I’m just not a fan. In my opinion it’s lazy and the sign of a poorly designed course.
The course in question was designed by Seth Raynor in the 1920s. I don’t think the words poorly designed and Seth Raynor belong together in the same sentence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I’m just not a fan. In my opinion it’s lazy and the sign of a poorly designed course.
At the professional rank sure. I have yet to see an amateur completely over power the course when playing from the right tees. Not that I am playing with a lot of top ams though either.It’s more than just the courses hoping to host championships. I think many old USGA member clubs have courses that can be viewed as obsolete with today’s distances.
Obsolete for whom? The 99.9th percentile of all golfers?
Winning score at Erin Hills, 7741 yards: -16
Winning score at Merion, 6996 yards: +1
but why should tour pros have to?Could bifurcation with for instance the tour players having to play a new "tour -" ball be enough to satisfy the governing bodies?
But on-course out of bounds and poorly designed do. Like I said, I’m just not a fan and I would really hate to see that used as a solution to the distance problem to make golfers play the course the way it was designed to be played.The course in question was designed by Seth Raynor in the 1920s. I don’t think the words poorly designed and Seth Raynor belong together in the same sentence.
but why should tour pros have to?
Pretty much any course that doesn't have 100 year old trees and fairways that bounce upwards of 100 yards upon landing are too short for bombers.Because the courses are too short for the bombers.
Unfortunately, the venue has already changed... a tree or trees have been moved; tee boxes have been moved back... and I agree, the changes shouldn't be made... but changing equipment for a perceived distance issue that only affect a small portion of players is a waste of effort and money. But this is my opinion.The Masters is still my favorite tournament. No need to change the venue. The best golfer that week still wins. I am more or less commenting on the courses that would hope to host a US Open or PGA Championship.
At the professional rank sure. I have yet to see an amateur completely over power the course when playing from the right tees. Not that I am playing with a lot of top ams though either.
But on-course out of bounds and poorly designed do. Like I said, I’m just not a fan and I would really hate to see that used as a solution to the distance problem to make golfers play the course the way it was designed to be played.
View attachment 8991659
...and?Because the courses are too short for the bombers.
To be fair to the Driving Distance stat, is so poorly collected.Are they though? What’s the problem, that the top guys have too much of an advantage? There isn’t much overlap on the FedEx Cup Top 10 and the longest driving distance Top 10.
View attachment 8991660View attachment 8991661
How’s that? I’m not well informed to how the stats are compiled.To be fair to the Driving Distance stat, is so poorly collected.
I believe the PGA Tour uses one par 5 with the wind and one par 5 against the wind and average them out as a means to collect that number.How’s that? I’m not well informed to how the stats are compiled.
Completely agree. Personally, I couldn't care less if course architect snobs are concerned that the very best players in the world might not play some template holes exactly the way Seth Raynor or his contemporaries designed them. Especially since we're primarily talking about super exclusive private clubs that the average golfer has no chance at all of ever playing.I have yet to hear a strong argument what's wrong with a select few touring pros bombing drives everywhere.
It still makes me smile that this "far too short" course posted an above par winning score. There are plenty of shorter par 4's at Merion, but the layout is what provided the challenge, not length.Obsolete for whom? The 99.9th percentile of all golfers?
Winning score at Erin Hills, 7741 yards: -16
Winning score at Merion, 6996 yards: +1
Completely agree. Personally, I couldn't care less if course architect snobs are concerned that the very best players in the world might not play some template holes exactly the way Seth Raynor or his contemporaries designed them. Especially since we're primarily talking about super exclusive private clubs that the average golfer has no chance at all of ever playing.
Not really the point of my argument.Bryson was 45th in driving distance 4 years ago. He worked his butt off for over a year and went to #1. Are the other guys not allowed to do the same thing?
That's why Bryson has no issue with it. He knows he's still gonna be 40 yards ahead of everyone else and will be hitting 2-3 clubs less than the field.The only problem is they are not leveling the playing field. No matter what they do with the equipment, the best pro players will still swing faster and hit it further because you can't stop the training and athletic ability.
Okay.There are not enough of the correct type of words for me to fully express how strongly I disagree with you.
...and?
Don't they still have to chip and putt? It's the same course for everybody.
[/QUOTE
LOL!....Shhhhh! The distance crowd still thinks that the longest drive wins.....LOL!