The Distance problem

[emptysea1]

Why not protect against ever-increasing driver distances by creating short rough areas that run right through and across the fairway, only in that zone where excessive length is ruining the game? This would mean that many vulnerable greens would be reborn as tantalising islands, which must be " leaped on to”? The par 3, 17th , at Pine hurst comes to mind.

It would make it more exciting, more challenging, and it does not necessitate artificial constraint and limitation of technology. The golf industry needs to be able to innovate and make money of course, yet if a physical barrier of grass is created, it would then begin to even out the playing field, making strategy even more important.

It is also a very cheap and versatile option, since any club can choose or not choose, as they see fit, to implement it. They could even choose which hole they want to do it on. This would create fascinating elements of risk, strategy and reward vs. penalty scenarios that would make the top tier tournaments even more exciting to watch.

"Will Rory and Dustan try and launch it clear of 315 yards onto to the green-side fairway, and risk hitting into the short rough, or will they instead go 285 to the Tee-side fairway and be forced to make a much longer shot to the green? It’s all to play for….”

It’s an easy solution. Cheap, and incredibly adaptable. Golf companies can still innovate and therefore still sell product. Everyone would win. It’s win, win, win.

 

[Trapdraw]

Why not protect against ever-increasing driver distances by creating short rough areas that run right through and across the fairway, only in that zone where excessive length is ruining the game? This would mean that many vulnerable greens would be reborn as tantalising islands, which must be " leaped on to”? The par 3, 17th , at Pine hurst comes to mind.

It would make it more exciting, more challenging, and it does not necessitate artificial constraint and limitation of technology. The golf industry needs to be able to innovate and make money of course, yet if a physical barrier of grass is created, it would then begin to even out the playing field, making strategy even more important.

It is also a very cheap and versatile option, since any club can choose or not choose, as they see fit, to implement it. They could even choose which hole they want to do it on. This would create fascinating elements of risk, strategy and reward vs. penalty scenarios that would make the top tier tournaments even more exciting to watch.

"Will Rory and Dustan try and launch it clear of 315 yards onto to the green-side fairway, and risk hitting into the short rough, or will they instead go 285 to the Tee-side fairway and be forced to make a much longer shot to the green? It’s all to play for….”

It’s an easy solution. Cheap, and incredibly adaptable. Golf companies can still innovate and therefore still sell product. Everyone would win. It’s win, win, win.

That is the worst idea I've ever heard, it would ruin golf courses, play ability wise and aesthetically.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Better still, make a section of the fairway OB, and set the distance so only a perfectly struck shot can carry it.
Lay up short and it's at least 220 to the green.

It's no difference to having a water hazard or burn across the fairway, just the penalty is greater.

 

[Trapdraw]

Better still, make a section of the fairway OB, and set the distance so only a perfectly struck shot can carry it.
Lay up short and it's at least 220 to the green.

It's no difference to having a water hazard or burn across the fairway, just the penalty is greater.

 

[robinthehood]

Don't forget some windmills on the greens.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Some of the greatest features on some of the greatest golf courses are hazards.

 

[Trapdraw]

Some of the greatest features on some of the greatest golf courses are hazards.

Like what? I hardly see how growing rough all the away across a fairway at a set distance and making that section of rough OB would improve anything.

 

[Grant85]

Why not protect against ever-increasing driver distances by creating short rough areas that run right through and across the fairway, only in that zone where excessive length is ruining the game? This would mean that many vulnerable greens would be reborn as tantalising islands, which must be " leaped on to”? The par 3, 17th , at Pine hurst comes to mind.

It would make it more exciting, more challenging, and it does not necessitate artificial constraint and limitation of technology. The golf industry needs to be able to innovate and make money of course, yet if a physical barrier of grass is created, it would then begin to even out the playing field, making strategy even more important.

It is also a very cheap and versatile option, since any club can choose or not choose, as they see fit, to implement it. They could even choose which hole they want to do it on. This would create fascinating elements of risk, strategy and reward vs. penalty scenarios that would make the top tier tournaments even more exciting to watch.

"Will Rory and Dustan try and launch it clear of 315 yards onto to the green-side fairway, and risk hitting into the short rough, or will they instead go 285 to the Tee-side fairway and be forced to make a much longer shot to the green? It’s all to play for….”

It’s an easy solution. Cheap, and incredibly adaptable. Golf companies can still innovate and therefore still sell product. Everyone would win. It’s win, win, win.

They already do similar at many venues , but with narrow fairways rather than running the rough across. Ultimately it's fairly blunt and not very exciting way of making a course challenging.

"Will Rory and Dustin try and launch it clear of 315 yards onto to the green-side fairway, and risk hitting into the short rough, or will they instead go 285 to the Tee-side fairway and be forced to make a much longer shot to the green? It’s all to play for….”

I can tell you that they absolutely will try to launch it 100% of the time. Because if they miss the fairway, they can still gouge a wedge on and make par and maybe hole a putt for birdie.

All that means is the guys who can 'only' hit it 300 are effectively laying up and punished by maybe 40 yards instead of 15... so every leaderboard will read Rory, DJ, JT, Rahm and others like Rose, Molinari, Webb Simpson, Fleetwood etc. will never compete over 72 holes. This means fewer players who can win these events and less chance of seeing a close leaderboard.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Like what? I hardly see how growing rough all the away across a fairway at a set distance and making that section of rough OB would improve anything.

How is it different to building a water hazard in that area, apart from its obviously cheaper, moveable and removable.
Surely you've played a hole where you can risk taking on some OOB in order to try and get to the flag. Normally that would be on a dogleg, but why can't it be utilised to force a player into making a decision on any hole?

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

What we can't do is complain about slow play and then suggest course revisions that will obviously make play slower.

What needs to be done is nothing.

The R&A / USGA need to understand that golf is primarily about the recreational player.
They need to simply stop caring if the top couple hundred players on the planet shred par regularly when using playable equipment on playable courses.

And if those bodies won't do that, it's time to stop being wimps and challenge them with alternative sanctioning bodies.
Recreational players make world class competitors more important than what they are, but golf is about us. We support the game--and the touring players, for that matter.

 

[Trapdraw]

How is it different to building a water hazard in that area, apart from its obviously cheaper, moveable and removable.
Surely you've played a hole where you can risk taking on some OOB in order to try and get to the flag. Normally that would be on a dogleg, but why can't it be utilised to force a player into making a decision on any hole?

How many courses have water hazards in that area? How many holes do you play where you can risk taking it over OOB in order to try and get to the flag? Again not many!

What you're suggesting is crap to be honest.

If you want to make Pro Golf more interesting to watch, limit driver head size, limit wedges to a max loft of 56, no 60 or higher, ban hybrids.
Play courses that run firm and fast, make players think over which shot to hit. The best overall players will rise to the top, it would give people who are not just bombers a chance.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Play courses that run firm and fast, make players think over which shot to hit. The best overall players will rise to the top, it would give people who are not just bombers a chance.

Exactly. Look how many 'shorter' hitters have won the Open over the last few years.

 

[Swango1980]

Who cares if some people hit the ball massive distances compared to most other human beings? Fair play to them. They have great flexibility, timing and an ability to create power and speed through the ball. Why punish them for having the attributes that the rest of us could only dream of?

Part of the joy of watching golf is seeing a big hitter bombing it on to a derivable par 4, or hitting a par 5 in 2 with a mid iron that is 600+ yards. There are different ways to play the game, I think golf would become boring if basically you forced everybody to hit the same spots on the fairways, thus meaning they all had similar shots into the greens.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Why not protect against ever-increasing driver distances by creating short rough areas that run right through and across the fairway, only in that zone where excessive length is ruining the game? This would mean that many vulnerable greens would be reborn as tantalising islands, which must be " leaped on to”? The par 3, 17th , at Pine hurst comes to mind.

It would make it more exciting, more challenging, and it does not necessitate artificial constraint and limitation of technology. The golf industry needs to be able to innovate and make money of course, yet if a physical barrier of grass is created, it would then begin to even out the playing field, making strategy even more important.

It is also a very cheap and versatile option, since any club can choose or not choose, as they see fit, to implement it. They could even choose which hole they want to do it on. This would create fascinating elements of risk, strategy and reward vs. penalty scenarios that would make the top tier tournaments even more exciting to watch.

"Will Rory and Dustan try and launch it clear of 315 yards onto to the green-side fairway, and risk hitting into the short rough, or will they instead go 285 to the Tee-side fairway and be forced to make a much longer shot to the green? It’s all to play for….”

It’s an easy solution. Cheap, and incredibly adaptable. Golf companies can still innovate and therefore still sell product. Everyone would win. It’s win, win, win.

I recall they have this a places like Camberley Heath and West Hill. OK as long as you can see them from the tee otherwise unfair.

 

[patricks148]

lets be honest this is only a problem with Prof and elite Am golf some of the older designed course like those in the open Rota and courses at the top end. easiest solution for them is just to use a ball that resticts distance. The R&A did tests some time ago and they had a ball that does this..

99% of courses its not a problem

 

[Mel Smooth]

How many courses have water hazards in that area? How many holes do you play where you can risk taking it over OOB in order to try and get to the flag? Again not many!

What you're suggesting is crap to be honest.

If you want to make Pro Golf more interesting to watch, limit driver head size, limit wedges to a max loft of 56, no 60 or higher, ban hybrids.
Play courses that run firm and fast, make players think over which shot to hit. The best overall players will rise to the top, it would give people who are not just bombers a chance.

Last course I was a member at -
3rd hole, 544 yard par5, water protecting a narrow bottle neck dogleg to the right at about 250 yards. You could potentially take on the shot with a fade, or carry over the trees (which were OOB). That would leave you with a mid iron to the green and an eagle chance.

7th hole, 507 yard par 5, reachable in two with a good drive but anything short and right was in a water hazard.

9th hole, 454 yard par 4. Water hazard running across the fairway proabably about 280 off the tee.

10th hole, 623 yard par 5. Large lake across the fairway which was reachable with the driver (In fairness - off the back tee's I don't think anybody would carry it, but it was obviously put there for a reason.

12th hole, 391 yard par 4. Water on the left, which would need at least 270 yard carry to clear, leaving a wedge to the green. Most folk aimed right, but you had water protecting the green from that side as well, minimum 7 iron to the green if you took that route.

14th hole. 424 yard par 4. A big drive and you could potentially hit the island green in two.

18th hole. 329 yard par4. Water all down the left which then crossed along all of the front of the green. Reachable with a big drive, anything short was in the water.

Not sure why suggesting ways to make courses temporarily more difficult is 'crap', especially when you are suggesting Pro's play with clubs that are less useable than the amateur golfer.
That's like suggesting we're all given Ferraris and Porsches to drive around in while Lews Hamilton takes to the grid in a Mondeo Estate on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[williamalex1]

Make the maximum the drive allowed 220 yards , that'll suit me just fine on a good day , downhill and with a 30mph helping wind

 

[Trapdraw]

Not sure why suggesting ways to make courses temporarily more difficult is 'crap', especially when you are suggesting Pro's play with clubs that are less useable than the amateur golfer.
That's like suggesting we're all given Ferraris and Porsches to drive around in while Lews Hamilton takes to the grid in a Mondeo Estate on a Sunday afternoon.

Limiting the equipment for pro’s means older more interesting courses can be used again.
The big hitters will still be the longest, but short hitters will be brought back in the mix because what they excel at will be relevant again.
The recent presidents cup was great to watch, firm and fast course, no thick lush rough. Tiger was head and shoulders the best player because he had every shot in the book.
Clubs wouldn’t have to spend millions to buy land to increase the length of the course.
Growing rough and then making it OOB just to trick up a course is crap.
Rough, ponds, etc is artificial crap that has made watching pro golf boring.
Big drive, wedge, putt, repeat yawn yawn yawn.

 

[Trapdraw]

Last course I was a member at -
3rd hole, 544 yard par5, water protecting a narrow bottle neck dogleg to the right at about 250 yards. You could potentially take on the shot with a fade, or carry over the trees (which were OOB). That would leave you with a mid iron to the green and an eagle chance.

7th hole, 507 yard par 5, reachable in two with a good drive but anything short and right was in a water hazard.

9th hole, 454 yard par 4. Water hazard running across the fairway proabably about 280 off the tee.

10th hole, 623 yard par 5. Large lake across the fairway which was reachable with the driver (In fairness - off the back tee's I don't think anybody would carry it, but it was obviously put there for a reason.

12th hole, 391 yard par 4. Water on the left, which would need at least 270 yard carry to clear, leaving a wedge to the green. Most folk aimed right, but you had water protecting the green from that side as well, minimum 7 iron to the green if you took that route.

14th hole. 424 yard par 4. A big drive and you could potentially hit the island green in two.

18th hole. 329 yard par4. Water all down the left which then crossed along all of the front of the green. Reachable with a big drive, anything short was in the water.

Not sure why suggesting ways to make courses temporarily more difficult is 'crap', especially when you are suggesting Pro's play with clubs that are less useable than the amateur golfer.
That's like suggesting we're all given Ferraris and Porsches to drive around in while Lews Hamilton takes to the grid in a Mondeo Estate on a Sunday afternoon.

What course is this, thankfully I’ve not had the misfortune to play it.

 

[Mel Smooth]

What course is this, thankfully I’ve not had the misfortune to play it.

Willow Valley

Obviously you don't like a challenge. ;-)

https://www.wvgc.co.uk/