Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[LICC]

6 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

That quote doesn’t align with your view. I can list dozens of the lauded, high profile courses of the last 20 or so years that were not designed for the Tour-type model. You probably can’t name 5 in the same regard that were built for Tour-level difficulty. Maybe Erin Hills but even that has very wide fairways and was deemed a non-success for its US Open partly for that reason. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by LICC

[GolfSpy_BOS]

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

I would love to play a course in tourny conditions. Just to see the challenge and really appreciate how good those guys are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lacassem]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

That quote doesn’t align with your view. I can list dozens of the lauded, high profile courses of the last 20 or so years that were not designed for the Tour-type model. You probably can’t name 5 in the same regard that were built for Tour-level difficulty. Maybe Erin Hills but even that has very wide fairways and was deemed a non-success for its US Open partly for that reason. 

How is against my statement? My statement is that most amateurs want to play courses with those conditions. That’s what the paragraph also states. Where you argued that it was because most golfers don’t want to play that style (which you edited)

I would argue that your statement to the wide-fairways etc etc is because of cost to maintain. Tree lined fairways. Tight cut rough, water features so on and so on are extremely expensive to maintain long term which then increases cost to play which most amateurs do not want to fork over that kind of money.

but I have read your back fortis so just gonna leave this one at this because it doesn’t go anywhere 

[LICC]

12 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

How is against my statement? My statement is that most amateurs want to play courses with those conditions. That’s what the paragraph also states. Where you argued that it was because most golfers don’t want to play that style (which you edited)

I would argue that your statement to the wide-fairways etc etc is because of cost to maintain. Tree lined fairways. Tight cut rough, water features so on and so on are extremely expensive to maintain long term which then increases cost to play which most amateurs do not want to fork over that kind of money.

but I have read your back fortis so just gonna leave this one at this because it doesn’t go anywhere 

My earlier point was to a comment that designers can change courses to deal with distance. I said that would lead to bad boring courses. @DaveP043 commented that people prefer the tough Tour type courses. I pointed out that hasn’t been the case in new course design in over 20 years. You then brought up conditioning and highly contoured greens. Not the same discussion, but to your point, highly contoured greens are featured more on the new naturalist courses and the older pre-WWII courses than on the courses built later for Tour championship setups. 

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, LICC said:

My earlier point was to a comment that designers can change courses to deal with distance. I said that would lead to bad boring courses. @DaveP043 commented that people prefer the tough Tour type courses. I pointed out that hasn’t been the case in new course design in over 20 years. You then brought up conditioning and highly contoured greens. Not the same discussion, but to your point, highly contoured greens are featured more on the new naturalist courses and the older pre-WWII courses than on the courses built later for Tour championship setups. 

https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance Insights Library

You might want to review the actual statistics on course length.

[LICC]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance Insights Library

You might want to review the actual statistics on course length.

My comment wasn’t about length, it was about style. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

My comment wasn’t about length, it was about style. 

You're right.  But the reality is that courses are getting longer.  Longer courses take more resources.  That's a valid reason for a certain amount of concern, no matter the cause of the trend.

[FrogginBullfish]

So let me get this straight, last week you were complaining everyone was out to disagree with you and then someone comes in and agrees with something I've said and you jump down their throats with another argument.

Give it a rest.

Architects changing course design to deal with only the .001% of Tour golfers would lead to an even worse result than when Trent Jones started doing just that years ago- boring one-dimensional courses. Having courses with strategic choices, risk-reward decisions, choices on angles, etc is preferable to penal, one target setups. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[BIG STU]

19 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Architects are changing course designs to make the new courses marketable to consumers like us.  Too many golfers don't want to visit or join a course unless its "championship caliber", and a big part of that judgement is based on length from the tips.  It doesn't matter that players will never play the tips, they want a championship experience.

And also the reputation of being a "hard course" can give credit to their horrible scores even if they shoot them from the forward tees. 

[BIG STU]

19 hours ago, Lacassem said:

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

Oh trust me you are 100% correct. A lot of the courses here in season post what the stimp reading is for that day. 

[GolfSpy_BOS]

Oh trust me you are 100% correct. A lot of the courses here in season post what the stimp reading is for that day. 

I would love it if courses did that more
Often! The course where I played at most this ma past summer has fast greens, but most people (even the members) will tell you they roll at a 12-13, well I know the guy who rolls the greens, and they’re around an 11. Everyone wants to say they play greens as fast as the pros.

I think the harder part is when the greens are firm and you need spin/steep landing angles to keep the ball from rolling out too far. I played up in NH right after a course has a big amateur tournament and the greens were firm. I was hitting some PW shots that were rolling out 15 feet, but they weren’t too fast putting.

[Chip Strokes]

oh, awesome.  someone re-lit this dumpster fire. 

 

[LICC]

55 minutes ago, B.Boston said:

I would love it if courses did that more
Often! The course where I played at most this ma past summer has fast greens, but most people (even the members) will tell you they roll at a 12-13, well I know the guy who rolls the greens, and they’re around an 11. Everyone wants to say they play greens as fast as the pros.

I think the harder part is when the greens are firm and you need spin/steep landing angles to keep the ball from rolling out too far. I played up in NH right after a course has a big amateur tournament and the greens were firm. I was hitting some PW shots that were rolling out 15 feet, but they weren’t too fast putting.

I agree on both points. Most people think greens are higher stump readings than they really are. And when they are very high (I play at a club that once or twice a year pushes them to 14), the bigger challenge is holding the greens on your approach shots. Even wedges will run off on even the slightest slope. 

[LICC]

16 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

So let me get this straight, last week you were complaining everyone was out to disagree with you and then someone comes in and agrees with something I've said and you jump down their throats with another argument.

Give it a rest.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

 

I noted my opinion that differs from yours, and gave substantive on point reasons. I didn’t know you were so special that I can’t disagree with your opinion. 

[FrogginBullfish]

All I can say is wow...

I've stated my opinion on this topic multiple times in this thread and you've disagreed. I've not taken exception with it, though I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in disagreement to my opinion on the topic.

What I do take exception with is you complaining to another forum member that everyone is out to disagree with you and then when someone comes in and says a simple phrase in agreement with a post I've made and you immediately jump down their throat with another argument. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, I don't know what to tell you.

It really doesn't matter to me that you disagree with me on this subject. I said in my first post I doubt I'll sway anyone on the subject and you've done nothing to sway me in the other way either.

I noted my opinion that differs from yours, and gave substantive on point reasons. I didn’t know you were so special that I can’t disagree with your opinion. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[revkev]

Getting back on topic it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. We often lament loft jacking and then fail to take into account that a guy hitting 5 iron is very similar to a guy hitting 3 iron or at 4 iron in days past. So claiming that a 475 yard hole is being played with a driver/short iron isn’t an apples to apples comparison by any stretch.

I’m not entirely convinced that golf has a distance or strategy problem any more than I am that baseball does. The strategy has changed in both sports beyond a doubt. It’s up to the viewer as to whether or not he appreciates the new nuisances.

I understand that some may not just like some wish for a return to the days of the bunt, only a few hitters being able to hit dingers. I’ve adjusted to the changes in both sports and suspect that there will be more coming over time.

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

36 minutes ago, revkev said:

Getting back on topic it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. We often lament loft jacking and then fail to take into account that a guy hitting 5 iron is very similar to a guy hitting 3 iron or at 4 iron in days past. So claiming that a 475 yard hole is being played with a driver/short iron isn’t an apples to apples comparison by any stretch.

I’m not entirely convinced that golf has a distance or strategy problem any more than I am that baseball does. The strategy has changed in both sports beyond a doubt. It’s up to the viewer as to whether or not he appreciates the new nuisances.

I understand that some may not just like some wish for a return to the days of the bunt, only a few hitters being able to hit dingers. I’ve adjusted to the changes in both sports and suspect that there will be more coming over time.

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Some are thinking the Wahn hiring will indeed signal a shift... back to it being less of an issue and little or nothing happening, at least in equipment changes.  

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, revkev said:

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.

I'm not so sure they disagree.  They've decided to study the issue, and have seen a number of specific concerns due to increasing distance.  To me, it makes perfect sense to study things like this, to collect data and evaluate potential changes.  One of the most common complaints about the USGA is that they waited too long to take some of the past actions, I won't criticize them for staying on top of changes within the game.  The one distance-related concern that makes the most sense to me is over the observed trend towards longer courses, and the increased consumption of money and resources that longer courses generally require.

It seems most of us would disapprove of any reduction in distance for the bulk of players, and the USGA has specifically said that they do not intend to reduce distance for the bulk of players.  The idea of bifurcation seems logical to explore, and I've read at least a few posts here that seem accepting of that option.  Personally, I think there are too many obstacles to overcome to make bifurcation a real possibility.

[revkev]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not so sure they disagree.  They've decided to study the issue, and have seen a number of specific concerns due to increasing distance.  To me, it makes perfect sense to study things like this, to collect data and evaluate potential changes.  One of the most common complaints about the USGA is that they waited too long to take some of the past actions, I won't criticize them for staying on top of changes within the game.  The one distance-related concern that makes the most sense to me is over the observed trend towards longer courses, and the increased consumption of money and resources that longer courses generally require.

It seems most of us would disapprove of any reduction in distance for the bulk of players, and the USGA has specifically said that they do not intend to reduce distance for the bulk of players.  The idea of bifurcation seems logical to explore, and I've read at least a few posts here that seem accepting of that option.  Personally, I think there are too many obstacles to overcome to make bifurcation a real possibility.

I might have been better writing, it appears as if they may disagree.  My language was a bit too strong so thanks for calling me on it.

I have no trouble with the study in and of itself, it's their job to know what's going on in the game, my concern was/is that they appear to have had preconceived assumptions that they had a number of issues and that distance was the culprit.  I could be wrong.  I hope that I am.

I wonder if bifurcation is as big an issue as we are assuming.  I think that if you were to tell golfers its this or a loss of distance for everyone they'd take, this.  Perhaps I'm wrong but that would be my hunch.

[LeftyRM7]

I agree 100% with Rory. It’s great to do all of this research but if your goal is to strengthen the future of the game, surely there are much better ways to spend that money. Especially considering years later we sit here with nothing but ideas like 46” drivers, local rules, and tighter tolerances. I feel like after all of the hype, this proposal is honestly laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk