Why does the USPGA feel the need to try to limit players scoring

In every other game in the world as equipment advances have been made the stage on which the game is played remains the same. A 50M pool 40 yrs ago is still 50M filled with water, so we can say that swimmers today prob are faster than they were back then cause we are comparing like with like. The 100M sprint has always been 100M, A football pitch is still the same area, a dart board is still the same radius and distance but in all cases the professionals of these games keep pushing the envelope out and proving they are better than they're predecessors. So why in golf is there something wrong with Tiger hitting 10 birdies on the exact same course that say Ben Hogan could only manage 5 birdies or what is so wrong with an average of 310 or more off the tee today when the golfers of the past could only muster up 270 yrds.
Why can they not just leave courses as they are and then we truely can measure golfers of different generations against each other.

I understand what you are saying and agree with most. The U.S. Open is horrible to watch sometimes because they make the course so hard that these pros struggle to make pars. I would much rather see guys be able to make a birdie or two down the stretch rather than see them have to struggle to make a bogey.

The reason that they change the courses, and the reason why we can't compare generations, is simple -- equipment. The golfers may be better than they were 25-30 years ago, they might not be. But the equipment has changed the game. Jack couldn't hit a ball 350 back in the day because the equipment wouldn't do it. 20 years ago a 7000 yard course was a monster. With the advances in equipment, a 7000 yard course is now considered short (for the pros anyway).

If you took the top 20 guys now and transported them back in time 25-30 years, with their current equipment, none of them would need a driver. They would probably take a 3-wood and a 5-wood or hybrid and about 5 wedges so they could get creative. With 410 yard par 4's and 515 yard par 5's they would tear the courses apart.

It is the the same reason why you can't compare Federer and Borg at tennis. The court is the same, but the main tool, the racquet, is much different.

I think it is obvious that the PGA has a strong desire to protect the past accomplishments of older players.

I think they really, really don't like seeing young golfers of today shattering records (either due to better equipment, greater power and athleticism, or whatever else) set by golf legends of the past. I guess they believe that it somehow might tarnish the purity of the game and its history.

Personally, I disagree. I grew up as a baseball fan watching the game transform - hitters getting stronger and taking bigger swings, balls getting wound tighter, fences getting shorter, etc. I think that most baseball fans are able to compartmentalize things and recognize that you can't directly compare Stan Musial to Albert Pujols, for example. The numbers are different, but both are great players who just happened to exist in different eras.

Tim

The biggest issue I have is how the us open course are becoming. For whatever reason the USGA really wants pro golfers to look bad on the course. These guys are so good the only way to do that is make the course back breakingly difficult or even unfair. Greens like concrete and rough that is a .5 stroke penalty is not interesting to watch to me. Some people like to watch the pros look like hackers but not me. I want to see birdies! You can see people win because they made the least amount of bogies at any course on a saturday, I want to see people win because they made the most birdies.

BogeyMike,
Now that's what I'm talking about. I'm losing interest in watching golf on telly cause the players are made look so ordinary when in fact it is the course difficulty that is giving this perception. After all it is TV and advertising revenue that pays for a lot of this and if like F1 racing the powers that be keep trying to make the competitors look ordinary then more people like me will start to switch off.

exactly, I can watch myself make bogeys and hit crap shots in the rough. It seems to be more of a problem in the majors for some reason. Probably because they receive more attention and are compared more often to what someone in the 60's did. In my opinion golf cannot be compared over generations except some intangible things like swings and palying style and what not. The new equipment and modern affordability of golf has really made it a different game than it was 50 years ago. Let's see some birds this weekend!

I think the US Open setting the standard of having the winning score around par is perfectly fine - there are plenty of tournaments throughout the year where the winner is 14 or 15 under - we don't need to see it every week.

What I don't like seeing is that the Masters and PGA have also gravitated to a similar attitude and we essentially get 3 "US Open" like courses in the majors. There has been some outcry this year and I would not be surprised to see the Masters really change some things up next year to bring back that "Masters Sunday" feel.

I would say that MLB has done something similar by outlawing metal bats. Since professional golf is driven by the equipment companies they can't outlaw titanium and graphite, or the exotic ball materials, so they make the course harder.

Equipment and golf ball. enough said.

Not so fast, my friend. Yes, a 50M pool is still 50M filled with water but those new speedo swimsuits give modern swimmers a real advantage over swimmers of 40 yrs. ago. The 100M sprint is still 100M but the track material is far better. Some runners refer to it as "the magic carpet." Plus, today's running shoes are better than the running shoes of 40 yrs ago. Which is not to diminish the talents of modern athletes. They may be bigger, stronger, faster, etc. but golf does not have a monopoly on high tech advances in equipment.

That said, it's important to maintain a level of difficulty for the players. How competitive would it be if every player got birdie or better on every hole? Who would even want to be a pro golfer if it was easy. The challenge is part of the fun. For my part, I don't enjoy watching the pros look like hackers for that reason but I do enjoy watching them get out of trouble. Some of the greatest shots you'll ever see on the PGA tour are shots where some guy has to hit out from behind a tree, his ball sitting between two roots, covered in pine straw and he hits a low liner between the tree branches 200 yds. and stops it two feet from the cup. Tiger is famous for shots like that. I don't enjoy those because it makes the pro look like a hacker but because it shows just how phenomenal he really is. Mere mortals like us would just take a drop and a penalty stroke. That's why they're pros and we're not.

I disagree with your statement that the PGA/USGA can't outlaw certain things. They most certainly can if they want to. They already put rules in place on wedge grooves, for example.

Auto Racing puts rules in place such that the total weight of your car must be greater than a certain value. So no matter what kind of "exotic" material you use, eventually your car becomes too light and you have to actually add weights. This rule mitigates the endless technical chase for the best (meaning "most expensive") materials. Golf could (and does) do the same - put technical rules in place such that Driver technology improvements eventually become non-conforming. Would you want to see a PGA Tour where the players all use $50,000 high-tech drivers that allow drives of 400 yards? I think not. PGA/USGA should continue to do all they can to keep the equipment companies out of an "arms race." One way is with technology rules. Another way is by designing courses that don't benefit from super-long drives.

Today versus Hogan's day - - Golf clubs are far more technologically advanced. Golf balls are far more technologically advanced. The grass on the fairways is far more genetically advanced. The grass on the greens is far more genetically advanced.

Today's golfers have a plethora of golf knowledge and instruction at their finger tips...instant video swing analysis...launch monitors...sports psychologists etc...

Yesteryear's golfers figured it out on their own - for the most part.

The golf of Today's US Open is perfectly comparable to the golf of 50 or 100 years ago, I believe.

If today's players played with 1953 technology and on 1953 courses the scores would be comparable with the real scores of those times.

This is largely a safety issue... the same reason why so many high school and college leagues have now switched back to wood.

Tim

Yet I, and most of the guys I play with deplore the birdie fests that so many of the Tour stops turn into. The Hope is an utter bore. I don't even watch golf unless I know that the players will be challenged, either by the course or by the way it's set up. When I see someone at 12 or 13 under after 2 rounds, I just plan something else for the weekend, because all I'm going to see if I watch is boring golf on a boring course. When the cut line is under par, then something is wrong. I want the best players to be required to plan and play their best shots to win, not just see who can get closest to the pin in a bomb and gouge birdie contest.

As long as the equipment remains as it is, most PGA Tour golf will continue to be boring. I'm anxiously looking forward to seeing if the groove change next year has a positive effect on my bore meter.

This makes sense! Plus now there coming out with new rules for wedge grooves? There making it harder to put spin on the ball. Courses continue to get longer, faster. If they see a lot of players laying up in a certain area, they'll end up building a new bunker right in the middle!

I don't understand why a change isn't made to simply roll back ball technology about 10 years or so. This would seem to solve many of the issues mentioned.

I, for one, could care less about players looking foolish during the US Open. I do care, however, about some of the legendary courses that either have to be fundamentally altered or passed over because of the length of today's touring pro.

Golf has several factors that make it different from the many other sports in your comparison. First, golf is a very equipment-dependent sport. It is so equipment dependent that the pros have to hire someone to carry all that stuff around for them when they play (don't see that in any other individual sports, like tennis!). For other equipment-dependent sports, the ruling bodies have made many restrictions to limit the impact of "buying a better game". As others mentioned there are restrictions in auto racing, tennis, etc. Pole vaulters have limits on what they're allowed to use. Javelins have been "throttled" to prevent them from being thrown out of a stadium. American football has kept the ball the same even though aerodynamics could greatly improve its flight. Look what has happened in Americas Cup yachting where they haven't limited the technology - it is now almost a caricature of a sport. And in your example of swimming, you'll find that FINA has pages of regulations on swimwear - it is heavily restricted as to what you can and cannot use.

Second, the comparisons to swimming pools or football pitches are focused on the playing field, but in those sports it is one opponent versus another. In golf it is primarily one person against the golf course - the course is your primary opponent. The playing field isn't static either, changing conditions constantly (one of the things that makes golf so interesting).

As a sport, golf also bridges the spectrum from the pros all the way down to the least talented of amateur players more than any sport I can think of, and also bridges all ages. If people suck at football, they tend not to play it anymore - can't say that about the golfers! You also don't see many 80 year olds out auto racing. Because of this broad spectrum of ability and age, golf has to find a balance between the desires of the hackers and the talents of the best pros. The tools that the ruling bodies have to find this balance are the equipment and the playing field, and they use both.

And finally, golf is a sport but is also a business. Most sports which require such an array of equipment do not enjoy the popular success that golf has, and because of this there is a fairly large business that has developed designing and building clubs, balls, etc. If the ruling bodies tried to find the balance above with only the equipment, it would greatly limit the business opportunities by the many companies in the sport. Magazines wouldn't be able to survive without having all the advertisements for the latest and greatest. These all represent a large economic base, and that base will lobby to prevent being put out of business. The sport would likely die out quickly, or at least drop significantly in popularity.

So wrapping these all together means that we will continue to see technology improve but with limits, and golf courses get a little longer as well. It's a balance.

I personally like the difficulty of the courses. Take last weekend's Bob Hope invitational. The 18th was a bear. I believe it was averaging over 5. You knew even if a player had the lead, he was going to have to get by that last whole. I thought it made for compelling TV.