Tom Dunne: "We don't want Hummers anymore, and unless we're playing on TV, we don't need 7,400-yard stadium courses, either."

You may recall John Solheim's three-ball solution for the game and while many of us laughed it off at the time because of liability concerns introduced by a longer flying ball, Tom Dunne has made me reconsider with an absolute must read piece asking pertinent questions about what we really want from this silly game.

The future of golf is not a zero-sum game, and the 80 percent solution is not about replacing the modern golf ball. It's about the game's governing bodies legitimizing—and the manufacturers developing a market for—an alternative to golf that is still Real Golf. We don't want Hummers anymore, and unless we're playing on TV, we don't need 7,400-yard stadium courses, either.

There's more than one way forward.

So his premise is this: would "a good limited-flight ball wouldn't bring back some of the sporting nature of golf without sacrificing its fundamental qualities."

It's taken as an article of faith that Americans like Big Things—unless the free market dictates otherwise, we'll buy Hummers all day long. But the market did exactly that to the Hummer—it buried it—and the same thing is happening in golf. Gigantism. To create venues to suit the modern equipment and ball, developers face enormous land costs, huge construction, commodity and maintenance budgets—all expenses that are finally passed along to the consumer, who in turn chooses to find some other way to spend his leisure dollar.

Comments

[bonnie banks]

What a very interesting thought provoking article.Nice one.

[Brian J]

"He's thinking of classic courses bending over backward to find yardage and in some cases butchering their designs to defend against the modern game." As a golf course shaper that has worked on some classic courses I couldn't agree more with this quote from the article. Some of the great old courses just don't have the land surrounding them that could be acquired to lengthen them and then where you can gain length the bunkers get out of position and have to be adjusted then the bunkers don't work with the rest of the tees so they need adjusting. Everyone wants to hit the ball 400 yards and club and ball manufacturers want to let us hit it "longer and straighter", I can surely relate to that, I have seen courses that are designed over 8000 yards but land costs, maintenance costs and equipment costs (during construction) are passed down to the golfer and in these times not a good way to get people on the course. I don`t think there is an easy answer to this situation but in the end, to me, it`s all about the game of golf. Great article by the way . Brian

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Great article by Mr. Dunne. I grew up playing golf in the 60's and would be perfectly content playing the same clubs and golf balls today that we played back then. I am even looking forward to trying the hickories and Haskell someday.

[Press Agent]

I see absolutely no reason to develop a ball that flies any further than the balls we have today. I have seen 12 handicappers with mediocre swings hit a pro V 300 yards, so we do not need a longer ball for anything period.

We could however develop 2 more shorter balls, one a bit shorter, say 15 yards or something, and one much shorter - 30 - 40 yards...

[dan]

You forget some of the big advantages to a shorter ball:

- More walkable golf courses
- Easier to watch your shots (nobody can see a ball from 300 yds)
- shorter rounds
- fewer lost balls/time spent looking for them

[bjturk]

Longer courses solve nothing. Length is the course architect's cop-out. Nobody puts a premium on shotmaking. At 155 yards or so, #12 at Augusta should be a pushover with today's equipment, and yet Graeme McDowell calls it the most difficult hole in all of golf. That's what a good course architect does. What we need are not longer courses but better architects.

[A3]

Oh thank you bjturk. Better architects and probably egoless developers and egoless golfers. Long holes can be easier than short holes. And maybe a ban on asphalt cart paths could save money for the cost of construction from my completely pedestrian view.

300 yds? From 12 handicapper, I have played many many rounds as a single, I can count the numbers of times I have seen this on one hand.

[Steve Elling]

The Solheim proposal makes me laugh.

So a guy who makes clubs wants to change the golf ball, which results in no lost revenue for his company.

Ping made golf balls in the 1970s and failed to make a real dent, then canned the idea. Now the company wants to neuter the ball and make it somebody esle's sales issue?

Filed under: "Easy for him to say."

Funny.

[Mike T.]

Thanks for the interesting read, Tom. I like the idea of golf courses that are less expensive to construct and maintain, and take less time to play. But getting golfers to accept less distance flies in the face of precedents that have stood since Old Tom Morris fell out with Alan Robertson in the featherie vs. guttie dust-up. Whoever figures this one out will deserve a medal.

[GeoffreyC]

Great article Tom.

Check out the 9 hole Dutcher Golf Course in Pawling NY. It looks pretty much the same today as it did in 1890 when it was first built with stone walls included. It was the first golf course I ever played and with a 4 iron and putter. It's hardly little Pine Valley but lots of fun.

[Chuck]

The Shackelfordians mostly agree on the critical need to protect classic course designs from runaway technology. Where it gets tricky for some is whether to "bifurcate." And I just don't see any need for that. Establish a single rolled back Overall Distance Standard. Require it, for all tour and all competitive amateur play. And if people don't wish to play by the Rules of golf, let them play with whatever else they want.

Really; why do the Rules of Golf have to accomodate different designs? Let recreational cartball players use whatever the hell they want. No one cares.

[JW]

Can someone quantify for me the actual incremental cost of building and maintaining a 7700 yard course (from back tees) and a 7000 yard course (from back tees).

Adding length does not necessarily equate to more land that what exists or more maintained turf (other than a small tee box).

[g_r_c]

unless golfers are willing to accept less-than-perfect conditioning day in and day out, maintenance costs will never be reduced...no matter how "long" the course is...

[GolfFan]

Good God is that an old, outdated photo of #10 PVGC.

Can anyone bring Links into the new millennium?

[JimMe]

Golf is not losing popularity because of long rounds or cost. Here in the south, people put 5x the time and money into their hunting and fishing habits. Why? Because fishing and hunting are easy and not as frustrating.

The simple reason golf isn't more popular is because it is inherently difficult. It's not difficult because of the length of courses, it's difficult because most people aren't even coordinated enough to make contact with the golf ball and they don't want to put in the time to learn and improve. Changing the rules, courses and equipment isn't going to change that fact.