DFS PFD, on 13 June 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:
bigred90gt, on 13 June 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:
DFS PFD, on 13 June 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:
Ashley Schaeffer, on 13 June 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:
DFS PFD, on 13 June 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:
What's reasonable for every single golfer to be able to reach every hole in regulation? Honestly, I don't understand why everyone needs to be able to reach in reg with drives less than 200 yards. The game isn't supposed to be easy.
Maybe we need to only have executive courses.
That's a great point. Nobody "deserves" to hit a GIR when his or her game doesn't allow for it.
Some simply don't want to make it even harder for that type of player just because guys on TV aren't hitting the "right" clubs into greens.
Absolutely agree, just tired of seeing that point used over and over again. Not everyone that plays golf needs to be able to ( or is capable of) play(ing) regulation golf. That's why we have the handicap system. I think we're on the same page here.
WOW. I've seen a lot of arrogant statements in the roll back discussion, but this has to be up there with the best of them.
You dont DESRVE to even have a chance to possibly hit the green in regulation, deal with it, peasant. lol
There is no way you're going to tell me every single human on earth should be capable of reaching every hole on a golf course in regulation? Should everyone get to hit a home run? Dunk?
Peasant? Did I mention social class anywhere?
That would be more akin to everyone deserving a birdie or eagle or ace, but nice try. The game of golf has holes of varying lengths with a designated "par". That is the goal score for that hole. The convention behind it is you get two puts to get to that number, therefore being on the green in two strokes less than that number is being on the green in regulation. If the hole is out of reach for a player to be able to hit it in regulation, not necessarily because of a lack of skill but instead because of reduced performance of the equipment, then that hole cannot be played as designed. If this discussion is all about playing courses as the architects intended, then for a subset of golfers, you are doing away with their ability to do just that. And if they have a problem with it, touch luck, you dont deserve it? That is arrogant.
Of course some people wont be able to. Some people cant now. They have accepted that and either work to fix it or just carry on and enjoy the round. But there are those that can, and a rollback would mean they couldn't. They're just supposed to accept that, because a few people think there is some kind of problem with the way 0.01% of people play golf on a handful of golf courses?
Have you ever lost 20% or so distance, literally from one round to the next, and not been able to do anything about it? I have, and I moved up a set of tees, and golf is not as much fun as it used to be, which has resulted in my playing far less than I used to. Now, if that happened across the board, but not because of anything anyone that plays did to themselves or any decision they made (mine was a result of back surgery and repeated back injuries), do you not believe people will quit playing? Sure, the most hardcore fans will keep at it. A lot of casual players would quit. While some may think "great, faster rounds", think about the financial impact on the courses. Less rounds means less revenue, which means either a substantial increase in green fees for the remaining players, or closing the doors. That may sound extreme, but I can tell you, as someone who used to play 5-7 rounds per week and played on an amateur tour, I have almost quit because of it a few times, and now if I play once a week for a month, that's a lot of rounds. It is frustrating, and that is something that is my own fault. If some schmuck that is out of touch with the golfing public and cant see the world beyond the end of his own nose were to make that decision for me, I probably would have quit, and I imagine a lot of people would too.