Would you like to see bifurcation come in?

[USER1999]

I will be honest, I did not have a clue what the question meant, I have had a look and bottom line, it’s a rammel idea.
When golf courses were first designed hazards were put in Place, bunker, water, long grass where balls landed off the tee. Now players/ Pros are hitting the ball 50-100 yards past the bunkers/ hazards because of technology etc. The course needs to change. Put/ move the bunkers where the majority of balls are hit off the tee. Don’t make the fairways 50 yds wide with a first cut of 1/4” and the second cut 1/2”.As a pro if your off the fairway you are punished, end of. if it is a second shot for a par five, again put hazards where the ball lands. Don’t make greens the size of a cricket pitch.
Re amateurs, don’t assume we can all hit it 240 yds off the tee. Sort out the courses, especially at pro level. Not the equipment.

So every course used for pro golf should spend millions moving bunkers ( moving lakes? Really), changing greens, growing rough for a special few for one week a year, buying more land to push tees back, wasting more water, fertiliser, etc, or...

Change the equipment.

What is easier? Hmm. It's not changing golf courses.

 

[Tashyboy]

So every course used for pro golf should spend millions moving bunkers ( moving lakes? Really), changing greens, growing rough for a special few for one week a year, buying more land to push tees back, wasting more water, fertiliser, etc, or...

Change the equipment.

What is easier? Hmm. It's not changing golf courses.

So it costs millions to let the grass grow another two weeks and to make greens smaller. Re moving water hazards, seeing as most are in front of greens, running down sides of fairways, Ave saved you a few more million. To make a fairway narrower costs millions. To keep rewarding players to be 20 yards off a fairway and they can still lit a green, how’s that right?

What is easier? In my experience easier is not always the right answer.

 

[USER1999]

So it costs millions to let the grass grow another two weeks and to make greens smaller. Re moving water hazards, seeing as most are in front of greens, running down sides of fairways, Ave saved you a few more million. To make a fairway narrower costs millions. To keep rewarding players to be 20 yards off a fairway and they can still lit a green, how’s that right?

What is easier? In my experience easier is not always the right answer.

Yes, moving things on a golf course costs money. Who pays? The members? It won't be the players, and it won't be the tour.
Yes, growing rough requires watering, and fertiliser. That's money, and also chemicals which can be bad for the environment, and water, which is a limited resource quite often.
Make the rough silly deep 20 yards off the fairway? Who will play there? Members? Jeez, the pro's won't go there, the fans won't want to watch, live, or on TV, sponsors will wonder why they are paying for a bore fest, where every other player is hacking out sideways?
Would you watch?

 

[Tashyboy]

Yes, moving things on a golf course costs money. Who pays? The members? It won't be the players, and it won't be the tour.
Yes, growing rough requires watering, and fertiliser. That's money, and also chemicals which can be bad for the environment, and water, which is a limited resource quite often.
Make the rough silly deep 20 yards off the fairway? Who will play there? Members? Jeez, the pro's won't go there, the fans won't want to watch, live, or on TV, sponsors will wonder why they are paying for a bore fest, where every other player is hacking out sideways?
Would you watch?

I watch the Majors when time allows and that’s it, but how can it be right that you can boom a drive 300 yds. Can be 20 yds left or right of the fairway yet can still play an iron to reach the green.
Horsey shot 9- today with 7 birdies on the back nine, Gallagher shot 7 birdies on the front nine. Do we really want to see players shooting 14- for a round when they are not hitting fairways. And that is down to courses allowing them to do it.
Courses that were designed 100 plus years ago were a test years ago. Technology has changed courses have stayed still.
Re us, it’s just easy to agree to disagree.

 

[USER1999]

Sure, we can agree to disagree, but I don't get how you expect courses to change to match the equipment change. It's just the wrong way round.

 

[Imurg]

2 things they could do at the very next tournament that would cost next to nothing and might, just might have an effect.
Instead of the fairways being shaved, don't cut them quite as short and cut towards the tee
Grow the grass - not by much but instead of 1 inch 1st cut, make it 1 1/12.
Make the 2nd cut 3 inches, the proper rough 4 or 5.
It won't make a huge difference but it will make a difference.
And limit the drivers to 10° minimum loft.
Every manufacturer makes a 10 or 10.5 so it's cost effective.
And police it. 156 players? Test 20% every week, random draw so some people get picked 2 weeks running.
Adding launch and spin will drop distances
Add in the slightly longer grass and it might be enough.
Surely its worth trying things that don't cost much, if anything, before redesigning equipment and courses..

 

[evemccc]

I think adding ever more length to courses is a crazy idea. First I'd do what Imurg suggested, then deal with equipment and ball for pros if that didn't work. Would never happen though. Money talks and the OEM vested interests would not like it..

But I've no problem with bifucation in principle. And let's put to bed the idea that we're playing (or are able to play - cost a limiting factor at £300 a round) the 'same' courses as the pros with the same equipment conditions. Those greens for the Open and US Open are clearly turned-up to an extreme, rough is grown higher at Muirfield for example, the tee-boxes are way, way behind the usual Medal or White tees. So of you turn up at Turnberry or Lytham, or TOC, you're just not dealing with the holes and the challenge of the holes in the same way the pros do. For example Woodhall Spa has up to 100 yards difference from the Yellow tees to the Champ tees on some holes
We've established there's a number of tour-only equipment inc balls /shafts that we know about (what don't we know about that they're using?), they have every hour under the sun to practice, with the best coaches, with skilled caddies advising them and lugging their stuff around and cleaning up.
Those who have been on the Euro Tour / PGA Tour for few years have fabulous wealth, often come from wealth, and if they didn't they have usually had excellent backing and coaching from youth, esp if they showed natural promise.
Check out Jason Day's home golf studio and backyard green. On the Full Swing Youtube channel. Amazing indoor putting green which mimics any contour he wants. It's fantastic.

So if we're not playing the same courses (not really) using the same equipment (not exactly) and clearly don't have millions of pounds for coaching / facilities / dieticians, caddies, swing-coaches, personal chefs and others to help us reach peak performance, we're just not playing the same game in the same circumstances, so what's the problem with bifurcation?


NB: I get how cool it is for us to play at these Open venues, and golf allows this, whilst the equivalent of a bogey golfer will never be able to turn out at Wembley, Lord's, Wimbledon etc. But I would categorise it as playing 'on' the same course - rather than playing 'the same' course - as the challenges each hole gives are substantially different to what the pros face (green-speed, rough, length from tee-box etc), so we can't compare ourselves to the pro's circumstances

 

[theoneandonly]

Where?

Well if you had bothered to quote my whole post , you'll see I said I agree with Rory, from there you can go and see what Rory said and know that I also think the same.

 

[jim8flog]

The standard Ventus that comes in the SiM is a good shaft but it lacks the Velacore tech that the more expensive version has.
It stabilises the shaft more for the stronger player
Costs about 300 quid.
There's no way on earth Rory has the standard Ventus jn his SiM

I have that Ventus shaft and it’s not the same Ventus Shaft that Rory will be using - the fitter had one of those and I tried it , it’s very nice and is better balanced and costs over £400

Thanks for the info but it does go the point about the shafts that pros use are available to amateurs and not restricted to pro only.

 

[jim8flog]

I do think shafts are the main difference between our clubs and theirs.

Best example is Bubba's driver - part graphite, part steel!

Shafts that are part graphite and part steel have been around for years.

The TrueTemper BiMatrix was standard fit to the Adams ST series of woods

If you want the same shaft it is one you can buy and is not restricted to pro only.

 

[Bdill93]

Shafts that are part graphite and part steel have been around for years.

The TrueTemper BiMatrix was standard fit to the Adams ST series of woods

If you want the same shaft it is one you can buy and is not restricted to pro only.

Hardly common these days though is it! Im not saying its not possible to buy one, anyone can spend cash for something the pro's get for free. Its just the main difference between our "stock" clubs and their "tour" clubs.

 

[Imurg]

There are head differences too.
There will, most likely, be shafts that are Tour only as well...prototypes and one offs.
They may find their way into the 2nd hand market but won't be available for sale to the general public.

 

[Tashyboy]

2 things they could do at the very next tournament that would cost next to nothing and might, just might have an effect.
Instead of the fairways being shaved, don't cut them quite as short and cut towards the tee
Grow the grass - not by much but instead of 1 inch 1st cut, make it 1 1/12.
Make the 2nd cut 3 inches, the proper rough 4 or 5.
It won't make a huge difference but it will make a difference.
And limit the drivers to 10° minimum loft.
Every manufacturer makes a 10 or 10.5 so it's cost effective.
And police it. 156 players? Test 20% every week, random draw so some people get picked 2 weeks running.
Adding launch and spin will drop distances
Add in the slightly longer grass and it might be enough.
Surely its worth trying things that don't cost much, if anything, before redesigning equipment and courses..

The point of my posts is why do the people that make equipment have to change things but the golf courses do nothing. The things that you have mentioned will cost next to nothing. By doing what you suggest is a step in the right direction. Try that for a season and see where we stand.
Would a player try to drive a ball 320 yds if there were water either side of the fairway. Probably not. But driving it 320 yds plus knowing it’s still a shot into the green with a mid iron for me is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Persimmon and balata. That will seperate the ball strikers from the gym rats.

While we are at it take the lob wedge out of their hands and see who has the 'spanish hands' ala Seve.

 

[Tashyboy]

I think adding ever more length to courses is a crazy idea. First I'd do what Imurg suggested, then deal with equipment and ball for pros if that didn't work. Would never happen though. Money talks and the OEM vested interests would not like it..

But I've no problem with bifucation in principle. And let's put to bed the idea that we're playing (or are able to play - cost a limiting factor at £300 a round) the 'same' courses as the pros with the same equipment conditions. Those greens for the Open and US Open are clearly turned-up to an extreme, rough is grown higher at Muirfield for example, the tee-boxes are way, way behind the usual Medal or White tees. So of you turn up at Turnberry or Lytham, or TOC, you're just not dealing with the holes and the challenge of the holes in the same way the pros do. For example Woodhall Spa has up to 100 yards difference from the Yellow tees to the Champ tees on some holes
We've established there's a number of tour-only equipment inc balls /shafts that we know about (what don't we know about that they're using?), they have every hour under the sun to practice, with the best coaches, with skilled caddies advising them and lugging their stuff around and cleaning up.
Those who have been on the Euro Tour / PGA Tour for few years have fabulous wealth, often come from wealth, and if they didn't they have usually had excellent backing and coaching from youth, esp if they showed natural promise.
Check out Jason Day's home golf studio and backyard green. On the Full Swing Youtube channel. Amazing indoor putting green which mimics any contour he wants. It's fantastic.

So if we're not playing the same courses (not really) using the same equipment (not exactly) and clearly don't have millions of pounds for coaching / facilities / dieticians, caddies, swing-coaches, personal chefs and others to help us reach peak performance, we're just not playing the same game in the same circumstances, so what's the problem with bifurcation?


NB: I get how cool it is for us to play at these Open venues, and golf allows this, whilst the equivalent of a bogey golfer will never be able to turn out at Wembley, Lord's, Wimbledon etc. But I would categorise it as playing 'on' the same course - rather than playing 'the same' course - as the challenges each hole gives are substantially different to what the pros face (green-speed, rough, length from tee-box etc), so we can't compare ourselves to the pro's circumstances

This, ?
Back in 2015 I had a holiday in Mauritius. I played Il Aux Cerf and Anahita with the intention of playing either of the courses again, whichever one I preferred. I Played Anahita a second time. As it happened the european tour was there and I played the course on the final day after the pros were miles in front. Sweet lord the course in the space of a week was unbelievable. The greens were like putting on billiard tables. I played on the same course from different pots, it beat seven bales out of me.
The thing is I played with my own clubs. Why a pro should have equipment reeled in at the moment is beyond me. If course alterations don’t work. Then look at equipment.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The point of my posts is why do the people that make equipment have to change things but the golf courses do nothing. The things that you have mentioned will cost next to nothing. By doing what you suggest is a step in the right direction. Try that for a season and see where we stand.
Would a player try to drive a ball 320 yds if there were water either side of the fairway. Probably not. But driving it 320 yds plus knowing it’s still a shot into the green with a mid iron for me is wrong.

The rule makers can't control how courses are set though. The tours can but seem reluctant. Restricting balls and equipment is something rule makers can actually do.

I agree it would be simpler for courses to set up differently but there seems to be little appetite for this.

 

[Tashyboy]

The rule makers can't control how courses are set though. The tours can but seem reluctant. Restricting balls and equipment is something rule makers can actually do.

I agree it would be simpler for courses to set up differently but there seems to be little appetite for this.

Part of the problem is fans “ like” to see balls boomed 320 yds plus, they like to see 8 under par rounds, course set up allows that. So why is that the manufacturers problem to solve?
Heres another thought. Narrowing of the fairways with thicker 1st and second cut may make players play a three wood and hit it 300 yds to hit the fairway
limiting a drivers head to 10deg as Imurg suggests may well have players hitting it 300 yds.
All we are talking about is which is the best way to achieve the same goal.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

This, ?
Back in 2015 I had a holiday in Mauritius. I played Il Aux Cerf and Anahita with the intention of playing either of the courses again, whichever one I preferred. I Played Anahita a second time. As it happened the european tour was there and I played the course on the final day after the pros were miles in front. Sweet lord the course in the space of a week was unbelievable. The greens were like putting on billiard tables. I played on the same course from different pots, it beat seven bales out of me.
The thing is I played with my own clubs. Why a pro should have equipment reeled in at the moment is beyond me. If course alterations don’t work. Then look at equipment.

Erin Hills 2017 US Open, 7800 yards, -16 winning score.

Non of the courses on the Open rota are anywhere near that length and don't know how you can lengthen St Andrews or Lytham for example.

Somehow I can't see the R and A digging up Granny Clark's Wynd and building a lake across the 18th so maybe a few windmills scattered about the place to provide a tougher test.

Moving forward, in 20 years time all the Majors are going to be held on new modern courses they can stretch out to 8500 yards and the event will be no different fron a run of the mill PGA Tour event from TPC Dullsville with a winning score of -20.

I

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Part of the problem is fans “ like” to see balls boomed 320 yds plus, they like to see 8 under par rounds, course set up allows that. So why is that the manufacturers problem to solve?
Heres another thought. Narrowing of the fairways with thicker 1st and second cut may make players play a three wood and hit it 300 yds to hit the fairway
limiting a drivers head to 10deg as Imurg suggests may well have players hitting it 300 yds.
All we are talking about is which is the best way to achieve the same goal.

Back in the 70's it was exciting for fans to see balls boomed 260 yards plus.

Difference back in the day it was obvious who the good ball strikers were as the equipment seperated the higher skilled from the rest.

Brute force, a good wedge game and a good putting week is enough to win on tour these days.

 

[Tashyboy]

Erin Hills 2017 US Open, 7800 yards, -16 winning score.

Non of the courses on the Open rota are anywhere near that length and don't know how you can lengthen St Andrews or Lytham for example.

Somehow I can't see the R and A digging up Granny Clark's Wynd and building a lake across the 18th so maybe a few windmills scattered about the place to provide a tougher test.

Moving forward, in 20 years time all the Majors are going to be held on new modern courses they can stretch out to 8500 yards and the event will be no different fron a run of the mill PGA Tour event from TPC Dullsville with a winning score of -20.

Hole 18 – Tom Morris – 357 yards, par 4

One of golf’s most memorable sights, the 18th has an extremely wide fairway with out of bounds down the right hand side. The line for the tee shot is the clock on the R & A Clubhouse which takes you slightly to the left. The fairway is relatively flat until you come to the Valley of Sin which sits in front of the green. Then you have to decide whether to pitch over it or run through it. A fantastic finishing hole, steeped in history. Click here to see image…

Thankyou for mentioning the home of golf. The description of the 18th hole sums up what I have said, apart from OOB right what are the hazards on that hole.