PGA Tour Stats - Driving Distance

[Bill Shamleffer]

Some interesting season statistics for the PGA Tour.
http://www.pgatour.com/2008/r/11/14/overall_stats/index.html

I thought those on this site may find these trends interesting:
Stat                                       2008       2000       1990       1980

Scoring Average (actual)      71.48      71.42      72.03      72.59
Driving Distance                   287         272         262         257
Driving Accuracy Pct.             63           68           65           63
Greens in Regulation Pct.     64           65           64           64

First 10 years with 5 yards increase, then 10 years with 10 yards increase, then 8 years with 15 yards increase; yet little change in driving accuracy & GIR.

If the players are really better and the equipment is all really better should not these other statistics also be improving.  Or is the ball and driver unproportionally changing the game at rates much greater than all other improvements to physical abilities & other equipment?  I realize that courese have been made harder so as to compensate for the longer drives, but these four sets of trends are startling to my eyes.


Some other interesting info:
From 1990 to 2008 the total prize money increased about 23x, while the leading money winner's total earnings increased about 12x, and 125th on the money list earnings increased almost 43x.  Yet the total # with any prize money only increased from 316 to 374.  (There were 44 official event in 1980 & 48 in 2008.)

[Steve Lang]

 

So those half stroke per round differences from 80-->90 and 90-->00 meant that the averge pro shot 2 stokes better in a tourny over each decade.. 4 strokes better from 80 ---> 00, but within last decade 00-08, scoring is essentially the same, in spite of big Ti, composite, & moi'd heads..

would driving accuracy in 00 then be attributed to smaller club heads or egos?

[Kalen Braley]

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if the courses they played were still the length of the ones in 1980 that those GIR numbers would be a lot better.  As well the scoring averages would be waaayyyyy better!

[Bill Shamleffer]

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if the courses they played were still the length of the ones in 1980 that those GIR numbers would be a lot better.  As well the scoring averages would be waaayyyyy better!

Exactly Kalen,

All of that new ball & driver technology has resulted in the same GIR & only slight scoring average reduction.  But at what cost?  Adding yardage to golf courses (thus also increasing the cost of golf course maintenance due to additional acreage needed).  Also, boring boring golf - Big drive with short iron to wedge from fairway, or shot from very long rough that will mostly be aerial to green. No run-ups, no bounce-ins, no cuts/draws, no punch-shots.

The response is usually, longer drives by pros are more fun to watch, and longer drives & better mis-hits by the casual golfers makes the game more enjoyable for the consumer.  Yet when the super stars are absent (the public always enjoys seeing the masters of the trade), attendance & ratings are dismal.  And most casual golfers will spend more time talking about the most creative shot they pulled off (the punch shot from under the trees or the bounce-in with the utility club), rather than the off-center shot that still went 220 or 250 and stayed in play.

What are the most talked about shots by Tiger --- his recovery shots.  The great chips (Masters 16th hole), his long-irons from off the fairway (2008 US Open), his stingers from the tee, etc.

So while technology has resulted in more expensive drivers, more expensive balls, and more expensive green fees; the end result for us is minimal changes in scoring & stats for the pros, but a more boring type of golf to watch and play.

[Steve Lang]

  Kalen,

 I think that's arguable..  take the Memorial Tourny .. its been played on essentialy the same course since 1976, with some alterations I believe.. many other courses are still played from the 80's...

and many course records are still from the 80's

http://www.thememorialtournament.com/site.htm

I'd check other venues to test..

[Steve Lang]

  I think there's also a great disconnect between the perception of golf and golfing on tv and the on course experience or in the raw watching of the pros.. this boring golf thing is all mental..

I've been to over 3 dozen pro tournament golf days over the last 30 years or so.. most spectators gaze at and are very impressed with the pro's balance and smoothness of swing and the pure sound of contact-compression of the ball.  Pro distance and consistency has alwys been an amazement to the ordinary golfnut.  Ball flight has always been difficult to follow for most, unless you're right behind them or along side on a tee box or can clearly follow the strike and path.  Today, the ball just seems to fall out of the sky.. it used to be seen rolling out a bit more..  Selection of clubs has always been a guess by the spectator. You just watch them and move on..

There's no question they're playing from different places, but in person its anything but boring.. especially when you can see their hands twitching and their grinding to stay focused on one shot at a time and accept what the last shot was..

I blame the boring golf viewing thing more on tv directors/producers, determining what the "story or stories" is/are and only showing those players.. building up the story lines.. If i really want to know about golfer X's personal journey.. i'll go look it up.. just show me the goods please..

[Bill Shamleffer]

Kalen,

 I think that's arguable..  take the Memorial Tourny .. its been played on essentialy the same course since 1976, with some alterations I believe.. many other courses are still played from the 80's...

and many course records are still from the 80's

http://www.thememorialtournament.com/site.htm

I'd check other venues to test..

I believe Muirfiled began at 6978 in 1976, and was 7265 for this past year's tournament.  Although that is only about a 4% increase of yardage, the fairways may be narrower, the rough may be longer, and Nicklaus wants to rake furrows in the bunkers.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Steve,
I think the Murfield Village is significantly different each year.
Green speeds
Rough heights
Bunker furrows
Pin locations - closer to the edges....

[Kalen Braley]

Steve,

I took a look at the finishing scores and got rid of the ones where the tourney was shortened to 3 days to weather.  I divided it up into 2 groups.

From 76 to 90, the average finishing total was 279.5
From 91 to current, the average is 272.

Thats a 7.5 shot differential.  And the course is playing longer these days, although I would agree it hasn't been stretched out near as much as some of the others.

You put these guys back on that 1976 length course with todays equipment and they will make a mockery of it.

[BCrosby]

From 76 to 90, the average finishing total was 279.5
From 91 to current, the average is 272.

That's astonishing. I would have guessed that the added length, rough, etc. had kept scoring pretty consistent over the years.

More evidence that to get courses to play to the same scores they did 30 years ago, they need to start yardages at 8,000 yards and go from there.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. But it does highlight how profoundly equipment advances have changed things and how nothing done to date has really dented the impact of those advances on scoring.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

More evidence that to get courses to play to the same scores they did 30 years ago, they need to start yardages at 8,000 yards and go from there.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. But it does highlight how profoundly equipment advances have changed things and how nothing done to date has really dented the impact of those advances on scoring.

Yes, Bob...that's why this whole idea of "going back to the original design intent" like they try at ANGC is not even close to workable.

I've argued prior that to make Merion's 18th play as it did in 1950 for Ben Hogan the hole would need to be about 540 yards.

[Kyle Harris]

More evidence that to get courses to play to the same scores they did 30 years ago, they need to start yardages at 8,000 yards and go from there.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. But it does highlight how profoundly equipment advances have changed things and how nothing done to date has really dented the impact of those advances on scoring.

Yes, Bob...that's why this whole idea of "going back to the original design intent" like they try at ANGC is not even close to workable.

I've argued prior that to make Merion's 18th play as it did in 1950 for Ben Hogan the hole would need to be about 540 yards.

And each player would have to be in a head on collision with a bus 18 months prior.

[BCrosby]

More evidence that to get courses to play to the same scores they did 30 years ago, they need to start yardages at 8,000 yards and go from there.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. But it does highlight how profoundly equipment advances have changed things and how nothing done to date has really dented the impact of those advances on scoring.

Yes, Bob...that's why this whole idea of "going back to the original design intent" like they try at ANGC is not even close to workable.

I've argued prior that to make Merion's 18th play as it did in 1950 for Ben Hogan the hole would need to be about 540 yards.

Mike - The 18th at Merion is a great example. The three or four times I've played it, someone in my group hit it to the bottom of the valley and 9 or 8 ironed it in from there. Routine short par 4.

Of course the other way to address the issue is to drop the whole idea of protecting par. An idea I've never really grasped anyway. Especially when protecting par comes at the price of messing up wonderful classic courses that still play as wonderful classic courses for 99% of golfers.

Bob

[Sean_A]

More evidence that to get courses to play to the same scores they did 30 years ago, they need to start yardages at 8,000 yards and go from there.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. But it does highlight how profoundly equipment advances have changed things and how nothing done to date has really dented the impact of those advances on scoring.

Yes, Bob...that's why this whole idea of "going back to the original design intent" like they try at ANGC is not even close to workable.

I've argued prior that to make Merion's 18th play as it did in 1950 for Ben Hogan the hole would need to be about 540 yards.

Mike - The 18th at Merion is a great example. The three or four times I've played it, someone in my group hit it to the bottom of the valley and 9 or 8 ironed it in from there. Routine short par 4.

Of course the other way to address the issue is to drop the whole idea of protecting par. An idea I've never really grasped anyway. Especially when protecting par comes at the price of messing up wonderful classic courses that still play as wonderful classic courses for 99% of golfers.

Bob

Bingo Bob.  Folks have to stop getting hung up on what the pros do.  Why in the world should the value/worth of a course be based such a small percentage of players?  For that matter, why is the state of the game brought under such scrutiny based on what a small percentage of players do?  At least to a certain degree, I believe there are three factors which really warp people's impressions.  First and foremost, the concept of par and that it has an actual value in relation scoring.  Second, sports freaks obsessive slavery to stats and records.  It seems we can't just enjoy great golf on the great occasions without having to explain away its greatness relative to old dead guys - and its always the immediate preceding greats and not so greats who ride these coat tails.  This has been the case for at least 100 years.  Finally, people don't seem willing to accept that it is in their power to make courses "relevant" from a challenge standpoint.  I spose its easier to blame someone else than to really question how we, she, it you, he, may contribute to the "problem".

Ciao   

[Steve Lang]

  Kalen,
Very interesting indeed..

just back from the afternoon's round.. my first blush thought is put todays guys back in the 70's with that tech and i imagine they'd be better..

perhaps a test is to take the pro scores from yesterday and compare to their scores today... like at the Woodlands TPC course where the Shell open left, but the Champions Tour has returned..  i'll look at that as a test..

Mike,  Jack's place is certainly overall a more difficult set up now than decades ago, but for the time it was rough on many as I remember watching there about a half dozen times when I lived in Lima..

 

[Mike_Young]

No one mentions fairway height and mowing practices during these time frames.......
ANGC was cutting the Masters at 1/2 inch in 1985......I would bet the 5 yard gain from 80 to 90 was almost all in lower height of cut in fairway....and a goodly portion of each increase in the other time frames.
just a thought.....

[Kalen Braley]

I should add that those finishing scores are the average winning total...not the average finising score of everyone who made the cut.