HOW far do they hit it?!?!?

[Mike Hendren]

FWIW,

In speaking with Lou Graham last year on the driving range, he indicated that he can hit the ball as far today as he did when on tour, where he estimated he averaged 250 yards.  He was quick to point out that his average is mis-leading, however, as it was not uncommon to hit drives that duck-hooked or ballooned with the prevailing drivers that only traveled 220 yards or so.  This implies that he also had the ability to hit it 270 on occasion.  He estimated he was of average distance off the tee in his prime.  

I'm guessing the dispersion of distances for the average tour player (standard deviation, Brett?) is significantly lower today than in Lou's heyday but the middle of the pack has not picked up more than 10% of additional distance in thirty years.  

Editorial comment:  The fellow that hit the 238 yards 5-iron didn't make the playoff, did he.

I believe it's still about golfing the ball.

Mike
Like Pete, A Casual Golfer

[Dan_Callahan]

s.  

Editorial comment:  The fellow that hit the 238 yards 5-iron didn't make the playoff, did he.

I believe it's still about golfing the ball.

Of course it is, but it sure does help to bomb it. By the way, he finished 6th, which isn't too shabby. And the guy who won was 8th in driving distance. And the two guys who went head-to-head last week are both among the longest hitters on tour. And a guy who hits it as far as anybody came from several shots back in Qatar to post a victory. Let's not kid ourselves—it may be about getting it in the hole, but hitting it a long way makes it that much easier to get it in the hole.

Out of the top 10 players in the world rankings, only David Toms and Stewart Cink can be considered short hitters (they are ranked 80th and 75th, respectively, in driving distance). The other guys can absolutely kill it.

[Brent Hutto]

If you're using the mean (average) to summarize the central tendency of some measurements, then standard deviation summarizes the amount of dispersion about that mean.

If you're describing something that does not exhibit a symmetric distribution similar to a Gaussian or Normal function then it's more useful to use percentile, deciles, quartiles or other non-parametric descriptive statistics. The median is the simplest, most obvious and most useful of those if you just want a central-tendency summary.

For driving distance a useful two-number summary might be the median and the 90th percentile. The median gives the distance for which half the golfer's drive are longer. The 90th percentile is the distance for which one drive in ten is longer. So the median is sort of "how far will I probably hit it" and the 90th percentile is "how far can I hit it".

[Kyle Harris]

Brent,

Interesting points, and a spot on analysis in my limited statistical opinion...

How many sigmas out do you think the likes of Daly and Tiger are?

[Mike Hendren]

And the guy who won was 8th in driving distance.

...at an average of 290 yards.  Jim Dent was hitting it that far 30 years ago.

What was the distance of the first hole at Cherry Hills when Palmer drove it during the U. S. Open?

DISTANCE IS NOT RUINING THE GAME ANYMORE TODAY THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS SEVENTY YEARS AGO.  

Mike

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

But how many people were hitting it that far back then?

Every generation's had its long hitters, it's just that there are more of them now.

[PThomas]

Mike --  off the top of my head, it seems that the length that new courses have to be made to attempt to keep the best players in check has gone way up recently, a much greater amount than in the past 30 years

if that is in fact the case, then I think I disagree with your lat statement , at least to a degree

[Brent Hutto]

Brent,

Interesting points, and a spot on analysis in my limited statistical opinion...

How many sigmas out do you think the likes of Daly and Tiger are?

Compared to the general population of golfers or to other Tour pros?

Taking the 2004 Tour driving distance stats at face value, Daly was third out of 196 golfers (98th percentile) with an average driving distance of 306.0 yards while Woods was ninth (95th percentile) with an average of 301.9 yards. The entire Tour averaged 287.2 yards with a standard deviation of 8.3 yards so Daly and Woods are about +2.3 and +1.8 standard deviations above the Tour mean, respectively.

I would think Tour players are pretty highly selected for driving distance compared to the general population so any player who can be two standard deviations above the Tour mean is a pretty special case, indeed. I don't think there's any way to get comparable "driving distance" numbers for the general population.

[EDIT] By the way, the median "average driving distance" among those 196 Tour players in 2004 was also 272.2 yards which means the distibution of season averages is actually quite Normal (as it should be).

[Jason Topp]

[

...at an average of 290 yards.  Jim Dent was hitting it that far 30 years ago.

What was the distance of the first hole at Cherry Hills when Palmer drove it during the U. S. Open?

DISTANCE IS NOT RUINING THE GAME ANYMORE TODAY THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS SEVENTY YEARS AGO.  

Mike

Please see the statistics below from a post I did a while back.  While I can be convinced either way as to whether distance is hurting the game, there is no doubt that players are significantly longer now than they were 25 years ago:

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

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

But how many people were hitting it that far back then?

Every generation's had its long hitters, it's just that there are more of them now.

I totally agree, but question whether that is ruinous.  Should distance not be rewarded?  Are golfers athletes?

Mike  

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

I guess it becomes a question of values. I, for one, do not equate athleticism to only distance. I do believe that in some situations distance should be rewarded, but there is so much more athleticism in golf than just brute strength. Finesse, touch, distance control and what not need to be tested as well.

I believe in the past five or ten years we've finally seen distance rewarded as it should be, but lately the distance a player hits the ball is becoming too important and too rewarded.

Again, all my opinion... frankly, I'd like to go back to 1998.

[Mike Hendren]

Jason,

Great stuff.  Thanks. Please post the scoring average and/or money list position by those respective players if readily available.    

Every Golden Age writer I've read lamented the distance that the ball traveled.  

Is Tiger a great golfer because he's long? Or is he long because he's great golfer?

Mike
A Dinker.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike --  off the top of my head, it seems that the length that new courses have to be made to attempt to keep the best players in check has gone way up recently, a much greater amount than in the past 30 years

if that is in fact the case, then I think I disagree with your lat statement , at least to a degree

Why is that the players' fault?  MAYBE THE ARCHITECTS HAVE BECOME LAZY.

Take away the restrictor plate and NASCAR's only defense against speed is the short track.  I miss DW.  He was a short-track genius.

Mike

 

[Jason Topp]

Mike - I don't have the money list positions of those individuals, but I have seen some analysis of statistics recently that have shown the top players are the longer hitters and that one of the top ten in scoring average from last year ranked highly in driving accuracy.  Tiger, Vijay, Mickelson and others ranked near the bottom on tour.  That certainly was not the case 15 years ago.

[BCrosby]

Jason -

It's interesting that the longest drivers are hitting it much, much farther, while the range between them and the 100th longest has stayed remarkably stable over the last two decades.

Which says to me that equipment (which is evenly distributed among Tour players), not individual talent or strength (which is not evenly distributed), is the main cause for the increases in distance since 1980.

Put differently, all Tour players, regardless of talent, are moving in tandem up the distance chart.

That would seem to directly contradict the USGA view that it is just matter of some players lifting more  weights.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Jason, you are correct.  Could the tour perhaps be setting up its courses to give the big-hitters an advantage?  It sells, baby.

That rough yesterday looked like the fairways I grew up on, except greener.

Mike

[PThomas]

Mike -- I don't think the architects have gotten lazy...the top players are so long now that courses have to keep getting longer and longer

of course, if the tour would grow REAL rough which would actually penalize a ball hit into it, that would make things more interesting

[Mike Hendren]

If it's the equipment, why don't we hear any lamentations from/regarding the LPGA?

Mike

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

The LPGA has room to move back tee-wise...

I'd be curious to see those stats, and if the average LPGA course has increased in length.

I'd also imagine there is much more of a spread distance-wise on the LPGA...

[A.G._Crockett]

Mike -- I don't think the architects have gotten lazy...the top players are so long now that courses have to keep getting longer and longer

of course, if the tour would grow REAL rough which would actually penalize a ball hit into it, that would make things more interesting

Paul,
It has been said here many times, but I'll chime in to say it again:

You CANNOT penalize or lessen the advantage of distance, or the advance of technology, by lengthening the golf course!  Over the run of 7000+ yds., additional yardage MAGNIFIES the importance of distance.  It cannot possibly be otherwise.

[PThomas]

A. G. -- if true -- which it probably is, I gotta leave in 5 minutes so no real time to think about it -- then I guess the reason why the tour keeps making them longer is an attempt to avoid every hole being just driver 8 iron/9 iron, etc

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike -- I don't think the architects have gotten lazy...the top players are so long now that courses have to keep getting longer and longer

of course, if the tour would grow REAL rough which would actually penalize a ball hit into it, that would make things more interesting

Paul Thomas-

Our views are contrary.

I find your conclusion about the length needed to challenge the tour pros, to be questionable, and that rough comment is insulting to the sport and it's principles.

[PThomas]

Adam --pls explain ,why you think my comment is "insulting"

[Pete Lavallee]

If it's the equipment, why don't we hear any lamentations from/regarding the LPGA?

Mike

Mike,

Wake up and smell he coffee! Distance in golf today is engineered to provide more distance to those who can swing faster than the Iron Byron at Far Hills. No LPGA stars can accomplish this feat. They have not reaped the rewards, just as we haven't!

Fellow Dinker,
Pete L.

[Brent Hutto]

Pete has succinctly stated what I think is the obvious problem. The biggest hitters learned to game the half-assed regulations that the USGA puts on golf balls. The USGA has been ignoring that fact while focusing on C.O.R. of drivers and fiddling around with test conditions. Any engineer who applied a little thought to the issue understood what was happening at least as far back at 2001 or so yet four years later people are still "debating" the nature of the obvious increase in carry distance.

It is not a political or commercial possibility to roll back the large distance gains that the biggest hitters have enjoyed over the past six or seven years and I'll be darned if I can see when the USGA is going to act to freeze it even at something like the current level. It is a very simple issue (technically) with fairly simple and obvious solutions (technically). As with all things, the politics take decades to catch up to technical changes that take place in months or years.