USGA's Davis Floats Idea of Reduced Distance Balls

[David L Yskes]

I guess i dont mean it has to be gimmicky, but like when the US Open was at Merion, the course plays at 7000yards..  yet it still played tough as hell....  So it is possible to have a PGA tour stop that isnt over 7000 yards and still plays tough..   

[MarvChamp]

On 4/15/2017 at 7:09 PM, David L Yskes said:

 So it is possible to have a PGA tour stop that isnt over 7000 yards and still plays tough.

I watched some of the tournament in Morocco last week and some of the RBC Heritage. The old Morocco course is narrow, tree-lined and curves all fairways. The announcers called it an "old style" course (like Colonial?).  Shot placement was at a premium. Same at Harbour Town. Wrong side of the fairway, and you are stymied unless you can hit it both high and long.

The greens at both courses are smallish, I believe, certainly at Morocco, and seem to have unseen breaks. Point: Maybe the golf course design can solve whatever the perceived distance problem, even for youngsters who hit wedges phenomenal distances. -Marv

[gatsby47]

So my question in all of this, after seeing play on the two smaller, older courses, were you impressed with the skill of the hitters or the exactness of the shots into the green or any of the putting skills?  I just think that unless you are in the stable for RBC and are "requested" to play Harbor town and wherever the RBC Canadian Open is played, you avoid those weeks. Pros are still private contractors and the fill in tourneys are there for the amusement and entertainment of the viewing audiences and to fill the coffers of local charities. With Fed EX and the 4 majors and the Players and the Invitational only big money tourneys, you can have a very comfortable season or golf without hacking it out to Davenport or Las Vegas or Morocco.

It may be that you wont see some of the former golf courses.  There are plenty of lengthy ones built ready to step in.  I hope they aren't like that one in Washington for the US Open two years ago.  But that is the chance you take playing outdoors. I wouldn't limit anything.  And of course, the vast majority of golfers cannot play a course successfully from the tips.  No matter what ball or what club you use.  If you cannot apply the necessary time and inclination to practice, none of the stuff will matter,  That's why golfers with tried and true swings and knowledge about there limitations (just like Dirty Harry) said. will prevail and make your wallet flap. Do any of you actually buy new ProV's and/or ProV1's and perceive any noticeable improvement from the 2016 model?  I cannot, but that is just me. But I find a shitload in the woods wherever I play.  And I have a running Thank you to all who provide.

[jruckles]

Apparently I may be in the minority but I personally think the shortening of courses to half or less the total land area is a mandatory change for the future of golf if people truly want to "grow the game".  Let me explain...

I'll start by saying I love golf and golf courses in their current forms and in HS and college I was an avid tournament golfer and would break par on a good day, now I'm in my 30s with a family and the biggest issues with golf are:  cost / affordability, and time to play a round.

If I could walk a Par 72 golf course that was 4,000 yards in 2 hours for a $10 green free I'd play golf way more often.  That could be a reality if people were more open to this idea.  I live in Colorado and by the end of 2017 two of our highly played city courses are closing permanently because the costs of watering / maintenance of a regulation golf course simply are not met with even $30 to $35 green fees.

Now of course there can be country clubs that can afford to water and make courses 7,500 yards no problem, but if that's the future of the game it will become even more elitist with fewer and fewer courses staying alive each year.

A kid can go play basketball or tennis, etc for free, a shortened golf course to the size of large parks could make golf grow tremendously going forward in my opinion.

Plus it's all relative anyway, I can hit a drive 280 now, but I wouldn't care if that gets reduced to 140 or 150 if the course hole layouts are designed for it.

just my thoughts.

 

[iacas]

14 hours ago, jruckles said:

If I could walk a Par 72 golf course that was 4,000 yards in 2 hours for a $10 green free I'd play golf way more often.

Good luck with that, man. Not gonna happen. Greens and tees are still going to be the majority of the expense, and you can't really change the putting green to be ridiculously small, because a ball will still roll even if it flies 2/3 the distance off the tee.

That's a more recent discussion on this topic.