We've launched the new forums! Read more here

More Change the Ball Discussion From Jack...

SuperStroke
JB said:
I don't disagree with any of this. The best part of it is this...Jack CAN do this very thing right now. He can build shorter courses and/or say "We won't build anything over 6400 yards". Instead, he is continuing to build them at the longest of levels and adding to the clutter of more crowded courses that he openly says cannot survive long term
Click to expand...

This might be a dumb question, but are we at a place where a course that won't cater to the bomb and gouge crowd will be a dead end too? Forget the pros, lets focus on the rest of us. There seems to be a real stigma when it comes to course length. How many times here do we talk about people we see playing way too far back for their ability. How many people here on THP do we see feel the need to qualify a good score with "but I only played at XXXX yards". The answer is a lot. And this is a place full of smart golf enthusiasts. So if we can be affected by it, you damn sure can bet the random ego-driven young adult hacker will feel the same.

So if we start seeing a slew of shorter courses, to me the best plan is to make them strategic. Tight fairways or choke points and bunkers at normal driving distances. Force people to have to not robotically pull driver at the tee box every hole. You could make a fantastic golfing experience without having to go to 7000 yards. But... how popular would that be in the long haul when so much of what we see in the golf advertising business is "longer, longer, longer"?
 
rbarthle17 said:
This might be a dumb question, but are we at a place where a course that won't cater to the bomb and gouge crowd will be a dead end too? Forget the pros, lets focus on the rest of us. There seems to be a real stigma when it comes to course length. How many times here do we talk about people we see playing way too far back for their ability. How many people here on THP do we see feel the need to qualify a good score with "but I only played at XXXX yards". The answer is a lot. And this is a place full of smart golf enthusiasts. So if we can be affected by it, you damn sure can bet the random ego-driven young adult hacker will feel the same.

So if we start seeing a slew of shorter courses, to me the best plan is to make them strategic. Tight fairways or choke points and bunkers at normal driving distances. Force people to have to not robotically pull driver at the tee box every hole. You could make a fantastic golfing experience without having to go to 7000 yards. But... how popular would that be in the long haul when so much of what we see in the golf advertising business is "longer, longer, longer"?
Click to expand...
You could put a huge snake pit from 250-290 on a 320 yard par 4, and golfers will still try to carry it.
 
blugold said:
You could put a huge snake pit from 250-290 on a 320 yard par 4, and golfers will still try to carry it.
Click to expand...

If you put spiders in the snake pit, I for one won't be going anywhere near it.
 
A long time ago Nicklaus actually had a limited distance golf ball available and I believe a course to play it on as a test. It was called the 'Cayman' ball and I think it also may have been yellow. It was a great idea in it's time, and that was back when people/pros werent hitting it nearly as far as they do today. Saved a significant amount of land, equipment wear and tear, water, chemicals, etc. You could probably accomplish about the same thing by making the course 14 holes and it would additionally take less time to play a round. an idea i;ve had in my head for years. no real reason why a golf course has to be 18 holes.

I think now, the ship has sailed for limited distance gear..cant put the toothpaste back in the tube.

I think folks are overlooking one thing...the modern golf ball and modern drivers are really hard to hit crooked by anyone with a reasonable skillset. so not only do pros hit it farther, but they can drive the green on driveable par 4's of 325 yards which are surrounded by hazards (as one example)

The game of golf is dying/dead. something needs to be done IMO. I think the downfall of golf started when one architect was trying to outdo the other in golf communities and built lots of courses ridiculously hard to play..and ridiculously expensive

As to Nicklaus being sour grapes, I think that is an absurd notion.
 
Snakes...I hate snakes. So while we are on the topics and maybe this is in another thread are there any changes other than pace of play that will bring people to the game of golf?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blugold said:
You could put a huge snake pit from 250-290 on a 320 yard par 4, and golfers will still try to carry it.
Click to expand...

Funny, but it follows along with my point. How many people will make the stupid decision to pull driver, lose a ball, wash rinse repeat, and decide to go play anywhere else that lets them take their limited arsenal of "how far can I hit my driver for the tee shot?" out with more chance of success?

This seems like a chicken and egg thing. Tech got the ball out farther, and courses decided this was bad so they got longer than the tech at the time. Tech responds, courses respond with more length as the answer. Time to break the cycle, and I think the best way is to make courses that make the Driver-wedge one-two punch on a par 4 not be so prolific. But I think I am in the minority here when it comes to the golfing world.
 
When the web.com tour came to Nova Scotia, a lot of the pros laughed at the length (sub 7000) from the back. Second highest scoring all season.

We've seen it time and time again on the PGA tour, short courses do not equal lower scores. One of our courses is 5600 yards, the other is 6900. The difference in pace of play is less than 30 min.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Poochgolfer11 said:
Snakes...I hate snakes. So while we are on the topics and maybe this is in another thread are there any changes other than pace of play that will bring people to the game of golf?


When I was a kid, centuries ago, there were driving ranges, miniature golf courses, Putt Putt, etc., everywhere. Golf is sort of a luxury, there are many activities that are cheaper and much easier to play. It has been MY experience that if you can get someone to play, they will love it. However, when times get tough, it's about the first thing they give up.

Somehow, people have to be convinced golf is affordable. I'm not sure pace of play is the issue for most, but, JB would have a better handle on that.
Click to expand...
 
rbarthle17 said:
Funny, but it follows along with my point. How many people will make the stupid decision to pull driver, lose a ball, wash rinse repeat, and decide to go play anywhere else that lets them take their limited arsenal of "how far can I hit my driver for the tee shot?" out with more chance of success?

This seems like a chicken and egg thing. Tech got the ball out farther, and courses decided this was bad so they got longer than the tech at the time. Tech responds, courses respond with more length as the answer. Time to break the cycle, and I think the best way is to make courses that make the Driver-wedge one-two punch on a par 4 not be so prolific. But I think I am in the minority here when it comes to the golfing world.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Better designs with less yardage is required. But that is hard. It's much easier to make it 7500 yards and say, "See. It's hard now."
 
bodog said:
Poochgolfer11 said:
Snakes...I hate snakes. So while we are on the topics and maybe this is in another thread are there any changes other than pace of play that will bring people to the game of golf?


When I was a kid, centuries ago, there were driving ranges, miniature golf courses, Putt Putt, etc., everywhere. Golf is sort of a luxury, there are many activities that are cheaper and much easier to play. It has been MY experience that if you can get someone to play, they will love it. However, when times get tough, it's about the first thing they give up.

Somehow, people have to be convinced golf is affordable. I'm not sure pace of play is the issue for most, but, JB would have a better handle on that.
Click to expand...

I think the pace issue for me is that with the never ending activities available for everyone's entertainment these days many aren't choosing to spend 4-6 hours on a course. Now I love it so obviously will do it but most in my generation choose other activities.
Click to expand...
 
Poochgolfer11 said:
bodog said:
I think the pace issue for me is that with the never ending activities available for everyone's entertainment these days many aren't choosing to spend 4-6 hours on a course. Now I love it so obviously will do it but most in my generation choose other activities.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct, but I suspect many of the same people would spend 4 hours watching a college football game, or 3 hours watching a pro game.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't it nearly impossible for a new course to get a PGA tournament if it is sub-7000? (Not talking about existing shorter venues.) If I'm building a new course, and shelling out millions just for the design, I'm pretty sure my investors would strongly insist (i.e. demand) that the course be a potential PGA tour stop and therefore, over 7000 yards.
 
Dr RosenRosen said:
Isn't it nearly impossible for a new course to get a PGA tournament if it is sub-7000? (Not talking about existing shorter venues.) If I'm building a new course, and shelling out millions just for the design, I'm pretty sure my investors would strongly insist (i.e. demand) that the course be a potential PGA tour stop and therefore, over 7000 yards.
Click to expand...

Merion?
 
JB said:
Merion?
Click to expand...

"Isn't it nearly impossible for a new course to get a PGA tournament if it is sub-7000? (Not talking about existing shorter venues.)"
 
Dr RosenRosen said:
"Isn't it nearly impossible for a new course to get a PGA tournament if it is sub-7000? (Not talking about existing shorter venues.)"
Click to expand...

Was using it as an example and saying no. But since they are not being built, its impossible to know. Nicklaus has the ability to do that very thing and say "How perfect this would be with a rolled back golf ball".
 
Dr RosenRosen said:
Isn't it nearly impossible for a new course to get a PGA tournament if it is sub-7000? (Not talking about existing shorter venues.) If I'm building a new course, and shelling out millions just for the design, I'm pretty sure my investors would strongly insist (i.e. demand) that the course be a potential PGA tour stop and therefore, over 7000 yards.
Click to expand...
I don't feel like those courses are the norm. I feel like courses that have PGA Tour ambitions are rare.
 
I don't think it's the length of a course, but how you design it to make it play like 7000 yards. With maintenance going up and the time it takes to play these courses, I think that designing shorter more difficult courses is the key. I have played at long courses and found that some are a drive, fairway wood, mid-iron (assuming that I hit these shots well) into a large green that if I'm not close to the pin, it will probably be a 3 putt. Short courses, to me at least, involve more strategy than just hitting long shots, plus it will give the opportunity to score well.
 
When the Bear speaks, it matters. Like many I am a lifelong fan of Jack. That doesn't mean that I agree with his positions. How many remember when the drivers were dialed back a few years ago with COR limits? Jack was the one pushing for that for 2 years before it happened. I am still ticked about that. It was not necessary. And now he wants to dial back the ball. If they do, I will be buying a lifetime supply of "pre-limit" golf balls, or I may find other things to do with my time and money. For the average golfer, this is NOT a good thing.
 
One more "issue" while I'm on my soapbox. Why is it the Men's Tour rewards the long hitters on course after course, with few opportunities for the shorter hitters, except for maybe the yearly stop at Hilton Head? Then on the Lady's tour it's the exact opposite. Every course there caters to the 230yd drive crowd. Give the long hitters an advantage on that tour sometimes, please! Watching these straight hitters is boring as hell. Let's see some Bombers get an advantage like the men's tour and people might actually watch it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright, I had an interesting conversation about this topic at lunch. And a question was asked, what if the ball was rolled back in a way that made tour players shorter but had little impact on amateurs?

That I can get with. The only way I thought to make that possible, make the compression for the ball lower, by rule. That way, amateurs wouldn't be as affected, since most cannot OVER compress a golf ball, but tour pros would have an issue.
 
I can get with that too blu. I still don't honestly see the problem AT ALL here though. Think of it this way. Guys are hitting the ball further than before because of better fitness and equipment, both probably true. Setting new distance records and posting awesome scores on long courses. But take an analogue in competitive running. When guys set new record on the 400m due to better fitness and equipment, do the governing bodies say "Nope this is not cool, you guys are only allowed to use old school running shoes"?

Also, and I can't stress this enough: how freaking awesome is it to see these guys bomb it??
 
I believe that the problem is that there are current courses that are already limited in length and can't attract longer hitters and the next step is to bulldoze them and let developers have their way. I really don't think it applies to any newly developed and hardly at the pro level. The only exception to new courses are where developers will allocate a certain amount of land for a new course and that is all the course gets.

The only way this would work is if there was a legitimate ball that would limit the distance for use only on a limited flight golf course. Not the lightweight floater Cayman ball that couldn't be played in the wind. And no one wants to have to only play limited flight where there is no good reason for it. An across the board edict would be stupid.

The biggest issue is having to buy multiple golf balls depending on whether it is a limited or non-limited course. And there would have to be enough of a market or it just isn't worth it for any manufacturer.

I really like Jack and I honestly think, in his prime, he could hit as long as anyone today, but if Jack really wants to see this through, he has the money and could probably raise the capital to have someone develop a good limited flight ball. I have seen a lot of courses disappear over the years and if this keeps some of them around a while longer, I'm for it.

John
 
I just don't get it. At some point, I fully expect the governing bodies to put a limit on balls, just like they put in limits on club construction, however rolling ball distance *BACK* seems like jumping down that rabbit hole. Not to mention, how would you build a standardized test for that? Driver and iron tech gets better every year.

I do get that he'd like to see the players hit the same irons as he did back in the day. That particular Elvis has left the building, and left it long long ago.


blugold said:
You could put a huge snake pit from 250-290 on a 320 yard par 4, and golfers will still try to carry it.
Click to expand...

6105026.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top