Where Have All The Distance Gains Gone

[Greg McMullin]

I wonder what Jack and Arnie's driving distance would be assuming they were in their prime, had the advantage of todays driver and were using the same ball they used in the 60's?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I think you might take these rationalizations a bit too personally...

Jim,

I'm not taking it personally at all.

You and I know the facts.  Too many classic courses havebeen/arebeing altered and disfigured as new tees are squeezed into less and less property.

It's one of the fundamental things that is wrong with the game...more cost, more acreage, more distance, longer rounds, and less competition.

Hell, it is the thing that's wrong with the game.

Much as a 3-shot volley in tennis is now the standard pro game in tennis due to oversized raquets, so is the bombed drive, stuck wedge the new de rigeur in pro golf, while equipment costs up to $500 for a single club.  If people think that televised golf isn't a huge driver of demand and interest in the game, and in people's perceptions of what golf should be, they'd be wrong.   And then we sit here wringing our hands wondering why the game is declining and courses are closing, all while we are in this wonderful period of technological advancement and making the game so much more pleasurable for the average golfer.  

I just object to those who know better telling us that sh*t is shinola.

[JESII]

The third and best option Chuck is to forget what the pros shoot...just forget about where they hit the ball...don't change the rules, and don't worry about a roll back...just leave the courses alone. My issue is with the memberships and course owners that think "if I build it they will come"...Tiger ain't stopping by on a whim...so why prepare for him.

[JESII]

Mike,

I object to you telling me that Taylor Made or the USGA is at fault for me spending $500 on their latest driver...

[Garland Bayley]

Chuck,

Re the fitness gains, I think it could be argued that there was a quantum leap in fitness that we could call the Tiger effect that happened about the same time as the ball. ...

Bryan,

I've got a good deal on an east coast bridge. You interested?

[Chuck Brown]

Again, Bryan, I think that it is instructive, if not conclusive, that the biggest jumps in distance correlate with the most important changes in golf ball technology (as that technology gains usage, of course).  It is not just a matter of ever-increasing distance; it is as much as anything the phenomenon of significant spurts in new distance gains, timed exactly with the spread of significant new ball designs.

(Year to year, I agree that things like weather, course setup, changes in the composition of the palyers on tour, etc., etc., etc., can all have an impact.  I just want to be able to answer those who claim, "You can't 'blame' the balls.  There are too many other factors..."  That's nuts to me, because I think it really is the ball, and also because I'm not "blaming" anything or anybody: Hell, even if it were true that "fitness" was to blame for increased distances on tour a ball rollback would still be the best idea!  What are you going to do, have a USGA limit on the number of curls you can do in the fitness trailer?)

[JESII]

It is interesting to me that optimization has not had a continued effect on driving distance...I thought these guys would figure out how to get 2 - 3 - 5 yards a year for a while but that has not beared out in the chart posted.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I object to you telling me that Taylor Made or the USGA is at fault for me spending $500 on their latest driver...

Jim,

If my clubs are circa 1980 and yours are circa 2005 (even with the fact that you'd kick my ass with either ), how can we compete equally?

It is the USGA's fault for unwittingly letting the cat out of the bag and it is the equipment companies fault and accomplishment that that they simply outsmarted the USGA's measuring tools and methodologies.  Oodles of R&D money and threats of a lawsuit against the USGA are pretty big advantages, don't you think?  It's also the equipment companies fault (indeed, it is their mission) to get you to believe that by buying their new club and ball that you'll suddenly be a better golfer.

However, unlike in the past, this time they weren't lying!  

[Chuck Brown]

I wonder what Jack and Arnie's driving distance would be assuming they were in their prime, had the advantage of todays driver and were using the same ball they used in the 60's?

Greg I had the rare privilege of caddying for both Jack Nicklaus and Lee Trevino on the same course in 1973, when both were near their peak.  Jack was very, very long.  Jack was long by anybody's standards.  He'd be exceptionally long in any era, with any equipment.  He'd be very long with today's equipment, I am certain.  Moreover, Jack played most of his best competitive years with MacGregor Tourney golf balls, that were some of the worst balls made in an era when balls were much less evenly-controlled than today.
Not so with Trevino, who was an unconsionably good ball striker.  (And who had eyes like rangefinders as well.)  Lee Trevino would likewise be agreat player in any era, but today's equipment would neuter his skills to a great extent.
I don't know what to say about Arnold Palmer.  I think his style of play would not be harmed by modern, lower-spin equipment.  I think that as a 30 year-old, Arnold (who was an inveterate club tinkerer) would have been overjoyed to have owned a launch monitor and a driver/ball combination that promised less sidespin.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Did all the west coast bridges get washed out in the last storm  

Do you want to debate the point?  I suppose all the tour players who say they work out to keep up with Tiger are making it up?

Chuck,

I never said that you can't blame the ball.  My only point is that no one should say that it's "all" the ball's fault.  Which factor contributed how much is an open question.

Limiting the number of curls.  That's good.    

Imagine the litigation when the USGA says that they are controlling the ball because it's easier and more expedient than controlling anything else.

[Greg McMullin]

I found this interesting

This excerpt from the 1947 ASGCA minutes confirms ASGCA and the golf industry have faced some of the same issues for decades. In the following, Mr. Richard Tufts of Pinehurst addresses the 10 assembled charter members regarding the work of the “Implements and Balls Committee” of the USGA:

“This problem primarily concerns the flight of the golf ball, of course, which is why I thought you as golf course architects would be interested in it essentially. It is something the USGA has been working on for a good many years. Mr. Fownes, who is President here (Pinehurst), was very active as chairman of this committee when he held that position prior to his service as President of the USGA, and he did a great deal of work on this whole problem of the golf ball. I’ve been very much interested in it since I’ve been Chairman of the committee. We feel that a golf course is designed for a certain type of shot to the green, and that as you increase the length of the tee shot, you throw the golf course all out of scale. Therefore it spoils the pleasure of the play to have this continual increase in the flight of the ball. We feel that the question involves not only the ball but also the equipment of the game; that possibly the shaft had something to do with the increased length of the ball. We’ve done a lot of work in Chicago with our machine there in testing the ball. Since our tests first started back in 1942 we haven’t observed much increase in the flight of the ball, it’s been pretty constant. The manufacturers say pretty much the same thing:  that they haven’t changed the ball very much, and in their opinions it hasn’t increased.

“However, that doesn’t mean that it might not increase in the future. It’s quite possible that improvements to the present ball have just about reached 100 percent efficiency under the present method of manufacture, but it’s quite possible that there might be improvements in plastics, or other material, that would greatly increase the flight of the present ball. We feel that it would be a very serious thing for the game, and we’d like the support of your association in maintaining the present ball; helping us with this...

“At the conclusion of Mr. Tuft’s speech, Mr. Thompson made a motion that the Society send a resolution to the USGA to the effect that as a body the members pledge their support to the rules and regulations adopted by the USGA, and that the Society recognizes the USGA as the ruling body of golf in the United States. Mr. Bell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously...

“The Society then appointed a committee of two to work on this resolution:  Mr. Donald J. Ross and Mr. Robert Trent Jones. Mr. Jones was appointed delegate to the USGA’s annual meeting.”

— Respectfully submitted, Robert Trent Jones, Secretary
December, 1947

[Garland Bayley]

The third and best option Chuck is to forget what the pros shoot...just forget about where they hit the ball...don't change the rules, and don't worry about a roll back...just leave the courses alone. My issue is with the memberships and course owners that think "if I build it they will come"...Tiger ain't stopping by on a whim...so why prepare for him.

Sully,

Not all members find courses to be long enough with current technology. When I was young playing top-flites, almost all par 4s were driver, wedge (that is when I kept the ball in play). I played courses over 7000 yards and didn't think they were too long. I have read experts that claim the modern championship courses have to be 8000 yards to equate to what they were 30 years ago. Perhaps golf is waning because young people find it to be a game of driver into the junk, search for it, and if found, wedge it onto the green or thereabouts, repeat. When I was young, I eventually found this to be uninspiring enough that I dropped out of golf during the child rearing years.

[Padraig Dooley]

The ball/driver combo is a bigger factor then the ball alone, try a persimmon with a pro v1x, very difficult to get the ball in the air, or a current titanium with a balata, ball spins way too much.

Launch monitor optimisation of ball, loft and shaft lead to a big jump a few years ago, unlikely to see such a big jump again as all tour players are using equipment that suits them perfectly, which wasn't always the case in previous years.

Other factors such as fitness have some effects but not too much Hogan, Snead, Palmer were very fit in their primes, current guys like Daly, Herron, Calc are not very fit but gained the extra distance.

[Bryan Izatt]

The third and best option Chuck is to forget what the pros shoot...just forget about where they hit the ball...don't change the rules, and don't worry about a roll back...just leave the courses alone. My issue is with the memberships and course owners that think "if I build it they will come"...Tiger ain't stopping by on a whim...so why prepare for him.

Jim,

Succinctly and well put.  Too bad the lemmming-like course owners and greens committees continue to march off the length cliff.  And the club buying lemmings continue to fall off the $500 driver cliff.

Two weeks ago playing a number of SoCal courses I noted that many of them don't even put out the blocks on the 7,300 yard tip tees.  Even though one was a PGA course, I guess they knew Tiger wasn't coming.

Control course owners might be more expedient than controlling the ball.

[JESII]

Mike,

I don't think the game has gotten too easy for anyone...and the only people that need courses to be lengthened to accomodate are better than me.

The equipment has changed...considerably...but it has not had the effect on the game many of you say...it just has not.

[JESII]

Garland,

With all due respect...what is your best score? Based on prior comments, It seems unlikely that you set a barrell full of course records with these wedges in your hands. This is not meant as condescending from a scratch player, but the game is not all about distance. Just because you had a wedge into all those greens when you were younger means nothing to me...a roll back would not increase the variety for you because every hole was a wedge before...they will all be 8 irons now.

[Paul_Turner]

Changes to the driver have had more impact than changes to the ball.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Do you want to debate the point?  I suppose all the tour players who say they work out to keep up with Tiger are making it up?
...

They may be working out, but have any of them documented significant gains in distance from it? If so, I haven't seen the reports.

I would hypothesize they get more benefit from stress relief and fatigue avoidance than they get from distance gains.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I don't think the game has gotten too easy for anyone...and the only people that need courses to be lengthened to accomodate are better than me.

Jim,

But they are being lengthened, and in the mind of the public, a golf course under 7000 yards is generally seen as not quite up to modern standards.   It's the perception that drives the ill-advised changes and it's been a vicious circle.

After the holidays, we should discuss over a good bottle.  

[Garland Bayley]

Changes in the driver have had more impact than changes to the ball.  

We have an new highest bidder on the bridge!

Paul, if what you say is trun, then why have I lost so much distance since the ball technology I use has not changed, but I have all the latest driver technology?

[Garland Bayley]

The ball/driver combo is a bigger factor then the ball alone, try a persimmon with a pro v1x, very difficult to get the ball in the air, or a current titanium with a balata, ball spins way too much.
...

Simply using the wrong persimmon. Get a persimmon two wood with appropriate loft for the pro v and I bet you get great results.

[Chuck Brown]

Bryan, I'd like to think very much that the USGA has every right to change the fail-point on its own ODS testing.  Why not?  It is their test!  If you don't like it, feel free to play with other balls.

The legal question may boil down to a similar (admittedly not the same) issue as was raised in the Casey Martin litigation -- to what extent can the ruling body of a game determine the game's rules?

Casey Martin won his case, and I am convinced that he won because his was such a sympathetic case and the majority of the Supreme Court (including Justice Stephens, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice O'Connor, who is rumored to have played a large role in mustering the 7-2 majority) was so determined to uphold a broad statutory reach for the Americans With Disabilities Act.

A lawsuit featuring Acushnet v. USGA would not have that powerful sympathy factor.  And, the court has changed in significant ways.  Justice O'Connor is gone.  Justice Scalia, who wrote a stinging dissent in the Casey Martin case, might well be writing an opinion favoring the USGA.

I commend to anyone who might be interested Justice Scailia's brilliant dissent in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin.

[John Kavanaugh]

Changes in the driver have had more impact than changes to the ball.  

We have an new highest bidder on the bridge!

Paul, if what you say is trun, then why have I lost so much distance since the ball technology I use has not changed, but I have all the latest driver technology?

I am guessing you are out of breath from walking too damn fast on those 2hr rounds.

[Jim Nugent]

Chuck,

So, are you saying that the annual introductions of new ProV1's since 2002 is nothing more than a marketing ploy by Titleist?  That the new models haven't moved the yardsticks.  How can you be so sure that there is further gains to be had in ball technology?

As to the impact of other technologies or player fitness or skill or agronomics, that will remain an open question.  There is no statistical data to support or refute the impact of any of these factors.  However, it is simplistic to state that the ball was the only cause of distance gains.  

The seniors are also hitting the ball miles further than they did when they were flat bellies 25 years younger.  Suggests to me that equipment accounts for all or nearly all the distance gains among the pro's.  

My sense is that fitness hardly affects distance at all.  A golf swing is not much about that.  Fitness can help golfers in other important ways.  But distance?  Mostly indirectly.

[Chuck Brown]

Concerning the effect of modern drivers:  It may be considerable, I don't know.  But the timing of jumps in disatnce points more toward balls.
But assuming, arguendo, that drivers are to "blame," the USGA's institutional prescience is not very encouraging.  They have played catch-up on driver technology at almost every turn since the mid-1990's.
As a result, all of the ex post facto regulation that the USGA does on drivers gets codified in weird, extremely technical jargon that no ordinary golfer and no ordinary club professional could ever be expected to understand completely.  (The new grooves rules have all of those same earmarks, it seems.)