Surely you jest right? You do realize that most golfers can't even hit it 250 off the tee today, even with modern equipment.
No, not at all. And I know most golfers don't hit it 250.
My point was that 20% is huge. If the ball is rolled back 20%, Rory's gonna hit it 250 and the average golfer's 200-yard drives are going to go 160. That's nuts, IMO.
But somehow we've still managed to find tee boxes for those folks.
20% is huge, though… I'm aware that you can do the math, but for my own sake: I've said that "6500 yards is enough for 95% of the world's golfers." I believe it, and I've rarely gotten any push-back from anyone on it. So, with a 20% roll-back, 6500 yards becomes 5200. How many courses even have tees at 5200? Maybe all of them, but remember then: these are the new BACK tees, and everything else will have to be short of them. The existing 6000 yard tees would have to move to 4800, the 5600 yard tees would move to 4480, and the 5200-yard tees that may or may not exist now would have to be moved up to about 4160.
That's a lot of new construction, forced on every golf course that doesn't have tees at about 3600 yards and out (3600 being the current equivalent of 4500), if the ball is rolled back.
But wouldn't it be great to see pros having to actually figure out a 450 yard par 4 again, instead of driver/wedge, wash, rinse, repeat...
But again… I don't care about the pros. They're a tiny portion of the game, and they play on courses that choose to have them, with boards and owners and whatnot that choose to add the tees they need or whatever. I don't care that the winning score at the U.S. Open was -13 (on a course that was about 7000 yards).
BTW, a 450-yard hole is the modern equivalent of a 563-yard hole. That's a helluva par four. 20% is a lot.
Erik makes the same canned responses here and the NLU discussion board. It really is pointless in trying to engage him in any discussion.
They're not "canned responses" - they're my opinion. Should my opinion change from site to site? I disagree with many of you (here, I'm in a clear minority, which is fine by me) that there's a "distance problem" in need of radical solutions like "20% reduction!" Do your opinions differ depending on the site you're on?
I absolutely recognize that it's not anyone's job to do so, but still, nobody's convinced me yet that there's a problem, and I think some here can get so wrapped up in talking with like-minded people who agree with you that you don't get as much outside perspective as may be beneficial. Trust me, I'm not aggrandizing myself there in speaking for the "outside perspective" - I only offer MY perspective. But how often do you ask yourselves "gee, how big is a 20% rollback, really? Where would that put us in golf's timeline, and what would 99.9% of the world's golfing population think if they suddenly hit their driver as far as they used to hit their 5-hybrid"?
If you don't want to respond, Hoover, by all means, please don't. If "Ignore" actually worked here at GCA, I'd suggest that. I'm just posting my opinion, my thoughts.
FWIW, MattM has talked with me on the NLU site that "nobody's saying 20%" (paraphrased; I doubt he literally said "nobody") and yet, here we are, talking about 20%.
20% is nuts.
Rollback isn't just about golf, there's a much bigger picture than that. It's land use, water allocations and a whole bunch of other related factors as well.
I would understand that position if we were standing on the precipice of something massive change, but I don't think we are. Imagine a 20% roll-back. Imagine that the back tees are never used again, and all those new forward tees from 3600 yards and out are built. It's not like those little plots of land where the back tees used to be are going to be returned to the general pool of "free land."
You're still watering 18 greens. You're still watering 18 fairways (or 14, or whatever). You're still watering the same number of tee boxes. How much water is there to be saved by keeping the same plot of land, but taking some tee boxes and moving them in front of the others?
If golf doesn't take the bull by the horns and deal with the distance and related issues itself then outside factors and outside agencies will come more and more to the fore and they'll do what they want to do not what is necessarily best for golf.
I'm not convinced at all, but if I were playing devil's advocate to myself, this would likely be the best avenue. IMO the "pro-rollback" fellas would be well advised to do a few things, including picking a single message (or two) and sticking to it. As it stands now, some people are on the "the PGA Tour is boring" or "the Old Course will be obsolete soon for the British Open (or already is), and oh what a loss that will be/is". Some are talking about how much more dangerous golf is. Some are talking about the "skill" required. You're all over the place, and it muddies the message.
I imagine people don't want to keep paying more and more for golf (within reason), nor do I imagine golfers want politicians stepping in and closing down popular golf courses, or historic golf courses, simply because they've fallen out of political/environmental/etc. fashion.