 |
| image courtesy Asian Pacific Golf Group |
In the piece John provides his
solution to the debate on the distance the ball travels. He recommends a system
where a variety of golf balls, longer, shorter and the same as today be created
and players choose their ball and then a new handicapping system makes allowances for the
tee and ball selection.
The following is from John’s
suggestion:
Here is how I think we can do
just that:
-- Replace today's single golf ball distance limit with three different
"Ball Distance Ratings" (or "BDRs") - one that is the same
as today's limit, one that is shorter and one that is longer.
-- Adopt a "BDR Condition of Competition" -- each event could
apply the BDR appropriate for its course design and yardage, and for the skill
level of the golfers competing at the event.
-- Include BDR as a factor in calculating handicaps -- just as "slope
rating" or choice of tee box does today, the BDR of the ball you use will
factor into your handicap.
The flaw in his idea is the inclusion of a longer ball. Almost
all recreational players will want to play even longer ball. They would rather
be given an advantage than work to find the improvement in their game necessary to
overcome their weaknesses. Allowing this to occur may be a manufacture’s dream,
but runs contrary to everything that makes golf great.
As a designer I’m frightened by what an additional 30
yards of distance will do to the safety of golf courses. Most city courses are
already having a tough time dealing with the proximity of urbanization to the
course and adding another 30 yards is going to increase the problems by a large
factor.
Finally as a designer I have enough trouble trying to
create an interesting course for “all” levels of players. I have to rely on
the correct use of multiple tees to address the disparity in driving distance. How
would I possibly design for a situation where players can choose different
balls with a further 60 yard variation on the current day?
Ideas like this are not practical. Speaking of practical, why don't we address the issue with common sense. Golf is clearly in decline.
Consider this stream of thought and you’ll understand why I think the only smart choice is a shorter ball.
Shorter
ball flight = less land = lower costs to build and maintain = lower price point
for consumer = more participation
As if there aren't enough rules. Please let recreational players be themselves.I can only imagine the arguments before, during and after a round. Decent players will use club selection in my opinion. To me it is just another way for the industry to make a buck, the argument that it may create courses that are cheaper to maintain is hogwash.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my next comment got through . Can you not create or rebuilt a course that has a relative easy front 9 and a tougher back 9, So amateurs could play the front , enjoy it and retire, but the back 9 would be a challenge? Just a thought, many teens and ladies would enjoy that I would think! I cannot play any more but still really enjoy the game (asybot@gmail.com)
ReplyDeleteThis article is amazing as it helps me to get the sort of information that i needed. I am thankful as i got your article when was searching. I am always looking out for blog design
ReplyDeleteCan you see Hamilton or St. Georges making changes to their routing to eliminate maintenance needs? If thats the goal the only way to achieve it is to have everyone on board. I still think the 12 hole golf course is the way of the future.
ReplyDelete