11/21/24
April 21, 2004
Why not simply make the holes more difficult? Design a course that puts a premium on the short game? Doesn't making the course longer breed the kind of technological innovation we're seeing, causing a vicious cycle?
posted by vito90 at 07:41 AM on April 21, 2004
Yeah, make the holes smaller!!! Woot!
posted by BigCalm at 08:02 AM on April 21, 2004
There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong to me with changing the courses (whether you make them longer, shorter or more difficult) - there's no need for it when you could save billions of dollars and just slow the ball down. Ultimately, what you have to do to win a golf tournament is beat the players around you - you don't have to shoot a certain score to win, just take fewer shots than everyone else that week. Also, it will get to the point where established and wonderful golf courses become completely unrecognisable. The Augusta Phil Mickelson won on this year was pretty dramatically different to the one Tiger won on in 1997. What's it going to look like in 2010, or 2050? It's all about money now - the equipment manufacturers would spit their dummies out big time if the rulemakers tightened the technological restrictions on the equipment they're making even further.
posted by JJ at 08:34 AM on April 21, 2004
vito90 - i'm with you. make the holes shorter with more obstacles so you can't blast away. then skilled placement becomes premium.
posted by kokaku at 08:56 AM on April 21, 2004
That's an awful bar chart in the article, by the way.
posted by mbd1 at 10:03 AM on April 21, 2004
There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong to me with changing the courses (whether you make them longer, shorter or more difficult) - there's no need for it when you could save billions of dollars and just slow the ball down. Golf has adapted to improvements in equipment for centuries -- anyone here ever tried to hit a gutta percha ball? Hobbling players with inferior clubs or balls would be a much more drastic change to the game than adjusting courses. Courses don't have to get longer to rein in long hitters -- you can narrow the fairways, bring more obstacles into play, and make other changes. In 2030, if pro golfers are driving the ball 50 yards less than I am, I think that's more damaging to the sport than longer holes at Augusta.
posted by rcade at 10:05 AM on April 21, 2004
JJ - as long as they include the creepy clown, spinning windmill, and the thing at the end that reclaims your ball for the golfing gods, i think you're on to something (or on something). hello? PGA? can you hear us?
posted by kokaku at 10:18 AM on April 21, 2004
I was going to comment on the bar chart, but then I figured that being accused of being an econodork twice in one day would be a bit more than I could take.
posted by JJ at 02:40 AM on April 22, 2004
rcade - I see your point, and to a degree I agree with you - I don't think having the pros playing with inferior equipment compared to the amateurs is the way forward - if it were up to me, the ball would be slowed down for everyone. I'm not quite old enough to remember the details of what happened with small balls and big balls in the 70's, but I do know that things moved from a situation of people being able to chose which one they wanted to play, to tournaments stipulating which ball would be used that week, to the whole game adopting the bigger ball and making the smaller one illegal. What I can envisage happening is something similar to that - rather than a return to the gutta percha (can you imagine the mess if you tried hitting one of those bad boys with a titanium headed driver that looked as though it had been made by Fisher Price?). I liked the quote at the end of the article - I want to watch people who have mastered the use of the equipment, rather than invented something new to solve the problem. I tune in to see people struggle, and largely to see them fail - that's what makes it special when someone succeeds - I don't tune in to see birdies and eagles. Mind you, I suppose I should concede that my arguments are somewhat paradoxical - for example, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that athletes should revert to running on gravel tracks in heavy shoes. I suppose I'm just a traditionalist and I don't like to see a wonderful old course having to be tricked up to make it a challenge for the pros. I've been lucky enough to play Prestwick, where the first ever Open championship was played - it's a good test of golf, and a beautiful place to play, but you couldn't have a professional tournament there now - which is a shame as far as I'm concerned.
posted by JJ at 04:52 AM on April 22, 2004
I don't believe in limiting techonology. Make the balls go farther, use giant tennis racquets, break out the aluminum bats! Obliterate all records so Sportscenter doesn't have to talk for an hour about the lateset BB homerun.
posted by corpse at 06:45 AM on April 22, 2004
The prevailing attitudes seem to be that you either slow down the balls or continue to make the courses longer. Two alternatives I've heard: 1) Ban any wedge with more than 56 degrees of loft, thus making people think twice about trying to simply overpower the golf course and having the easy lob escape from any sticky situation they put themselves in, and; 2) Ban the tee peg - let's see you hit it 350 off the deck! Any other ideas?