights of gall have been reached as he has the audacity to give someone else a hard time for nitpickng words... Has a pot ever called a kettle black more perfectly?

This is a great night in GCA history.  One for the record books, really.





 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry Patrick, you lose.

Every single thing you say there is just plain wrong.

Need I quote the definition of the word "mundane" again?  It certainly does not mean simply "ordinary".  Go read the definition, it might help.

Here are some:

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

Mundane:  2 characterized by the practical, transitory and ordinary.

Webster's Thesaurus:

Commonplace, everyday, lowly.[/color]

Nope, never did change my mind, not even close.  I also never contradicted myself.

Tom, one only has to read the words you typed to see how you changed your position and contradicted yourself.
I didn't make up those quotes you typed them.[/color]

I was asked if all of that made the game "less challenging and mundane"; to which the answer is clearly no... Had you asked if the game was just made less challenging, the obvious answer is yes.  But you didn't ask that, Pat.   Nice try, though.

I clearly asked if the game had become less challenging and mundane.  I can't help it if you have a limited grasp of the word mundane.[/color]

Had you just said "less interesting or mundane", I would have said yes.  I likely would have added the qualifier "less interesting, yes; mundane, no" because that word is just so wrong for your statement, but what the hell.

Let's see, you don't think that removing the contours and slopes from greens makes them mundane, ordinary, commonplace or lowly ?  Is that correct ?[/color]

I repeat:  words have meaning.  Choose them properly and you might get the results you seek, or expect.

I can't help it if you have a limited vocabulary.
Perhaps, another choice in colleges might have helped.
But, it's too late now.[/color]

You win all the time, but you've clearly lost this.  The referees have stepped in and ruled it a TKO for Huckaby, in a huge upset.  But it's ok.  Your W/L percentage is FAR better than that of your alma mater's hapless football team.
It's interesting that you've chosen to continue to delude yourself.   Which referees  ?  JES II ?  Bill Gayne ?  Redanman ?  If you look closely, you'll see that you've already been outvoted by the impartial participants, the referees you allude to.

As they said in "Midnight Express", "the bad machines don't know they're bad."   [/color]

[THuckaby2]

Yahoooo!

Absolute proof has just been given - the man is delusional, or simply can't read.

You can't just pick and choose one part of a definition, Pat, not can you use only a secondary definition to suit your purpose - that too is just plain wrong.  Mundane means "ordinary" like all Notre Dame football players are "Irish".  Of course in each case that's PART of the definition, but far from the whole meaning.

Mundane has a MUCH stronger connotation than "ordinary".  That's plain and simple for the whole world to see.

Tell ya what.  Change mundane to "ordinary" in your initial postl and again you would have received the craved affirmation.

But you remain WRONG WRONG WRONG and the crowd is going crazy as Huckaby dances around the ring over the fallen Mucci then goes to his neutral corner... the refs step in as Mucci struggles to his feet... but no, he can't go on!  TKO for Huckaby!

This has been very, very fun.  



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Tom, please stop self medicating yourself, you're hallucinating.
Just look at the 1st and 3rd paragraphs below.

In the 1st paragraph you ask me where I disagree,
and then, in the 3rd paragraph, you tell me I disagreed.

Would you cite where I disagreed with your 2nd paragraph ?
[/color]

By the way, just for kicks, as the king of parsing words, why don't you point to me what parts of the following statement you disagree with?

"The impact of improved technology in golf, in the form of drivers that are ever-easier to hit long and straight, and utility clubs that make long, high, solid shots off the fairway and out of the rough ever easier, combined with the need for speed in putting surfaces resulting in their flattening all too often, has all converged in the form of a "perfect storm" that has rendered golf less challenging than it ever has been, with the danger that too many players will become less interested in it to the point some might give it up completely if this continues unchecked."

You just said you couldn't agree with this Pat.

Where ?[/color]

Oh my, oh my... did the great Pat Mucci... no I can't say it.... contradict himself?

NO[/color]

God I am loving this.  The man has absolutely no leg to stand on here... and new heights of gall have been reached as he has the audacity to give someone else a hard time for nitpickng words... Has a pot ever called a kettle black more perfectly?

You continue to hallucinate and delude yourself.
Please, call Dr Katz at his emergency 800 number.[/color]

This is a great night in GCA history.  One for the record books, really.

Mushrooms don't become you.[/color]


 

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Now it is clear that reading has to be added to logic and vocabulary as subjects you are lacking in.

I stated several posts ago that there was no way you could possibly disagree with my improved definition, and you said yes, yes you could.  Go back and read.  Here, I'll help you out again:

In the end, my definition is verbose, for sure.  But it is also correct, and as much as it hurts, you can't help but agree with it, can you?
No, I can't agree, but, TEPaul, the master of verbosity might.

Wow...  Denial of your own words in a misguided attempt to win an argument in which the opponent is obviously screwing with you... that is getting scary.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

One only has to read the posts of JES II, Bill Gayne and Redanman to get a sense of who's right and who's wrong.

Also, don't quote a single or selective sentences, quote your entire passage.

I disagreed with your verbose statement, and that's no conflict or contradiction in my position.

You keep forgetting what you wrote, in its entirety.
Read your entire passage, not just a sentence or two that may suit your eroneous conclusions.

Perhaps Santa Clara offers night courses in reading comprehension.

[DMoriarty]

I read Patrick's initial post and my immediate thought was a very mature . . ."no duh, Patrick, welcome to five years ago."

But then I saw Tom' "yes duh" and I realized it is not quite so obvious to everyone.  

But "mundane" works for me.   Trying to hit the dented "200" sign from the upper deck at the Rancho Park driving range is more challenge than I can ever handle, but it is just not that interesting or compelling in the long run.  It's mundane.  I get damn exciting when I do it, but it is not exciting or interesting enough to bring me back.  Some people love this sort of thing, but then they dont need a golf course, do they?
When golf on a golf course is about nothing more than hitting the ball straight and far, it is mundane.  

For those that think that the top 0.1 percent don't matter aren't paying attention to the influence the pro game has on perceptions of the average player, developers, and designers.  Pros hit is a mile straight, so misguided clubs and courses make everything long and narrow.  Mundane.  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I went to bed last night happy about two things regarding this forum:

1. I jerked you around big time in this, giving you a wonderful dose of your own medicine; and

2. I KNEW you'd stay up and get the last word.

Oh what a beautiful morning!

If you care to play with this some more, I would be interested in what parts of my definition you disagree with.  I think it sums up the issue perfectly.  I'm guessing it's a matter of degrees.... but we shall see.

So Dave, kudos to you for immediately grasping what Patrick so brutally failed to pick up on:  my entire take here is that "mundane" is too strong of a word in Patrick's initial statement.  Go read the entirety of the definition of that, and perhaps you might understand my take better.  Say the game is becoming less challenging, fine.  Say it is becoming easier, fine.  But mundane?  Not now, not yet.  That is too strong of a word.  And that's it, that's the entirety of my "disagreement" no matter how many words he tries to put in my keyboard.

Of course I also don't see that happening in the future, which ought to come as no surprise given my typically sunny outlook on things.  Golf technology has constantly improved, making the game constantly that much less of a challenge relative to previous eras.  Yes, we live in an era now where leaps and bounds seem to be happening, but is it SO different from the move from guttie to haskell ball... or hickory to steel shafts?  The game is always going to seem easier for those who played in earlier, more difficult eras... But given there will always be a human element involved in swinging the club, well.... to me mundane seems far too strong of a word.  I guess I just don't see all these great golfers denting 200 signs that you do.  Most people I play with still struggle mightily.

Of course I expect you, and Patrick, to disagree with my take.  But perhaps my point is better explained now that Patrick's TKO is official and there's no need to screw with him any more.





 

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  In your stretch to pat yourself on the back (for what I am not sure) you seem to have blocked your view of your computer monitor.   The description 'mundane' is not too extreme.    I didnt say the game was becoming  easier for the vast majority of us.  I said it was becoming less interesting, with less variety, less novelty.  Mundane.  

[Sean_A]

The game has certainly gotten easier.  Some courses may be tougher and longer, but gaining distance and accuracy has gotten easier in my lifetime (41 years), there is no question about this.  I hit the ball further now (not necessarily straighter) than when I was a flat belly playing nearly every day of the week.  There are shots I can play with a driver today, that I could never dream of 22 years ago.  Back then I had to shape the ball much more. Now I can hit over trees etc.

However, the game is not mundane for me.  Watching the pros play is usually mundane, but it doesn't effect me.  It's not my profession so I really don't care.  I still believe the answer for "mundane" golf is less clubs and reducing the range of loft (to say 13 - 50 degrees).  8 or 9 is more than enough sticks to get the job done.

Ciao

Sean  

[Alfie]

Patrick asked ;
Is the impact of high-tech and distance, specialty clubs and the need for speed with the flatening of putting surfaces conveging to form the perfect storm that will render golf less challenging and mundane ?

Yes. Absolutely mundane - a few years more years along the line !

ex today's Scotsman - comment by Peter Thomson.
"In 1955, the arrogance of youth raised my expectations and I thought I would do well," Thomson remarked in a long conversation with this correspondent before the 2000 staging of the Open in St Andrews. "In some respects, the Open fell into my lap that year, though not without a few scary moments along the way. The fellow who came second that summer was Johnny Fallon. He was a Scot who lived in Huddersfield and was a bit of an expert round the Old Course. I was bowling along nicely on the last day until I made 7 at the 14th. Twice I was in sand and twice I had to go backwards. Now there are teams of bunker rakers and I haven’t see anyone go backwards for years. The 60-degree wedge plus the fact that everyone now has an uphill lie takes all the terror out of those bunkers."

Taking all the TERROR out of those bunkers (the same bunkers 000,s of shit golfers flock to play every year ?) could, IMO, translate to making one part of the game - mundane !

ex Oxford Concise ; mundane, adj., dull, routine.

A bit like shooting darts / arrows ? Long - high - and straight.....and mundane !

Alfie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

You just don't understand and are unwilling to grasp the meaning of the word "mundane".

It was not too strong, it was an apt description of greens that have had their contours and slopes diminished or removed.

Dave Moriarty hit the nail on the head.   Why you've continue to pat yourself on the back when everyone else feels you've lost your way and the debate, is a mystery and just delusional on your part.

Forget the challenge issue for the moment.

Just think of playing nothing but flat, fast greens, void of contour and slope and tell me if you would find that exciting, or boring ...... mundane ?



 

[guesst]

Is the impact of high-tech and distance, specialty clubs and the need for speed with the flatening of putting surfaces conveging to form the perfect storm that will render golf less challenging and mundane ?

Does the improvement in timbre and functionality of the trumpet and bassoon over the centuries render playing them less of a challenge?  

Does the technical improvement of the piano and the perfecting of the hammer mechanism make playing the piano more mundane today than it was on the less technically perfect instruments of Beethoven's era?

Are you still using LP records, crackle and all, in order to sidestep the mundane sound of orchestral music unadulterated by 21rst century technological developments?  

Is playing golf any less an art than is making music?  Is the golfer less an artist than the musician?  

If it is becoming mundane to you, may I suggest going back to your persimmons?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()