[Jason Topp]

(Part 1 of 3)

I’ve always been interested in this issue.  Given declines in sports such as tennis, it is an important issue.  I am inclined, to believe that distance is a problem.   I strongly disagree in general with arguments from club manufacturers that improved equipment is not having a dramatic impact because scoring has remained relatively consistent on tour.  I hate to see classic venues no longer able to host top events, particularly when newer replacements are often less satisfactory.  

On the other hand, from the time the gutty replaced the featherie, there have been cries that technological innovation is ruining the game.  Despite those arguments, the game has steadily grown over the last 100 years.   One text gives the following yardages for a series of technological innovations


Until    1848              Feathery       140 yards
Until    1902               Gutty            190 yards
Until     1945            Wound      230 yards
Until present (1996)         Modern   270 yards

Golf Course Architecture, Design, Construction and Restoration at 30-31 (Sleeping Bear Press, 1996).  There probably should be an additional category setting distances in this decade at 295 yards or so.  The current distance increase is along the same lines of increases associated with other significant equipment advances since 1848,

If one is going to claim “the sky is falling” one needs to make a strong case given the growth of the game in the face of such arguments.  Unfortunately, I think many of the arguments advanced to date are flawed.

I recently read at the Bobby Weed Jr. and Chris Monti Article “Technology and the Game of Golf” in Paul Daley’s Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective (Vol. 1) at 75-79 (2002), which makes the case for distance hurting the game.  Other writers make similar arguments.  See e.g. Geoff Shackelford, Grounds for Golf at 274-283 (St. Martin’s Press, 2003).  In the interests of furthering discussion, I thought I would critically examine some of the arguments made by Messrs Weed and Monti.  I think several of the arguments in the article are flat out wrong.  

1.   Myth 1 – Distance is far too important for the skilled player.

This argument has appeal for me.  I love the punched shot under the wind or Tiger Wood’s shot from the road on 17 at the Old Course, or shots from Corey Pavin worked one way or the other in the wind.

The fundamental premise of this argument, as I understand it, is that for players at the top levels of the game, distance has become too large a part of the equation.  I have heard Nick Price and other medium range tour pros make the same argument.  

It has always been the case that the longer hitter has an advantage over the shorter hitter.  The argument, as I understand it, is that the shorter hitter now does not have the opportunity to make up the difference through a better short game or through other means.

If distance were becoming too great of a factor in the game at the highest level, I would expect that the difference between a long hitter and a short to medium hitter on tour would be expanding.  To test this theory, I took a look at PGA tour driving distance statistics for the last full year (2004) and compared the distance of the 5th ranked player to the distance of the 100th ranked player (out of 189). Comparing these distances over the last 25 years shows that while distances have increased dramatically, the difference between the long and medium hitter on tour has remained quite consist

2004 (Difference 16.9)   5.       Chris Smith          304.0    100 Steve Elkington    287.1
1999 (Difference 19.1)   5.   Harrison Frazar    290.5   100.Rocco Mediate    271.4
1995 (Difference 17.   5.   Kelly Gibson        280.2   100. Chris Demarco    262.4
1989 (Difference 16.0)   5.   Bill Sander       276.9     100. Jim Benepe    260.9
1980 (Difference 14.9)  5.   Joe Hager       270.4   100. Tom Jones    255.5
      
(I chose the 5th ranked player rather than the first based on a belief that you can eliminate special circumstances by throwing out the longest distances.)  

If indeed distance was becoming too large of a factor, one would expect this discrepancy to become larger.  It has not.  It is possible, given some of the statistics provided by Shotlink, that distance has become a larger factor in an individual’s success at the highest level.  Analyzing that issue statistically is beyond my mathematical capabilities.  I doubt it is the case, as shorter hitters continue to win their share of tournaments (Mike Weir, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis).  Even if it were true, I would contend that such statistics would be related to course setup, as opposed to any absolute advantage in distance itself.

[Jason Topp]

(Part 2 of 3)

Myth 2:  The gap between the highly skilled and the average player with respect to distance is becoming too great and that therefore the average player will not be able to relate to the tour player and will lose interest.

I don’t believe this argument, which is also made by Geoff Shackelford in Grounds for Golf at 275-276 (St. Martin’s Press, 2003).    While it does appear that there is an increasing gap between the average driving distance of a professional as compared with an amateur.  See http://www.golfdigest.com/equipment/index.ssf?/equipment/gd200305growinggap.html.  In 1993 the gap between the average player and the 100th ranked tour pro was 71 yards.  In 2004, the gap grew to 85 yards.  

I do not believe any fan can tell the difference in the air between a pro that hits it 71 yards past them as compared to one that hits fourteen yards further.  I do not think most people can tell the difference in the air between 280 or a 320 yard drive.   I think the gap in distance between the average player and the tour pro has always been so large that a 14 yard increase will not make much of a difference.

Myth 3:  Increased distance is increasing the cost of building courses

This argument boils down to the notion that longer distances require longer courses, which require more land and that therefore the cost of golf is adversely impacted.  There are several flaws in this argument.  First, it is by no means clear that there is a need to build longer courses.  Micheal Hurzdan recommends that only 5% of the teeing area on a course be used for the back tee because that is the approximate percentage of use such tees get.  Golf Course Architecture, Design, Construction and Restoration at 30-31 (Sleeping Bear Press, 1996).  This figure fits with my experience at 7,000 yard golf courses, where, given four sets of tees, almost no one chooses the back tees, including scratch players.  Accordingly, to the extent courses of this length have been built, they have become outdated only for very few people.

Second, to the extent courses do want to lengthen, my experience is that few courses acquire additional land to insert the additional length.  Usually there is some room to insert length if necessary.

Third, I would be interested in an economic study comparing the impact on price of the game associated with additional acquisition and maintenance costs associated with additional distance on newly constructed courses as compared to other expense issues, such as overall maintenance costs.  My guess is that the impact is minimal.

Myth 4:  Tennis provides an apt warning for golf

Many have pointed to the huge decline in popularity of tennis as a warning that technology could cause a similar decline in the popularity of golf.  I would suggest that racketball is another example.  Both sports experienced tremendous declines in popularity at the same time new technologies brought more power into the games.

In my view, the fundamental differences between sports make tennis and racketball analogies completely inapplicable to golf.  In tennis there used to be tremendous rallies at Wimbledon, the US Open or other venues in which Connors, Macenroe and Borg would make one amazing shot after another.  Now, at the men’s level, players rarely return a very effective serve.  Long rallies never happen.  

There is simply not a similar threat to the game of golf.  One need not catch a powerful drive hit by an opponent.  The ball just sits there.  The challenge can be the same whether one can hit the ball 150, 200 or 350 yards.  One simply needs to adjust the length of the hole to present the same challenges.

[Jason Topp]

The case to limit distance

In my view, much of the case that is made for limiting distance is wrong.  I do not contend that there is no case to be made.  I think the following arguments do have merit:

1.   Increased cost of equipment associated with new technology hurts the game.

There can be no doubt that it costs a lot more to buy top of the line equipment than it did in the 70’s, and my guess would be that the difference far outpaces inflation.  This increased cost makes the game less accessible for lower income players.

I believe that free market forces will probably govern this issue without the need for intervention through a change in the rules of the game.  There are low price options for purchasing equipment today.  Indeed the technology of just a few years ago can be quite affordable given how quickly it becomes obsolete.  Furthermore, even at the highest level, the cost of equipment has declined over the last few years.

2.   The game would benefit from being able to use historic venues.

I absolutely agree with this notion.  It is wonderful to see the same venues used time and time again.  Given the quality of the courses and the historical context, nothing beats a tournament on a site that has been used for many years.  It is sad to see venues such as Cherry Hills or Merion no longer capable of holding tournaments or apparently compromised.  

St. Andrews and Royal Melbourne seem to be holding on by a thread as top flight venues.  Even if they are used, they seem to present much less of an opportunity for players to use driver.  The US Open has had significant conditioning debacles in 1998 (18th green). 2002 (can’t reach the fairways on 10 and 12) and 2004 (the whole course) in part due to technology.

Conclusion

I think the case that has been made to this point that the game will suffer due to improved technology is overstated.  Arguments in support of such a position need to explain why the current situation is significantly different than 1850 1902, 1930 or other similar times where similar arguments have been made. Because of the industry interests that will always support increased distance technology, opponents of technology advances need to strengthen their arguments if they will ever hold sway.


I look forward to the thoughts of others.

Jason

[Jari Rasinkangas]

Yes, the distance is ruining the game.  

Myth 1 - Distance is far too important for the skilled player

The statistical table you showed is not very useful because there are now more better players than in 1980s.  The current number 100 is much better than number 100 in 1980.
Also somewhere there is the distance where the long hitters can start using wedges but the shorter ones are using 9 or 8 irons.  This gives the longer hitter much more options to play the ball to tight pin positions.  Because e.g. par 4 has a maximum length the long hitters are now playing nearly all of them with wedges.  In addition to this they are driving the shorter ones.

Myth 2 - The gap between the highly skilled and the average player with respect to distance is becoming too great and that therefore the average player will not be able to relate to the tour player and will lose interest

The reason the average player may lose the interest in the professional game is not the gap between the drives.  It is the same one I mentioned above.  We could call it e.g. the Tennis effect.  The game is getting more and more a power game like tennis.  With modern drives you can hit it nearly as hard as you can without losing control.  Who likes to watch pitch and putt for four days with 25 under par results.  The winner is always the one who has the hottest putter.  Boring!

The other reason some players may lose their interest in the game is that when they are paired with a long hitter they are playing totally different games.  It may get frustrating to be outdrived by more than 50 yards all the time.

Myth 4 - Tennis provides an apt warning for golf

See the above.

Jari

[Donnie Beck]

Put a 3,4 or 5 iron back into the hands of the pro and lets see how well they stop the ball. 190 Yd 7 Irons are more of a problem than long drives.

[TEPaul]

Another one of these threads, huh?

There're are about ten of these threads with about 5,000 posts on about 79 pages in the back pages of this website. I already solved this distance problem about two years ago. All the R&A and USGA has to do is just read it put it into effect and the game is saved. How hard is that for them to do?

[Alfie]

Tep,

I get a bit weary banging this same old drum for change, but the more people who start to raise this age old question - then surely that could be a sign that the penny is beginning to drop ?

Over here in Scotland, the R & A are coming out of their shell via comments made by Peter Dawson (secy R & A) and I pray (even though an agnostic) that he continues to do so. He's just a fantastic ambassador for the roll back, whether he knows it - or not ?

In golf, we're stuck in the same stalemate between ruling body and industry. When there are thousands of golfers instead of dozens, crying wolf about time and expense - maybe we'll actually (finally) get some action ?

What was 'your' solution again ?

Alfie

[Jason Topp]

Another one of these threads, huh?

There're are about ten of these threads with about 5,000 posts on about 79 pages in the back pages of this website. I already solved this distance problem about two years ago. All the R&A and USGA has to do is just read it put it into effect and the game is saved. How hard is that for them to do?

I'm afraid I haven't read all of the old posts.  I would appreciate a link if you have one and I'll be happy to read them.  

My point is that if you are going to convince anyone to dial back power, you better make a real convincing argument.  Experience has shown that equipment companies will beat back any effort that is contrary to their perceived interests.  I don't think a sufficiently convincing argument has been made yet, and I am looking for one.  

Please let me know the solution to the distance issue.  More importantly in my mind, please point me to the evidence that there is a problem.

[Doug Siebert]

I think TEPaul wanted to put some limits on the minimum spin rate the ball could have using the standard Iron Byron test.

Another possibility would be to require a standard dimple pattern (including sizing and depth) that doesn't fly quite as well as the current ones do, which would require a higher spin rate to keep the ball airborne for long drives.  But it wouldn't hurt weaker hitters much because they already don't get much beyond what a simple ballistic trajectory offers anyway.  This would include TEPaul's requirement by default, and have the biggest impact on exactly those players who have benefitted the most from the recent distance increase.

Golf ball makers haven't been differentiating their product with dimple patterns for years.  Watch Titleist when they formally introduce the new Pro V1, they will barely mention it has 372 dimples versus the V1x at 332 and the original V1 at 392.  So this should be pretty easy to get through, and it would be eliminate one of the major degrees of freedom they have to tinker with and find loopholes around the ODS.

[Sean_A]

I think Jason has a valid point.  I have not seen hard evidence of length harming the game.  Loads of conjecture and opinion, but no beef.  

Additionally, it is often assumed that the pros of today are better than the previous generation.  I find this particularly perplexing since many of these same people assert that the game is easier because of superior equipment.  I find it hard to believe the boys of today are better than Jack, Tom, Lee and Gary. These guys won a load of majors between them and they had to beat each other to do it.  

Ciao

Sean

[Mike_Sweeney]

Harry Vardon may have stared it in 1920:

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tiger Woods Interview:

“Yeah, I think for me personally going from the 410 to the 460 was huge. I’d always miss the golf ball off the yield. I haven’t hit one on the toe since probably single digits in age. So, it’s been a while. And …of the heal, it showed me the numbers…how to gain 10 more yards on my miss hit. And when I tried that, I thought it was all BS, until I went out there and tried it and I’ve picked up about 8 to 10 yards with my miss hits and goes straighter.  So that was a huge combo for me, so all of the sudden my sweet spot got larger. When that started happening, I started hitting more fairways and my confidence grew and consequentially, my …has become better because of it.

If you ask all the top players, they would all say the same thing. It’s not as relevant as it has been in the past, because we’re hitting it further so our margin for error is smaller now. But the key is, if you’re missing the fairways, are you out of play. If you’re just in the rough, it’s no big deal. I’d much rather be a couple of yards in the rough, than hitting 6 irons or 5 irons from back there, because the 6 iron or 5 iron, a good shot would be about 20 or 30 feet. You know, with a wedge in your hand, that’s kind of a mediocre shot, but it’s a tremendous advantage. If you look at the way VJ played last year, he …drived it in every possible hole that he could. And there’s a reason to that. If you’re feeling confident, yes, but it’s also if your able to drive the ball far enough it really doesn’t matter.

It’s the evolution of the game. It’s how it’s changed. I haven’t been out here that long and when I first came on tour 450 was long Par 4. I mean that was a long Par 4. Now 450 is a driver and a 9 iron. It’s just changed that much, 300 yard drive and a 9 iron that goes 150. No big deal. But that’s why the USGA and the PG of America when we played Whistling Straights, we got 490, 505 yard Par 4’s and your still seeing guys hit 7 irons and 6 irons on these Par 4’s, the long irons are pretty much outdated. And they’re trying to capture that, but it’s hard. The equipment has changed so fast, you can’t build tees fast enough to go back, sometimes you run out of property.


It’s pretty cool when you have a driveable Par 4. I always think that’s cool, what Tom does with every one of his golf courses. I think that’s a great idea, but also you have to have these 490, 505 yard Par 4’s as well, a couple of Par 5’s near 600, a couple Par 5’s near 540, 550 but a lot of it’s angles, and if you can pinch things in and make us fire away from a dog leg you add just 15, 20 yards just by doing that. What we’ve seen on tour and what we’ve talked about in player meetings is trying to make an effort to get the rough up, narrow the fairways, and get those greens as hard as we can get them. Otherwise, guys are going to be shooting 20 plus under Par every week, in the old golf courses and that’s one of the reasons why we’ve made a concerted effort to try to get the pins tighter to the sides and I look on the pin sheet and you see probably 3 or 4 pins, 3 from the side which was ridiculous, and we first saw a 3 from the side, thinking there’s no room there, and now it’s standard.”

From Travel + Leisure Golf Magazine January 2005:

Hank Kuehne has become the poster boy for a new breed of long hitter—the young gun for whom extraordinary length is just a fact of life, the only air he's ever breathed. Tiger seemed otherworldly when he dismantled Augusta in 1997, triggering fits of "Tiger-proofing" golf courses. But it's not just Tiger anymore. Courses these days need to be generation-proofed. College and even high school players are booming the ball as never before (see box, page 111). Kuehne may be Tiger's age—both turn thirty this year—but the way he makes 320-yard drives seem like no big deal could signal a new paradigm in the game.

In 2003, Kuehne's first full year on the Tour, he not only dethroned Daly, who had led in average driving distance eleven of the previous twelve years, but he also set a new record of 321.4 yards per drive that was almost fifteen yards per poke longer than Daly's best of 306.8 in 2002.

Just as has happened on Tour courses, the new length is forcing college layouts to adjust. "We need to get rid of the conception of a long par four being 480 or 490 yards," says Kuehne's former coach at Oklahoma State, Mike Holder. "You'd better get it over 500. A 600-yard par five—that's reachable in two now. It's not the same game that was played fifteen, twenty years ago."

How to account for this power surge? "The biggest factor is equipment," says Steve Desimone, coach at the University of California, Berkeley, which won the 2004 NCAA championship. "The equipment manufacturers have their reps at all the tournaments. Sometimes they bring the science man, who has a launch monitor." But the AJGA's Hamblin insists that better training and better athletes are also responsible: "Our kids are the kids who used to be pitchers, quarterbacks and hockey players." Competition for top high school prospects has grown fiercer as the pot of gold on Tour has ballooned.

[Ted Kramer]

Distance is definitely changing the game.
In my opinion the change is for the worse.
I just watched Hogan vs. Snead at Pine Valley (Shell's WWOG).
The best don't play the game like that any more . . .and I think it is a shame.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

I just watched Hogan vs. Snead at Pine Valley (Shell's WWOG).
The best don't play the game like that any more . . .and I think it is a shame.

Fortunately, the best don't putt like that any more...usually.

[Mike Hendren]

Not for me.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Ted,

Is that available on DVD?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I still think that golf course set up is the easiest way to solve the problem..make the rough be real rough..harden the greens..harden the fariways so that balls dont stay on them and the ball runs into the deeper rough..all the stuff that Nick Faldo was talking about on the air.
At some point the straight hitter has to be given back the advantage over the guy who just booms it.
If technology has taken that to the level of adjusting course set up..so be it..but do it!!!!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I forgot to mention that, this has to be the answer because neither the USGA or R&A are going to do anything along the lines of "rolling back' that is just not going to happen.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

Is that available on DVD?

I'm not sure, I have it on VHS . . .
I'll check the website and get back to you.

-Ted

[Gary_Nelson]

Can the humble dogleg help counter the PGA Tour distance problem?  Seems like the new driver technology makes it easy to hit long and straight.  If the player is forced to hit a draw/fade, might this equalize things a bit?  Long and straight would mean "deep in the woods".  

Forcing a shaped tee shot might force driver technology away from it's current trend.

Maybe trees in fairways are a good idea.  Blasphemy perhaps?!?

[ian]

It's not ruining the game. Nothing can ruin the game, but it is making it so expensive, that many will be excluded from golf by the ever escalating costs coming indirectly from technology.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I just watched Hogan vs. Snead at Pine Valley (Shell's WWOG).

I think that match was in Houston, unless you meant the Byron Nelson-Gene Littler match at PV.

[DMoriarty]

Interesting take on the topic.  It is nice to see someone actually try to take on the issue from the other side.   I havent read the article you dispute so I can neither defend nor condemn it, but I will comment on a few of your comments.  

1.  Distance is far too important to the skilled player.

I think your comparison misses the point, and in my opinion only demonstrates that there are more pros hitting it really far.   In essence, you are implicitly modifying the statement to say that distance is far to important to the very best of the skilled players, relative to only slightly less skilled players.  

To the contrary, I read the statement as meaning that distance is far to important to almost all skilled players.    Almost all the skilled players hit it a long ways further than they used to, thus leaving them shorter approaches on almost every hole.  

In 2004 the 100th longest driver hit it 287.1 yards.   Ten years earlier, in 1994 the 100th longest driver only hit it 260.6 yards.   In fact, the longest driver in 1994 was shorter than the 100th longest driver last year.  

So, assuming the same holes, almost all the top pros are driving it over 26 yards closer to the green now than they were just a decade ago.   This means shorter clubs on approaches and shorter clubs are easier to control. Plus the consequences are magnified, because the pros hit their respective irons much further as well.  

2.  The gap between the highly skilled and the average player with respect to distance is becoming too great and that therefore the average player will not be able to relate to the tour player and will lose interest.

I think your argument is a bit misleading.  The referenced article notes that in the past decade average golfers claim their driving distance has increased 12 yards, but Golf Digest tests only show a 2 yard increase.   In contrast, they note that the pros average has increased almost 30 yards (27.8.)   Trust the tests over the golfers' self-evaluations and the distance between pros and average golfers comes to just under 100 yards, 2-3 more than it used to be.  

Also, you say the problem is that the difference causes the average player to lose interest, and note that the difference wouldnt be noticeable to the average player watching the pros drive.    This may be true, but the average player is capable of noting that pros are hitting sand wedges into holes where the average player would not even get home in two.  

Additionally, the problem is not solely (or even mainly) one of the average player losing interest.  Rather, the problem is one of building courses which work for a wide range of players.  For example, not many architects are talented enough to build greens which work for Sand Wedge approaches as well as they do for three wood approaches.  


3.  Increased distance is increasing the cost of building courses

It may be true that courses need not be built to be longer, but those in charge of building the courses do not believe it.    Courses are being built longer so they can claim to be championship courses.  Their customers and members demand it.   That is the reality, no matter what the facts.  

Perhaps more importantly, many of our great courses are playing a high price to try to stay relevant to the the exorbitant increases in distances of the top level players.   IMO these costs go far beyond the monetary.

4.  Tennis provides an apt warning for golf  

The equivalent of a long tennis rally  is the Hogan 2 iron, or the brilliance of a Pavin vs. the brutes of the field, or the Seve shot.  These account for much of the excitement of the game, yet their kind is an endangered species.

[David Kelly]

I have not seen hard evidence of length harming the game.  Loads of conjecture and opinion, but no beef.  

What hard evidence do you require to prove the game has been harmed?  

Is this something that we can quantify?  

[Alfie]

ex Geoff Shack website ;

In every sport there is a definite point beyond which man can only proceed at the peril of destroying his pastime altogether. He starts out to contest against an unknown quantity, and nature sets the task. For this he must have instruments which, skillfully used, create a fair contest. It is quite possible for him to devise, or use, instruments which would overwhelm nature – he can take a salmon rod to catch a minnow – but the all-absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest.

MAX BEHR

............

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()