Driving Distance Stats: No increase for past 3 years.

[Paul_Turner]

Below is a link to the driving distance for the Euro Tour.  No increase for the past 3 years (2003,4,5).  Does that coincide with the max COR for drivers?

http://www.europeantour.com/stats/data.sps?strDataID=DIS&iYearID=2005

[JESII]

That's interesting to me Paul, I even went down to #100 hoping I could find an increase at that level and there is none.

Not sure, but it does seem to coincide with the COR decision.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Paul,
Maybe the European Tour guys just aren't working out enough?

The PGA Tour is up nearly 10 yards since 2002. The average this year was just under 280 through April, and it's on the verge of 289 now. And in a year when we were told things would level off or head backwards.
Geoff

[JESII]

Geoff,

If I'm reading your post properly, in April of 2005 the average was 280 and in October 2005 it's almost 290. Weather and ground conditions have to be the explanation for that right?

Riviera and the like in March versus Greensboro in August...

[TEPaul]

Although some of my good friends disagree with me, and sometimes very vociferously , I just can't imagine why they cannot understand that if anyone is to look at driving distance stats in any comparative way wityh any degree of accuracy they simply have to take into consideration the distorting factor of the rollout of the ball. And there's little question and little logical doubt that rollout at any place and at any particular time can be quite different in overall distance and its statistics.

In my opinion, the only conceivable way to compare driving distance increase accurately from any time to any other time, is to compare "carry" distance only. That to me is simply an "apples to apples" comparision that can garner far more meaningful information on the subject of driving distance and how it may be increasing, remaining level of even decreasing.

Perhaps a decent analogy would be the sport of broad jumping. Do they care how high someone jumps or where he ends up after first hitting the ground? Of course not---all they compare in broad jumping competitive comparison is he where one first hits the ground.

[Paul_Turner]

Gents

There was a jump between 2002 and 2003 on the Euro tour of about 5 yards which I suspect was due to the spring effect being optimised.  But it's flat since then. From memory, 2002-2003 seems right to me, for the COR legislation.

The PGA tour stats for all years used to be available but I can't find them now.   The trends should be identical to the Euro tour as long as the testing is equivalent and consistent.

Changes from Apri '05 to now might simply be seasonal?  I've never seen trends for within a season.

[JESII]

Tom

Are you saying the only 'important' part of a driving distance conversation is carry distance? I'm not totally sure what you mean in your post.

[Paul_Turner]

Although some of my good friends disagree with me, and sometimes very vociferously , I just can't imagine why they cannot understand that if anyone is to look at driving distance stats in any comparative way wityh any degree of accuracy they simply have to take into consideration the distorting factor of the rollout of the ball. And there's little question and little logical doubt that rollout at any place and at any particular time can be quite different in overall distance and its statistics.

In my opinion, the only conceivable way to compare driving distance increase accurately from any time to any other time, is to compare "carry" distance only. That to me is simply an "apples to apples" comparision that can garner far more meaningful information on the subject of driving distance and how it may be increasing, remaining level of even decreasing.

Tom

Over a season with thousands of drives being measured the Roll/Carry differences will average out.  Any error would be tiny.

[JESII]

US PGA Tour

2002
#1 ranked in distance = 307
#100   "    "      "       = 280

2003
#1  -------------------321
#100 ----------------- 286

2004
#1 --------------------314
#100 ----------------- 287

2005
#1 --------------------319
#100 ----------------- 289

Seems to me the jump was from 2002 to 2003 when everyone got their equipment in order. Now any gains seem to be from hard work, and optimization of tools.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I tend to agree with Geoff's statement!  Maybe they aren't working out enough.

The PGA Tour has twice the number of 300 yard hitters, and higher averages overall.

Presumably, the Euro Tour uses the same ball, doesn't have any lusher fairways that would limit roll and is not all played at sea level, etc.  Why wouldn't driving distances be similar?

It might be weather, or tighter courses (although I doubt it from the little Euro action I watch on the golf channel.

What could be the explanation?

And further, isn't it funny how little a response comes in when some stat shows that the earth isn't falling into itself?

After all, there are still just 36 Tour players on two tours averaging over 300 yards.  That is such a small % of golfers, even if there are ten, or even 100 times that many out there somewhere enjoying the long ball.

[Paul_Turner]

JES II

Thanks.  Almost identical to the Euro tour stats.  Which I think prove that the differences in terms of weather conditions and course preparation is small, for the two tours.

[BCrosby]

"Presumably, the Euro Tour uses the same ball, doesn't have any lusher fairways that would limit roll and is not all played at sea level, etc.  Why wouldn't driving distances be similar?"

The Euro Tour plays - overall - in much colder climates than the US Tour does. That would account for some of the difference.

As a matter of playing styles, there are also fewer floggers in Europe. Fewer guys routinely swing for the fences.

Bob

[Paul_Turner]

After looking at the US stats, I'll take that back and agree with Jeff.  The trends on the US tour are the same i.e. flat for 3 years.  But the US tour is 4-5 yards longer.  Course conditions or players?    Measurement method differences?  Interestingly in 2003 the Euro tour the #1 driver was considerably longer than 2005.

[TEPaul]

JES asked:

“Tom
Are you saying the only 'important' part of a driving distance conversation is carry distance? I'm not totally sure what you mean in your post.”

Sully:

Of course I’m not saying carry distance is the only important part of a driving distance conversation. Obviously the only way to discuss driving distance on a golf course is how far the ball went overall---eg carry distance and rollout. What I am saying, though, is if you want to compare some increase in driving distance simply due to changes in technology of I&B (Implements and Balls) comparing “carry distance” is the most exact way to come up with accurate comparisons that have meaning regarding the effects of I&B technology on distance. It is simply way too inexact to estimate technology’s influence on I&B if you factor in rollout. The reason should be obvious—eg a guy like Tiger who can carry the ball perhaps 300-310 can hit a drive like that that will go 300-310 overall if the ground is soft or perhaps 370 if his ball rolls out to the tune of 60 yards after hitting the ground. That’s a big difference and the 60 additional yards of roll-out have virtually nothing to do with advances in I&B technology to do with the golf ball or implement. The latter only has to do with the ground and the maintenance of it. It is also not lost on me that everyone sort of collapsed in horror when Tiger drove a par 4 of 370 yards by flying the ball right onto the green. Do you really think Tiger flew that drive 370 yards? Of course not. He probably flew it just about what he is capable of flying a drive---eg 300-310.  But then how could he have flown it right onto the green of a hole that’s 370 yards? That’s because holes are measured right down the middle of the fairway and that hole was a real dogleg which if a golfer were to take a direct line through the air (as the crow flies) the carry and total distance would be about 300-310---again just about what Woods is capable of carrying a drive.

Paul Turner said:

“Tom
Over a season with thousands of drives being measured the Roll/Carry differences will average out.  Any error would be tiny.”

Paul:

That may be true but we’re trying to compare driving distance increase here between differing years and even eras to estimate what effect changes in I&B technology has had on distance. Do you think a comparison of driving distance today to the era of virtually no fairway irrigation would be representative of changes in I&B and their technologies? It most certainly also occurs to me from what I’ve seen in the last few years that some of these weekly tour courses have fairway conditions where these balls are running and awful long way. This is very true on my course since we dedicatedly decided to try to firm it up "through the green". Now the ball can run up to 50 or so yards. Up until perhaps a year ago nothing remotely like that happened----ever. The reasons are obvious.    

[Jason Topp]

Here's my take on the data.  I think it provides a reasonable basis for evaluating the distance issue.  

The 100th place driving distance on the US Tour over the last 4 years

2005-  288.7
2004 - 287.1
2003 - 285.7
2002 - 280.0

With the exception of 6 yard jumps between 2002-2003 and 200-2001, it appears that there generally is about a 1-2 yard increase per year.  

Big jumps:

Over time, however, the 1-2 yard difference becomes significant.

1980 - 255.5
1990 - 263.0
2000 - 273.2
2005 - 288.7

Assuming the distance gains apply equally to all shots (which probably overstates the case a little):

A 7000 yard course in 1980 would need to be 7910 yards to play the same distance today;

A 7000 yard course in 1990 would need to be 7684 yards long to play the same distance today.

A 7000 yard course in 2000 would need to be 7397 yards to play the same distance today.

Assume that COR test works to limit distance gains to 15 yards over the next 10 years, a 7000 yards course today would need to stretch to 7363 to play the same way in 15 years.  A 7500 yard course would need to be stretched to 8000 yards.

At the same time, acording to a Golf Digest article I read a year or two ago the average driving distance for the regular player has only increased a yard or two over the last five years.  


My prediction - 8000 yard courses become normal within 10 years on tour.  Normal markers used by mid-handicappers will not be much, if any longer.  

A course that wants to accomodate the average male player and host a tour event would need to have tees at 8,000 yards and another set about where they are now.  If you assume that the average player plays at 6300 yards, the gap between a regular player's course distance and a tour course distance would have grown from about 700 yards (6300-7000) in 1980 to 1700 yards in 2015 (6300-8000). The gap increases in a similar fashion for senior or women's tees.

[TEPaul]

"Pro V, Pro Vx"

David Moriarty:

In some conversations with Frank Thomas in the last few years he actually broke down what he felt were the contributing factors to the distance increase amongst premier players in the last 10 or so years. In more or less equal portions he attributed that distance increase to;

1. COR (increase in "spring-like" effect)
2. The new age ball (ProV etc)
3. Optimization (the computerized fitting of ideal ball/club/swing

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I don't know how much maintenance practices are a factor over a long period of time.  I was only considering the last few years.  I reckon that maintenance practices have been pretty much the same on the tour for 10-20 years.  And the conditions will average out over a season.

The stats are taken on straight holes and so no dog-leg cutting.

[TEPaul]

"I reckon that maintenance practices have been pretty much the same on the tour for 10-20 years."

Paul:

That very well may be true in Europe but I definitely do not think it's true in this country. The reason should be obvious. This country, particularly in set-ups for the Tour in the last few years have been dedicatedly getting into some serious firm and fast set ups and maintenance practices "though the green". Why they've started to do that I do not know but my eyes sure don't lie and I can just see it with regularity compared to the way it used to be. What they are doing is probably just some sign of the times. What do we on here talk about as a maintenance ideal so often? Firm and fast "through the green, of course. Before perhaps about five years ago that simply was not the case.

As far as doglegs not being driving stat holes, I'm well aware of that. But do you think all those who think the sky has fallen because Woods flew a ball onto a green of a hole that's 370 yards know that, or consider that??  

Don't kid yourself, probably 75% or more of the fans and golfers who heard about that shot of Woods flying the ball onto the green of 370 yards hole probably think Woods all of a sudden just went into some super overdrive he almost never uses and suddenly flew his drive an actual 370 yards. In reality he didn't fly it any farther than he generally flies a drive he really goes after (probably about 300-310 yards).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone think driver head size any thing to do with this?  

I feel that for whatever tech advantage they may give in weight distribution, etc. the ability to swing from the heels and not miss has to be considered as a big factor in driving distance..........

Bob,

Europe and the US are at similar latitudes, no?  

And, why would there be fewer floggers on the Euro tour?  Course set up, dogleg holes?  Seems distance advantage is distance advantage at most courses in the world.

Regarding the average Joe, I played a 6000 yard course in Dallas the other day, complete with 460 yard par 5's, par 4 holes that dogleg at 175 yards and a few other anomalies.  It was great fun, and I didn't notice the under 72 par or anything else. A golf shot is a golf shot when you come right down to it.  

There is an article on Travelgolf.com today about how many courses yield to the pressure to be tour ready, when Tiger and Co. simply ain't gonna show up!

[George Pazin]

Let's assume things are in fact maxed out.

Is anyone happy/satisfied with how things are now?

I fail to see the downside of bringing things back 5-10%.

I see a gigantic upside.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Europe is at much higher latitudes than the US. Latitudinally, Paris is somewhere north of Toronto. Edinburgh is up somewhere near the Hudson Bay. I haven't looked at any charts, but summertime temps in northern Europe (where most Euro events are held) have to be appreciably lower than in the US.

The lack of flogging is just my impression from watching the Euro Tour on TV. There just aren't any Dalys or Hendens or Schwatrzrocks or Tigers there. Playing traditions, different courses, I don't know why there so few guys swinging out of their shoes in Europe. But that's what the stats seem to say, because it is, afterall, the same gene pool.

Bob    

[George Pazin]

Jeff, Europe is way north of us, on the whole (can't speak as to the Euro events). Pittsburgh is on the same approx. latitude as Rome.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, if flogging works as well as Vijay Singh asserts perhaps European floggers are successful enough to come play of the US PGA Tour and European non-floggers are not. I'm just sayin'...

[JohnV]

How about we compare apples to apples?

Player            PGA            Euro PGA
Els                302.9          302.8
Goosen          295.7          297.0
Clarke            294            293.1
Harrington      293.3          293.2
Olazabal         288.2         279.4
Westwood      296.2         291.2

So, other than the last two, the numbers are virtually identical for players who play on both tours.  There are more players who play on both tours, but I got tired of looking.

For those who point out that Europe is further north, remember that they play in Dubai, Singapore and China among others as part of their tour.

COR should be the same on both sides at this point, although it wasn't a few years ago.

As for the US Tour having twice as many 300 yard hitters, they have better players overall so that shouldn't be surprising.

[Brent Hutto]

Excellent research, John. Thank you.

[Tags:]

Tags: