[Rick Shefchik]

I agree wholeheartedly with Dan King; even if every poster on this board has picked up 5 or even 15 yards of distance because of better ball and clubmaking technology, we are not threatening to overpower the great courses of America. It is only the smallest percentage of golfers -- the pros -- who are creating the perception that courses need to be pinched, lengthened or land-mined at the 300-yard mark.

I think it would be a dreadful idea to place booby traps where the elite players land their drives, because the rest of us -- and here I'm speaking of the vast majority of golfers, most of whom are not as good as those who post on this site -- will eventually have to hit a shot into or over those booby traps. It might be our second, third or fourth shot, but in any event such barriers will ultimately affect the less-talented golfer more than the more talented golfer.

I'm not inherently opposed to cross bunkers, but to put enough of them down on every hole to faze Daly or Tiger, you would have too many of them on too many holes.

Dan King is correct -- it's a terrible idea to fundamentally alter perfectly good (and great) golf courses just to keep pros from using their drivers. I think we should be less concerned about whether the pros shoot 58 (they ought be using a competition ball anyway) than whether the average golfer breaks 100.

Rick

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Jim Kennedy,

Your initial suggestion creates more of a difficult situation for the second shot from the higher handicap.

An angled cross bunker would give them the option to lay up or go for it, hence everyone is served, not penalized.

TEPaul, if one designed cross bunkers in the mold of the top shot bunkers, they should be designed such that it is consistently difficult to reach the green from that bunker.
Formulaic in that sense if you prefer  

BCrosby,

It wouldn't be a pinched area, fairways would remain the same width or wider.

Gary Smith,

Because that is a principle that has existed in architecture for decades if not centuries.

TEPaul,

You're correct, PV is a great example of their repetitive use, without diminishing the merits of the course, play or game.

Dan King,

Because college kids at NCAA competitions are hitting it farther then the tour players, and enhanced distance is being experienced by more and more players of all handicaps, throughout the game.  The game is changing with distance the primary factor.  A study concluded that golfers who hit it in the rough, but 20 yards farther than golfers who hit it in the fairway on a given hole, scored better.  I don't know if you're old enough to remember "flyers" but with the new equipment, golfers don't have to deal with uncontrolable
shots from the rough anymore.  

Rich Shefchik,

I'm 60 years old and have played two 7,200 + golf courses in Florida with little difficulty over the last 10 years.

When I was 25, a 7,200 + golf course would have eaten me alive.  There is no way I could have handled a course that was considered MONSTER length at the time.  Yet, I was bigger, faster, stronger, more flexible, and in terrific condition as I played league basketball, football and hockey.  I could dunk, throw, run, catch, hit and skate.  
I CAN DO NONE OF THE ABOVE TODAY.......YET
I CAN HIT A GOLF BALL FARTHER.
IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick --

You know very well what's wrong with that picture:

You're 60 years old!

How in the hell can that be -- when, just yesterday, you were dunking the ball?

Not to answer for my colleague Mr. Shefchik, but for myself: Join the campaign for a Competition Ball, which both Rick and I support and which, furthermore, we would happily play with -- and you'll no longer have to worry about overpowering those 7,200-yard courses of today and those 8,000-courses when you're 75. And golf-course owners and superintendents and architects won't have to come up with goofier and goofier ways to make their golf courses longer and more claustrophobic and less fun.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

Not surprisingly, I disagree with the idea.

Cross bunkers would negate the superior skill of the long ball hitter.  If  "A" hits it farther than player "B", doesn't "A" deserve an advantage?

Playing Devil's Advocate, what would you say to a golf course that somehow negated a golfer's superior ability to shape his irons both ways?

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
Because college kids at NCAA competitions are hitting it farther then the tour players,

Oh no, hold the phones! Instead of courses being changed to challenge the top 0.05 percent of golfers, it is actually closer to 0.1 or maybe even 0.2 percent.  Wow, those numbers make all the difference.

and enhanced distance is being experienced by more and more players of all handicaps, throughout the game.

But how many of them still find plenty of challenge at Merion? How many would still enjoy a game at Augusta playing from the member tees? I can sit on my back porch and watch golfers play the 13th hole at the Villages (380 yards downhill) and I’ve yet to see anyone play the hole perfectly. I’ve never even seen anyone score a two. Despite all this excessive distance these golfers are buying, much more than half of them score higher than a four or five.

The game is changing with distance the primary factor.

Distance has always been an advantage in golf. When shepherds beat rocks with their shillelaghs the one that hit it furthest had a huge advantage over the short knocker. The reason why Runyan vs. Snead at the 1938 PGA Championship is a big story is because it was rare for the big hitter to get whupped by the wimp.

A study concluded that golfers who hit it in the rough, but 20 yards farther than golfers who hit it in the fairway on a given hole, scored better.

What study is that? Any chance someone trying to sell drivers or wedges were involved?

I don't know if you're old enough to remember "flyers" but with the new equipment, golfers don't have to deal with uncontrolable shots from the rough anymore.

Sure, I remember flyers. I still get ‘em in the rough. I see plenty of my friends getting ‘em too.

If we are modifying courses because the best players aren’t getting flyers then why not outlaw wedges? Or how about limit the better players to seven clubs. They aren’t going to dedicate a wedge to one that only prevents flyers. There are plenty of cheaper and less destructive options than screwing up courses. Virtual golf for better players makes more sense than constantly changing courses because players are getting better.  Then you just program in the flyer specification.

So you’re hitting the ball further now?  Having trouble being challenged by your home course? Has your medal course record dropped by around 18 shots? How about your ringer score, is it 18 shots better than it was a decade ago? You play a lot of courses, which of the great old classics did you used to enjoy that you now find boring?

Professor P.F. Tait of Edinburgh University once worked on a theory that the gutta-percha ball could be driven no farther than 191 yards. His son, Freddie, tore that theory to shreds. One of the finest golfers of his time, Freddie drove the green of the thirteenth hole at St. Andrews, a distance of 341 yards, and the shot was said to have carried 250 yards.
 --Robert T. Sommers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

When guys are driving the ball 350 and 400 yards, tell me what skill remains in hitting sand wedges to the green ?

Dan King,

It's the emerging all-encompassing trend.  The distance the ball is being hit is rendering the intent of the original architecture null and void, and the trend will continue to do so for most every level of golfer.

Rather than examine my scores, examine the trend of the previous generation as they aged.  The distance they hit the ball, the deterioration of their games and scores as they aged.  Me and my generation should have experienced that same trend, not reversed it.  

IF MY PUTTING HAD REMAINED AS SHARP AS IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO, MY SCORES WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH LOWER THESE PAST TEN YEARS.

RAY CHARLES HAS FEWER PUTTS PER GREEN THEN I DO.

Dan Kelly,

I've always been in favor of the competition ball, but as my original post on this thread says, you may have to wait a while before that happens, so in the interim, cross bunkers would provide an excellent inhibitor.

But, that's just my opinion.

There, is where my game has slipped tremendously

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

Well, I could ask you: When a guy hits a majestic draw with a one iron to within tap-in distance of the hole, what skill is invoveld in sinking the six inch putt?

Golf is about hitting the shot that'll make the next one easier.  That's the skill.

[TEPaul]

On the subject of "fliers" and the fact that they may not be something a golfer gets many of today.

I was always under the impression that "square grooves" made "fliers" a thing of the past because square grooves put more spin on the ball because of the grooves themselves! That was certainly the universal impression when the Ping Eye2 came along and during the Ping vs USGA lawsuit. It was even thought that Ping invented the "square grooves" or even pushed the USGA B&I rules envelop with the "square grooves" themselves. No such thing!

The Ping Eye2 issue was solely over "radiusing" and technical measurement interpretation issues within the B&I rules relating to "radiusing", and not the "square grooves" themselves. For many years before the Ping Eye2 issue both "V" and also "square" or "box" grooves were legal.

I can't remember if I mentioned this on here before and I know this will probably start a debate but I was absolutely assured (and very surprised) last year by none other than Barney Adams that the grooves themselves ("square" or "V") have virtually nothing to do with putting spin on the ball--and only function in that capacity in an indirect sense!

Barney Adams calls grooves "garbage cans" and claims that the larger the groove displacement is the greater capacity the grooves have to collect more "garbage" off the face of the club. Clearly Barney was indicating that a clean "garbage free" club face is what produces spin (even out of the rough) and prevents "fliers"--which I suppose are something akin to low spin "knuckle balls" coming off a face with "garbage" on it!

So to prevent "fliers" don't forget to keep the face of your irons clean and definitely the grooves too, although according to Barney the "square" grooves are larger and consequently  more effective "garbage cans" than the "V" grooves.

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
It's the emerging all-encompassing trend.

No it's not.

You can follow up to this post saying yes it is, and I'll follow up saying no it is not. We could go on for weeks this way.

Every seen this quote?

I really do not see why we should allow the Haskell to come in. It should be slaughtered at the ports. The discovery of a ball that flies considerably further would be a menace to the game of golf. It would immediately make all of our holes the wrong length.
  --Manchester Guardian, 1901

The Haskell was a real problem.  A ball that still fits within the Rules ODS is only a problem for a small percentage of golfers.

The distance the ball is being hit is rendering the intent of the original architecture null and void, and the trend will continue to do so for most every level of golfer.

Can you enjoy yourself at Merion? Exactly which of the great classic courses is no longer a challenge for you?

Rather than examine my scores, examine the trend of the previous generation as they aged.  The distance they hit the ball, the deterioration of their games and scores as they aged.  Me and my generation should have experienced that same trend, not reversed it.

Oh no, equipment is making it so older players can still enjoy the game. Well that's a serious problem. We need to nip that in the bud. By 60 you guys should be hating golf. What we want is golf to be like every other sport, where you got to give up the game as you get older. THe last thing we need is a bunch of old guys out in the fresh air enjoying themselves.

You guys are coming up with solutions to a non-issue. There are so many other ways to combat this problem of a very small number of players not being sufficiently challenged.  Look for answers that are cheaper, better and faster than altering courses and I'm sure everyone can come up with alternatives. Why the obsession with the expensive and destructive choice?

"There is no shape nor size of body, no awkwardness nor ungainliness, which puts good golf beyond reach. There are good golfers with spectacles, with one eye, with one leg, even with one arm. In golf, while there is life there is hope."
  --Sir Walter Simpson  (The Art of Golf)

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

You say these guys are coming up with solutions to a non-issue, that this only concerns a small group of players and you say there are easier and cheaper ways to solve this problem.

I was under the impression that almost all these guys are advocating the "Competition ball" to solve this problem for this small group of really good golfers. Of course they would have to use it in competition but anyone not playing competition golf could use another ball like anything we have today.

I can't see it could get much easier or cheaper than that. Of course the USGA will have to make a few decisions on some things that concern them like handicap issues but all they really need to do in those veins is just make the decisions because there is always a solution for problems and those ones really aren't all that hard.

[Paul Turner]

Isn't this solution similar to Seve's cross mounds, added to the 17th at Valderama before the '97 Ryder Cup, to negate Tiger's length.  

I don't remember that being too popular!

[D. Kilfara]

How fast is "technology", both in terms of clubs/balls and swing technique/fitness (for I think the problem is related to both issues), outpacing golf course architecture? It seems as though players are gaining length at a faster rate than ever before - you guys are talking about 350-400 yard drives being a phenomenon of the near future, whereas the last leap of that size was...well, I don't know when it was, but we're probably talking Haskell, aren't we? I think the real hope all of us should have is that the rate of increase speeds up so quickly, and becomes so noticeable, that the USGA/R&A wind up having no choice but to institute a competition ball.

Personally, cross-bunkers on the order being discussed strike me as the last hope of a soon-to-be-obsolescent game, rather than something to be embraced in the here and now.

Cheers,
Darren

(Tom/Mike - you're making me wonder where in my Mom's house my tape of the 1986 Masters is, and if it's not in fact worth retrieiving just to watch the whole darn thing again even though 25% of the screen has been rendered illegible! I can only hope to see another golf tournament like that in my lifetime.)

[THuckaby2]

Glad you found the commentary, Darren.  And yeah, my tape is getting so worn also I'm investigating conversion to DVD for security purposes!

TH

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
You say these guys are coming up with solutions to a non-issue, that this only concerns a small group of players and you say there are easier and cheaper ways to solve this problem.

I’m saying for the overwhelming number of golfers there is no distance problem. When those of you who think there is a problem try to create solutions for a very limited problem, you are saying, despite the numbers, that the pro game is much more important than the amateur game. I don’t agree. If I sit outside on my back patio and saw all the old coots who play the Villages driving the 13th green (or maybe just getting it to the 150-yard marker on this 388-yard downhill hole) I’d feel concerned. I don’t see anything like that.

Since we are using anecdotal evidence: My Dad took up golf after he hit 60. He went out and bought an old set of clubs, laminated woods, blades, a bulls-eye putter, that sort of stuff. He struggled with the game, but continued to play because it gave us some time together. On his 65th birthday I gave him a set of Calloway Clubs (this was before I boycotted them.) He started to enjoy the game. He could now use that Big Bertha driver to get off the tee. He wasn’t suddenly driving greens, shooting course records, or even beating me, but he was enjoying the game more. He was still playing golf. He wasn’t shooting the ball out there with a cannon or anything – it was still his swing, but the new technology helped him to enjoy the game.

If what it took for my Dad to enjoy the game was allowing the pros to shoot level 3s at Augusta, I got no problem with technology.

I was under the impression that almost all these guys are advocating the "Competition ball" to solve this problem for this small group of really good golfers.

Some are, some aren’t. I’d rather see a competition ball than modifying courses. I’d call it the lesser of two evils.  If you read this thread, there is talk about modifying courses to combat the distance problem.

I can't see it could get much easier or cheaper than that.

What would be easier and cheaper – A competition ball or limiting golf competitions to seven clubs? Both will probably involve lawyers, but one will require a whole new manufacturing process and one won’t.  What would be cheaper, outlawing clubs in competition of less than a certain loft or a competition ball? If the objective is to get pros to hit a two-iron then make them hit two-irons.

Golf will grow so long as it's fun.
 --Tom Watson, 1978

[Dan King]

My old boss at GolfWeb wrote this a few years back (again, don't let the PGA Tour know that there is access to old GolfWeb material) about Nicklaus in 1986.
Click here for 1986: The Golden Bear's last roar at Augusta by Stu Schneider

(I'm sure someone will use this piece against me in my above argument about how meaningless the pros' games are to me. I'll say up front, I really got no answer for that.)

"It was a great time I'll remember forever. It was the greatest stretch of golf I ever played -- when I needed it. I still watch film of '86 from time to time. I want to make sure it really happened."
 --Jack Nicklaus (re-calling his 6th Masters victory in 1986)

[D. Kilfara]

From the piece Dan just referenced:

"CHIRKINIAN: It was a wonderful moment. Here's this stoic Nazi, suddenly showing emotion. It was a wonderful, tender scene."

Did I read that right? Chirkinian called Nicklaus a "stoic Nazi"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

I guess I didn't make my point clear.

If I'm hitting it further at 60 than at 25, then I've sustained a reasonable game far beyond what I could have sustained had I been age 60 in 1955.  Have I benefited from allowing technology to offset the aging process, sure, but the next two generations, and the ones to follow, will make golf courses as I have known and experienced them, obsolete architectually.

When young college golfers and teenagers hit the ball further than Jack Nicklaus ever did in his prime, it can't bode well for traditional courses as we've known them.

Previous advancements never produced the quantum leaps that have occured in the last 5-10 years. and, golf courses could respond because ample land was usually available to lengthen the course over an extended period of time.  
Many, if not most courses are lengthened to their limits.

You can stick your head in the sand, but almost every level of golfer acknowledges the problem, from touring PROS, to
PROvalones like us.

Jeremy,

That's why the STYMIE never should have been done away with.

But, your analogy is flawed, you were intended to make or concede short putts, you were never intended to consistently drive the green on 350-400 yard par 4's.  By-passing or
Air-mailing the architectual features meant to challenge you.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

Sometimes the best way to get rid of a problem is to redefine the issue so that the problem goes away. What if we decide that people who play Big Bertha's (or whatever your poison)are only hurting themselves? What if we decide that traditional golf courses will play as intended for those who want that and will be airmailed by those who want to hit wedges all day? Lengthen the courses as space allows and then let even the 65 year-olds who want non-traditional distance (whatever that is) define their own golf world. Call them "superballers" if you need to. Tell them that they are not playing the game the "way it was meant to be played", but ultimately forget about them if that is your choice. If the pros ruin Augusta for themselves or the winner shoots 33 under par, that won't damage the fun I have on the course. Just a sugestion, a kind of thinking out of the tee box if you will.

By the way, the occasional cross bunker is a fine way to strategize a golf hole as are TEPaul's suggestions for randomized trouble spots. Those are good possible methods along with adding length, in my opinion.

[Robert_Walker]

There have been 2 "quantum" leaps in distance recently that can be attributed to "technology"
1-Titanium drivers circa 1997
2-Pro v 1 type balls circa 2000.
The rest of the increase is due to course conditioning, player fitness, swing improvement, and the ability to match equipment to swing speeds and types.

I predict that there will not be any more "quantum" leaps.

In 1995, Tiger hit driver, wedge on the 15th hole at Augusta, using an old TaylorMade driver, Mizuno wedge, and a 90 compression wound Titleist ball.
 

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

I'm gonna just tell you straight my friend! It's fun, it's interesting sometimes, to listen to some of your ideas about golf and how to handle the problems in golf today and its future, but there comes a time when discussion group verbiage ends and reality really should take over!

The distance increases of the tour pros and better players is obviously getting to be some sort of a problem, if not in your reality, certainly in the perception of enough golfers today to do something about it!

And as such, something probably needs to be done about it. I couldn't agree more with you that the distance problem most likely only effects a select and limited group of golfers! And as such something efficient and cost effective could be done about it! A "competition ball" has been discussed and considered by many people, tour pros as well as the regulatory bodies although they might not admit it at this moment. It would seem to be an excellent solution, a relatively simple and cost effective solution given all the problems and obstacles in golf and in manufacturing in general!

That solution is certainly better than redesigning courses or any courses other than those that the select few may play or compete on, and it seems you definitely agree with that!

The fact seems to be you have absolutely no respect for Tour Pro golf! You've said for a long time that it would not disturb you if it became "virtual reality" golf. Obviously you are airing your distain for professional golf and particularly Tour pro professional golf! I don't think your sentiments are shared by golfers generally or the world's golf viewing public! If anyone seriously thinks so, following diliberate and informed consideration, I, for one, would be very surprised.

Your recommendations, in a post of yours about even the thought of making tour players play with seven golf clubs vs the easier solutions and advantages of a competiton ball are the most preposterous ideas I've heard recently even from people who have only a small idea about golf and its future.

I've never considered you to be included in that group of hip-shooting uninformed opinions, so maybe you should think a bit more realistically about this overall problem--I think you have the ability to do that--that's for sure!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

You remind me of the patent office official in the early 1900's, who indicated he favored closing the office because everything had just about been invented.

Yep, progress and technology are dead !
Stopped in their tracks by....... wishful thinking.

So from 1997 to 2001, just four (4) short years, two huge leaps take place, but you're certain, in fact, positive, no further improvements can take place.

A billion dollar industry is STYMIED.

Look to sell your stocks as they prepare to liquidate.

Would you state that for the record sir ?

[Mike Cirba]

Robert Walker;

Where was the USGA and R&A during the two "quantum leaps" in the past 5 years that you mentioned?

Today, it's technically possible to create a golf-sized ball that travels over 400 yards by an average player.  It would not be legal because it would not meet current USGA requirements.

However, those two quantum leaps you mentioned took place under current USGA requirements.  The fact is; the requirements are based on science that is incomplete.  The research labs of the equipment companies can outspend and outmanuveur them, and clearly have.

If you think technology is now unable to continue this arms race, I believe you are mistaken.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The Stymie

A stymie was possible only in matches involving one ball per side.  On the putting green, if two players' balls were more than six inches apart, there was no provision for the ball nearer the hole to be lifted.   If that ball lay directly in the way to the hole of the ball to be played then the player was 'stymied.'
He could try to play around or over the interfering ball, but if the nearer ball was struck, no penalty ensued. However, the opponent had the option of playing the ball as it lay or replacing it.   If the nearer ball had been knocked into the hole the opponent was considered to have holed out with his previous stroke.
The stymie was really born by default. In the original rules of 1744 only when balls were touching could one be lifted.
This was adjusted by the Gentlemen Golfers Of Leith in 1775 to touching or within 6 inches of each other.
1789- Gentlemen Golfers introduced this rule: 'In all time coming, in case in playing over the links any ball shall lye in the way of his opponent's the distance of six inches upon the hole green, it shall be in the power of the party playing to cause his opponent to move said ball'.
1812- St Andrews re-worded the rule slightly, but the principle of the stymie remained:  'When the balls lie within six inches of one another, the ball nearest the hole must be lifted till the other is played, but on the putting green it shall not be lifted, although within six inches, unless it lie directly between the other and the hole'.
1830- Montrose code specified that the rule did not apply to stroke play or four-balls.
Sept 1833- St Andrews Golfers voted to abolish it, but it was reinstated the following year (by the now R&A) as 'When the balls lie within six inches of each other in any situation the ball nearest the hole to be lifted until the other is played'.
The word stymie only appeared in the rules rarely: Musselburgh 1834, 1851 and 1858 R&A, applied to all stroke play. The USGA used the term in notes to Rule 31 in 1938 and 1947.  However, all the rules books of the 20th century, up to its abolition, used 'Stymie' in the index.
1891- R&A rules vaguely tried to remove the stymie from stroke play, stating that the ball may be lifted by the owner if he felt that it may be of advantage to the other player, or 'throughout the green' a player could have any ball lifted which might interfere with his stroke - but 'throughout the green' was not defined.
1899- Stroke Rule 11 and Medal Rule 9 stated the same thing.
The wording was made much clearer in 1902.
1920- USGA had a one-year trial of allowing the stymied player to concede his opponent's next putt.
1938- USGA introduced a modified stymie rule, initially for a trial period of two years, allowing a ball within 6 ins of the hole to be lifted if it was interfering, regardless of distance between balls. The rule was subsequently made permanent from 1941.
1950- abolished by USGA completely, but the organisations affiliated to the R&A were not inclined to do away with it.
Finally abolished worldwide in the joint rules of 1952. Now, lifting on the putting green was at option of owner or opponent if it was felt that the ball would interfere or be of assistance.
1956- In match play, the rule was changed such that the ball nearer the hole could only be lifted at the request of the player about to play.   In effect, the player about to play had 'control' over his opponent's ball.
From 1984, a ball may be lifted if it may interfere with or assist another player in all forms of play.
A small echo of the stymie can still be found in the Rules - on the putting green if a player's putt strikes an opponent's ball, there is no penalty in match play but it's a two-stroke penalty in stroke play.

[Robert_Walker]

so Patrick Mucci.....do you agree with me? It seems like, at last, you do!
 

[THuckaby2]

Dan King: Thank you VERY much for posting that piece re '86!  That's as good a play-by-play as anyone could have done... funny thing is, us Nicklaus devotees could likely recite all that chapter and verse anyway!

It did answer my question re Nantz' call on 16, handing it to Weiskopf.  His idea and freakin' brilliant.  I shall never say a bad word about him again (if I ever have - I actually kinda like him).

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()