3 ms·

It kind of ruins the point/skill involved in many hole designs. Not sure if you are a golfer, but many holes in older courses were carefully designed with hazar

It kind of ruins the point/skill involved in many hole designs. Not sure if you are a golfer, but many holes in older courses were carefully designed with hazard s/locations (bunkers, rough, water etc) at specific distances to penalize poor shots, and to reward accurate approach play with mid/long irons. It completely changes the nature of the course if you can just boom a big drive over everything and not get penalized if its a bit wild, and then flop it on with a short pitching wedge. For example, in my local course (designed in 1894) there is a famous finishing hole that forces you to lay up your drive (e.g. using only a fairway wood) to avoid going into a gully, leaving you with a long 3- iron uphill approach shot. With bigger driving distances they've had to move back the teebox to retain the idea of the hole.

glanzwulf 4y ago
But then isn't the issue just with the course? It was designed in 1894 so maybe it's time to update it? Since then the equipment changed, the players changed, but the course hasn't (much as I'm sure the grass has and that plays a part too).
- tectec 4y ago
  That's what's being discussed, do "they" change every golf course or just nerf the equipment for pros a bit? Which also has the added benefit that amateurs can still play the course as intended.
- worldsayshi 4y ago
  Or you standardize the equipment to match certain characteristics. The only reason to continue tweaking the equipment forever would be that you want to sell clubs. Shouldn't it be about individual performance and technique?
  - glanzwulf 4y ago
    Yeah, I see your point. It's a tricky aspect because if you go that road and mess with the engineering aspect of the sport, what's the point to remain in the sport for the manufacturers? If you can't sell new "and better" clubs to make shit players like me hope to feel like Tiger Woods? But if they change the course, that won't affect me. I (and others like me) will never get to play at Augusta but those who do get to play, will continue playing there. So win win?
  - Dwolb 4y ago
    Standardizing equipment can then become a revenue lever for the industry. Want people to upgrade more frequently? Tweak the definition of a 7 iron so 10% of clubs become illegal.

glanzwulf 4y ago

But then isn't the issue just with the course? It was designed in 1894 so maybe it's time to update it? Since then the equipment changed, the players changed, but the course hasn't (much as I'm sure the grass has and that plays a part too).

tectec 4y ago
That's what's being discussed, do "they" change every golf course or just nerf the equipment for pros a bit? Which also has the added benefit that amateurs can still play the course as intended.
worldsayshi 4y ago
Or you standardize the equipment to match certain characteristics. The only reason to continue tweaking the equipment forever would be that you want to sell clubs. Shouldn't it be about individual performance and technique?
- glanzwulf 4y ago
  Yeah, I see your point. It's a tricky aspect because if you go that road and mess with the engineering aspect of the sport, what's the point to remain in the sport for the manufacturers? If you can't sell new "and better" clubs to make shit players like me hope to feel like Tiger Woods? But if they change the course, that won't affect me. I (and others like me) will never get to play at Augusta but those who do get to play, will continue playing there. So win win?
- Dwolb 4y ago
  Standardizing equipment can then become a revenue lever for the industry. Want people to upgrade more frequently? Tweak the definition of a 7 iron so 10% of clubs become illegal.