Distance Regulation

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

No you now have 20 players playing it as a risk reward, just because someone has the ability to clear it easy they still need to hit a good shot. Why should they get punished for having this ability?

It like some type of small man syndrome tbh

There is already limits on the technology in both the ball and equipment and the graph you posted prove that these are working. Further gains are due to people getting stronger, more powerful and better understanding of launch conditions ect.

Your argument of playing courses as they were meant to is completely nonsensical. Basically if I am a 20+ hcapper and hit the ball 160 yards of the tee then from working on my game I gain an extra 10 yards I am no longer playing the course as designed. Nonsense of the highest order

Just because you don't understand the point doesn't make it nonsense. You are starting from a false premise, the hazards were placed at the distances where the top end of amateurs hit the ball, not the average guy. If courses were designed for the average golfer then more than half the people would never see the hazard off the tee as they got it far beyond that.

Go get those 10 yards with the equipment from when your course was designed and come back to me then.
Very, very few courses are trying to catch the guy hitting it 160 off the tee, he has enough problems without adding a hazard. It would be a total waste of money to maintain that hazard for 10% of the players who might go in it.

If you really believe that people are not hitting it further than ever in the history of the game then I'd suggest you are in the minority.

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

How much does a course need to increase in length in order to compensate for the additional 15 or so yards in increased distance?

Also course maintenance costs have far exceeded inflation since long before the graphs shared up until the present day.

I suspect the additional costs incurred due to course adjustment since the mid 90s is small to negligible relative to overall maintenance costs throughout that period.

If the average is 15v yards longer then I'm going to say it needs to increase every par 4 and par 5 by 15 yards just to stay where it was. To future proof they would need to add more than that.

Hitting the ball further requires longer courses, which requires more land, which takes longer to maintain, requires more people, more water, more fertilizer, more growth retardant, more pole forking, more sanding, etc etc.
It also requires building new tee boxes and or new bunkers.

To dismiss this cost out of hand is naive.

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

No you now have 20 players playing it as a risk reward, just because someone has the ability to clear it easy they still need to hit a good shot. Why should they get punished for having this ability?

They are not being punished?! You might as well argue that playing off the back tee is punishing the long guys.

It seems your major argument is that you don't want your distances to drop, even though everyone's will and if needed the tee can be moved up, as required.

It's really a win win for everyone, I honestly cannot understand the argument against it (not that I have seen an argument yet!) Other than some illogical pride based on distances achieved largely thanks to some engineer in Titleist and Taylor made!

redzerdrog

How about we shorten the courses, shorten the distance the ball travels, shorten the time it takes to play, save the environment, cut the cost of maintenance we could even change the name from Golf to something more PC.

I know! We could call it Pitch and Putt!! Could shorten that even to p&p!

redzerdrog

Just listening to a podcast on this at the moment. Hack it out with crossfield, Scott Fawcett from Decade and Lou stagner.

Good discussion on it and they put forward my views far better than I can.

I went to follow Lou stagner on Twitter and found this cracker from the most famous course architect of all time

"In an ideal long hole, there should not only be a big advantage from successfully negotiating a long carry for the tee shot, but the longer the drive, the greater the advantage should be."

- Alister MacKenzie

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

How about we shorten the courses, shorten the distance the ball travels, shorten the time it takes to play, save the environment, cut the cost of maintenance we could even change the name from Golf to something more PC.

I know! We could call it Pitch and Putt!! Could shorten that even to p&p!

Perhaps you could try to argue why anything in bold would be a bad thing for golf?
Or do you like expensive golf that takes a long time to play and damages the environment? I somehow suspect you are in the minority there chief!

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

Hitting the ball further is more fun and more appealing than hitting it shorter.

If courses were made shorter and players hit the ball a shorter distance even if in relative terms nothing changed, that would be very unappealing to the majority of people.
That seems a very obvious reason to me and clearly that is pretty bad for the appeal of golf.

redzerdrog

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Hitting the ball further is more fun and more appealing than hitting it shorter.

If courses were made shorter and players hit the ball a shorter distance even if in relative terms nothing changed, that would be very unappealing to the majority of people.
That seems a very obvious reason to me and clearly that is pretty bad for the appeal of golf.

Yep this!

Golf is at it's most popular now yet some people wana return it back to 19th century

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps you could try to argue why anything in bold would be a bad thing for golf?

Surely then we wouldn't be playing courses as they were designed to be played

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

Just listening to a podcast on this at the moment. Hack it out with crossfield, Scott Fawcett from Decade and Lou stagner.

Good discussion on it and they put forward my views far better than I can.

I went to follow Lou stagner on Twitter and found this cracker from the most famous course architect of all time

"In an ideal long hole, there should not only be a big advantage from successfully negotiating a long carry for the tee shot, but the longer the drive, the greater the advantage should be."

- Alister MacKenzie

If you understood the argument at all you would see the irony of that quote.
What do you reckon was a long hole to MacKenzie?

Let's take Cork GC as an example, the index 1 4th hole is 449 yards off the tips, so just over 400 metres... Is that a long hole to you coz it sure isn't to me!
It also doesn't seem to be to the members, since the original MacKenzie layout was 6200 yards..it's now over 6800 after, in the club's own words

over the years, new greens, bunkers and tees were established and the course was considerably lengthened

Also, arguably more interestingly they go on to say how they had to remodel the bunkers just 10 years ago, to more faithfully reflect the original design...i.e they moved them forward to being then back into play.
And why did they do this?

Recognising this and the progression in golf technology, in 2010 an up-grading proposal presented by the well-regarded architects Hawtree Ltd, was sanctioned. ...... and more significantly re-bunkering to more faithfully reflect the original MacKenzie design concept.

We could also pop down the road to Douglas, another MacKenzie course...

By the 1990's, members felt that a more challenging layout was needed

But oops, just a decade later

Douglas Golf Club strives to keep its course modern and relevant while also maintaining the unique character its long history provides. In 2005 ...... Jeff Howes' designs maximised the length of the course here at Douglas, removed twenty eight bunkers and remodelled existing bunkers, creating a challenging but fair golf course that could be enjoyed by golfers of all levels.

Wonder why these courses have to keep moving the bunkers and lengthening the course?
Must be more nonsense eh?

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

Surely then we wouldn't be playing courses as they were designed to be played

Lol, you mean the courses that have been lengthened since they were designed?

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Hitting the ball further is more fun and more appealing than hitting it shorter.

If courses were made shorter and players hit the ball a shorter distance even if in relative terms nothing changed, that would be very unappealing to the majority of people.
That seems a very obvious reason to me and clearly that is pretty bad for the appeal of golf.

What's "shorter" mean though?
Did people think Jack or Arnie were short? In 5 years everyone will have moved on... You act some lack of distance was holding the game back in the 90s.

It might be unappealing for a few people, but the future players would be oblivious and would enjoy cheaper, faster golf with less damage to the environment.

Your argument is analogous to the gas guzzlers of the 70s in the US, no one will want a car that's not a V8 right?
Wrong.

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

Lol, you mean the courses that have been lengthened since they were designed?

What about the courses that weren't built a hundred year ago? Do we not care about them?

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

What's "shorter" mean though?
Did people think Jack or Arnie were short? In 5 years everyone will have moved on... You act some lack of distance was holding the game back in the 90s.

It might be unappealing for a few people, but the future players would be oblivious and would enjoy cheaper, faster golf with less damage to the environment.

Your argument is analogous to the gas guzzlers of the 70s in the US, no one will want a car that's not a V8 right?
Wrong.

The argument isn't about Arnie or Jack it's about the 99.9% of golfers who are amateurs and play for fun. Distance has always been a massive part of the game and the same conversations where being had 30 years ago. Yep here we are 30 years later and golf is more popular now than it ever was. There wasnt a lack of distance in the 90s there was still golfers hitting 300 yards drives back then

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

Shorter means shorter, as in they will hit it shorter than they currently hit it which is unappealing.

People are anchored to a specific number, I hit the ball X distance, if you reduce the distance one can hit the ball it is less appealing because it’s one of the most enjoyable elements of the game. You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position.

Your analogy is beyond flawed because the difference is that the experience of an electric car doesn’t fundamentally differ from the experience you had in a gas guzzler. You will reach your destination in a similar manner and for a similar price whereas with a change like you suggest, you reduce the leisure time and you alter one of the most appealing elements of the game.

Rolling back the distance people can hit the ball has never been done so this reference of “Jack & Arnie being shorter” is largely moot.

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

What about the courses that weren't built a hundred year ago? Do we not care about them?

You mean the minority?
We could go crazy and move the tees forward if needed?
Yunno, the opposite of what all the other courses have been doing for the last 30 years!

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

The argument isn't about Arnie or Jack it's about the 99.9% of golfers who are amateurs and play for fun. Distance has always been a massive part of the game and the same conversations where being had 30 years ago. Yep here we are 30 years later and golf is more popular now than it ever was. There wasnt a lack of distance in the 90s there was still golfers hitting 300 yards drives back then

I didn't say it was about Jack or Arnie, you really are missing the point in your haste for outrage.

If you think golf is suddenly popular because people got the ball further... Then didn't that slightly contradict your opinion that people aren't hitting it further!
Which is it?

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

You mean the minority?
We could go crazy and move the tees forward if needed?
Yunno, the opposite of what all the other courses have been doing for the last 30 years!

But they they wouldn't be played as the architect intended?

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

I didn't say it was about Jack or Arnie, you really are missing the point in your haste for outrage.

If you think golf is suddenly popular because people got the ball further... Then didn't that slightly contradict your opinion that people aren't hitting it further!
Which is it?

Where did I say either of those things?

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Shorter means shorter, as in they will hit it shorter than they currently hit it which is unappealing.

People are anchored to a specific number, I hit the ball X distance, if you reduce the distance one can hit the ball it is less appealing because it’s one of the most enjoyable elements of the game. You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position.

Your analogy is beyond flawed because the difference is that the experience of an electric car doesn’t fundamentally differ from the experience you had in a gas guzzler. You will reach your destination in a similar manner and for a similar price whereas with a change like you suggest, you reduce the leisure time and you alter one of the most appealing elements of the game.

Rolling back the distance people can hit the ball has never been done so this reference of “Jack & Arnie being shorter” is largely moot.

I think you'll find my analogy didn't mention electric cars at all!

As for faster rounds due to shorter courses "reducing leisure time".. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on, it has never taken as long to play the game as it does today, that's not an appealing aspect of today's game, go read any survey if you disagree.

Btw more distance due to technology is only more advanced in your opinion, it's not a fact that distance =advancement.

Also aren't you constantly telling me that people aren't hitting it meaningfully further distances than before?
Which is it?


COR was rolled back and also the size of the ball was increased/standardized on the American size.

Both changes that significantly negatively impacted distances... And look at us now... Area you still up in arms that your driver's cor is less than it was it that you can't use your old small English ball?

I suspect those that have an issue with distance being rolled back are comparatively new to the game and just don't or can't appreciate the impact it has had on the playing of regular golf courses.

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

But they they wouldn't be played as the architect intended?

Again your argument contradicts itself.
Courses are not designed by specific numbers, they are designed by how far the ball travels.

The hazard isn't at 230 because that's a nice number, it's there because that's where the balls land.
You dial the ball back 20 yards and push the tee up 20 yards and you are back where you started.

In any case, since you are arguing for playing the course as designed, there are far more old courses being extended than new courses that would be reduced.

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

Again your argument contradicts itself.
Courses are not designed by specific numbers, they are designed by how far the ball travels.

The hazard isn't at 230 because that's a nice number, it's there because that's where the balls land.
You dial the ball back 20 yards and push the tee up 20 yards and you are back where you started.

In any case, since you are arguing for playing the course as designed, there are far more old courses being extended than new courses that would be reduced.

It's not my arguement it is yours yet you are the one constantly contradicting yourself. You want the ball rolled back to keep the integrity of the game so that courses are played as there were originally designed. But its only the old courses that count the new ones can go sod themselves.

Plenty of holes on courses with water carries were it's not possible to move the tee forward. But feck them because there weren't built 100years ago they dont matter.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

Whether you were referring to Electric or other is largely irrelevant, remove electric and insert car of choice since the 70s and my position holds.

Anywho, not really sure what the bells on piece is about but to address your point, I assume those surveys don’t include shorter rounds at the expense of reduced distance so again that’s effectively moot.
If you share a survey where it’s framed like that, I’m open to correction.

I never said distance was advancement but in order to rein in distance, the tech whether that is balls or clubs would have to be altered.
I don’t think distance has changed that much since the 90s a bit since graphite was standard, your graph showed that but its your position that it has changed significantly despite what the data suggests.
In order to reduce it though, the change would need to occur via changes in equipment even though equipment hasn’t been the key driver of the increase ie rolling back very very far.

I’m not up in arms over anything tbh. I’ll be leaving it there as this is clearly moving away from a friendly discussion on golf when you’re getting into who played for how long and what they can and cannot appreciate.

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Whether you were referring to Electric or other is largely irrelevant, remove electric and insert car of choice since the 70s and my position holds.

Anywho, not really sure what the bells on piece is about but to address your point, I assume those surveys don’t include shorter rounds at the expense of reduced distance so again that’s effectively moot.
If you share a survey where it’s framed like that, I’m open to correction.

I never said distance was advancement but in order to rein in distance, the tech whether that is balls or clubs would have to be altered.

I don’t think distance has changed that much since the 90s a bit since graphite was standard, your graph showed that but its your position that it has changed significantly despite what the data suggests.
In order to reduce it though, the change would need to occur via changes in equipment even though equipment hasn’t been the key driver of the increase ie rolling back very very far.

I’m not up in arms over anything tbh. I’ll be leaving it there as this is clearly moving away from a friendly discussion on golf when you’re getting into who played for how long and what they can and cannot appreciate.

You said this " You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position" and the thing I'm rolling back is distance... So what advancement were you talking about that wasn't related to distance?

Do you accept that the graph shows an upward trend but also that a graph based on handicaps won't show if individuals are hitting it further than before or not?

If equipment hasn't been the key driver, what has? Also what has in limiting equipment?

It's 100% a discussion, I wasn't being derogatory with that last comment so apologies if you took it that way, but I think it's an accurate and valid point. If someone has only taken the game up in the last 10 years then par 4s being a drive and a wedge are the norm other than occasional courses like druids heath where it can be a slog of driver and then 4i off even the forward tees, but this is far closer to what many of us grew up playing. Bomb and gouge is comparatively very new to the game and not how it was designed to be played for most of its existence, nevermind the cost and environmental implications of same.
When you can get the same playability other than changing the number one a boat of other benefits i honestly can't see the downside, it would open up hundreds of courses as much more enjoyable to play.

GreeBo

I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

redzerdrog

More flip flopping from yourself you could at least remain consistent

GreeBo wrote: »

If you are long enough & accurate enough, then improving either will make you a better golfer.

The real argument is, assuming you are currently accurate enough and long enough, will improving your accuracy by 10% or your distance by 10% improve your scores more.

Given that neither will improve your scores by 10% and there are certainly diminishing returns for distance, but not for accuracy I think its a pretty tough argument to win decisively either way.

All the stats are biased by being both professionals and also by there being so many variables (the player, the course, the greens etc etc)

If you did it with a robot then accuracy would certainly win over distance IMO.

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

Ok let me get this right you are happy to take averages as an example here but not happy to accept averages when they dont suit your agenda.

Also what exactly is wrong with the avarage hcap reducing? What's the problem? People enjoy the game more the accomplished they become at it. So surely this I a good thing and the game will continue to grow.

Again the biggest leap were before the current limitations on ball and clubs that have been working very well

dan_ep82

GreeBo wrote: »

The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

More flip flopping from yourself you could at least remain consistent

Sorry, but since you just ignore every point I make and question I ask you, including a very detailed post that annihilated your MacKenzie post, coupled with your posts being quite rude and aggressive I'm no longer going to waste my time replying to you on this topic.

GreeBo

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.

I don't think you can say it plateaued if it's now 0.8 shots lower, considering it started on 16.3 and is now 13.7, that 1.3 is pretty significant?


The theory used to be that the average hasn't changed in years (from 18) but seems that's a myth.