[Bryan Izatt]

For the record here is the trend on PGA Tour driving distances, both average and longest, and the delta between the longest and the shortest.  Things have definitely flattened out since the Pro V1 surge of 2000. 

For those who want to roll back the ball, do you understand the costs involved; the disruption of the transition; and the engineering difficulty in finding a way to roll back the ball that is fair and equitable and testable and enforceable.  All in the interests of protecting a few classic courses from "desecration" by their ownership/membership to withstand the improved play and resultant battering of par that the best in the world could inflict. 

Better to cap at the current distance and hope that owners/membership of classic courses don't do any more silly things with their courses.

[Tony_Muldoon]

 

[Sean_A]

Has anyone bothered to check the average distance for the 15 handicapper?  Why must we always revert back to what pros do when we are trying to justify an argument? 

The same people who complain about distance go out and buy big drivers and hot balls.  I have said it before, the power lies with the consumer.  It always has and always will.  When the average Joe figures out the distance deal is a scam and acts accordingly is when distance will be a non-issue.

Oh, btw, what are we saving golf from?

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

JME

I've no hard proof either, but it make sense to me as well.   It has become so common for the Pros to hit three woods off tees that the announcers don't even bother to mention it.    Some of these guys seem to have more distance kept in reserve than I've got total.  

_______________________________________

Sometimes it takes anecdotes to put things in perspective.    Remember when a story of a 350+ yard drive was a wild fairy tale or an anomaly because of the conditions?  It wasn't that long ago.   For all of 1992 on the PGA Tour only one player managed to get lucky enough to hit it farther than 350 yards. (Mark Calcavecchia, 372 yards.)  

I cannot tell you how many have hit it farther than 350 so far this year, because drives under 356 yards don't even make the list of long drives But so far this year on the tour so far, there have been 995 drives of 356 yards or more.  

How common have these monster drives become, so common that the above stat does not even do it justice.    These drives are so bunched up that their are bound to be hundreds more if we could drop the minimum down just a few yards, and thousands more if we could drop the minimum yardage down a just a few dozen, to around 340 yards.

Don't believe me?   So far this year there have been around 164 drives which measured from 356 to 358 yards.  

This is insanity.  

_____________________________________________

Bryan,  

I understand those costs, and I don't give a damn about many of them.  I am concerned with the game and the courses and they not the game and they don't give a damn about the courses.  Golf isn't about making life easy for the equipment manufacturers, so they can endlessly turn profits.  

Do those who want to do nothing or even cap the thing here understand the costs involved?   New equipment every year or two to keep up, longer courses, longer rounds, a half dozen tees to build and maintain on every hole, great courses destroyed, courses with no room to expand becoming obsolete and possibly failing,  traditional strategic options being rendered obsolete not only by the increased distances but also by the growing gaps in distance between long and short,  attrition caused by boredom with 5+ hour rounds, increasing reputation damage and public relations problems for a game that already uses an inordinate amount of natural resources relative to the number of participants.  And many more.

________________________


Tony, you are correct.  I apologize.  I'll delete it.

[DMoriarty]

Has anyone bothered to check the average distance for the 15 handicapper?  Why must we always revert back to what pros do when we are trying to justify an argument? 

The same people who complain about distance go out and buy big drivers and hot balls.  I have said it before, the power lies with the consumer.  It always has and always will.  When the average Joe figures out the distance deal is a scam and acts accordingly is when distance will be a non-issue.

Oh, btw, what are we saving golf from?

Ciao

Sean, I've tried to look at the distances for the 15 handicapper and I don't think that the technology has benefited him much, if at all.    It is all about swing speed.   

But Sean, your suggesting this as if it indicates that there is no real problem, whereas I see it as the root of the problem.   There is a growing gap between the shorter hitter and the longer hitter to the point that we do not fit on the same courses any more.   And that screws up the architecture.    How can courses remain fun and challenging for golfers when some of them hit it 200 yards, and some of them can blast it out there past 350?   

How can a short hitting 3 handicapper and a bomber three handicapper ever even play a match from the same tee?   If the tee fits the bomber, the shorter hitter might never be able to put a ball in play.   If a tee fits the short hitter, the bomber may be hitting mid iron's off of every tee.    That does not make for enjoyable golf or good golf courses for either the bomber or the short hitter.

Golf isn't the stock market where supply and demand will take care of everything (not even the stock market is the stock market.)   It is a game, and games have rules to create a certain competitive balance.  But when those rules don't keep up with technology the game suffers and the balance of the game is thrown off.     We cannot afford to have to build all of our courses over again as we did after the Feathery, or to redo them all as we did with the advent of the Haskell.

Speaking of which, those changes were minor compared to this one.  For one thing, we have had a huge yardage increase.  For another, with those changes everyone benefited from the technology, where now it is only the longest players.  So we not only have to make our courses much longer for the longest players, we have to make them flexible beyond the ability of most designers.   

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

The PGA Tour distances are readily available, those of 15 handicappers are not.  I think the average driving distance of a 15 handicapper would be irrelevant, even if it were available.  Too much variation about the mean.  I expect that any gains would be lost in the noise. I agree that the distance thing is a scam for the vast majority of us, but, I don't expect people to come to their senses any time soon.  Is it really true that you can't buy game?   

David,

It's kind of overkill to blame all those things solely on the ball, don't you think.  Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).

[Dan Herrmann]

My real fear is that the great game of golf could end up looking like bowling - a game where he with the best technology usually either wins or comes darn close.

[JMEvensky]

DMoriarty,the percentage of 3-woods used on measured holes would help answer a lot of questions,IMO.

As example,some players would be more likely to hit 3-wood on a dogleg left hole,almost irrespective of distance,just to avoid trying to "turn over" a driver.Some guys play with 3-woods built to play as more accurate drivers;trading a little distance for a lot of accuracy.

I don't know how you'd ever find out absent polling the players.

[Brent Hutto]

Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).

No I think the crusaders would move on to banning long shafts, then large clubheads, then grooves on clubfaces, then eating protein bars, then working out in gyms, then taking lessons with video and eventually Lasik surgery. Then when the game still wasn't played exactly as it was when they were 15 years old they'd get so made they'd just shit in their pants. Then they would give up and go pester some other game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The driving distance for players at the mean was 261 yards in 1989, in 2000 it was 273 yards, about 1 yard per season over 12  seasons.   

Then the driving distance for players at the mean shot up by a 7 yard jump in 2001, to 280 yards,  and it stayed at that yardage for 2002. 

There was one more quick jump in the yardage for players at the mean and that was in 2003 when it shot up about another 7 yards to 286.6 yards. Over the last six seasons it hasn't budged from that mark.

[DMoriarty]

David,

It's kind of overkill to blame all those things solely on the ball, don't you think.  Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).

Bryan, aren't most or all of those things already happening as a result in (or reaction to) changes in the distances some people hit the golf ball?   Seen many new 6000 courses lately?  Seen many new courses with two or three tee boxes?

Why would they only roll the ball back 12 yards?   Roll it back to where it was before this nonsense started.   Those that weren't helped on the way up won't necessarily be hurt on the way down.  
___________________________________________

Brent, why not do away with equipment regulations at all?   I'll bet with a small air compressor and a pipe I can revolutionize the game.

___________________________

Jim,

That is the ProV1 and the ProV1x talking. 

_____________________

JME, I've never seen that stat kept but I'd sure like to.

[Niall C]

Tony

Check your messages

Niall

[Brent Hutto]

As I always point out in this recurring discussion, if you want Tiger Woods to hit the ball like they did "before this nonsense started" you're either going to have to make them play a Cayman ball or you're going to have to also change a lot of stuff beside the ball. An additional 30mph of clubhead speed plus better mechanics isn't something you can take away easily. And if you make everyone play a ball that Tiger hits no further than Jack was hitting it in 1970 then the rest of us aren't going to be able to hit out of our own shadow.

P.S. And by the way, if "they" were to force the Tour players to play an 80's vintage Titleist Tour Balata and "they" make all current technology golf balls non-conforming, I'll gladly go back to playing Top-Flite two-piecers. Just don't pretend it's going to make tomorrow's players not hit it any harder than the heros of your youth.

[Sean_A]

David

Nothing of the game is lost on me when I play a well designed 6000 yarder.  In fact, this sort is my ideal course.  I have fun and look forward to the next time, otherwise I wouldn't pay the green fee.  If a pro can't enjoy that its no skin off my nose.  The thing is to ignore the pros.  Make them come round rather than accommodate them, but I guess that takes too much cahones from the best players of clubs.  So far as I am concerned the root of the problem is club members with egos.  They would rather their course be altered than to fall out of the limelight.  If they stand pat, their course won't be changed.  Nobody in the world can force a club to make changes except club members.  If enough clubs stand pat, the USGA may take notice.  All of you have tried petitioning the USGA with logic. Isn't it time we all take matters into our hands?  That is what reasonable minded people tend to do, but then its easier to sit on our asses (and stand in line for the latest and greatest piece of shit that is obsolete before the season ends) and blame the USGA then to do anything sensible. This is when you find out who really cares about the distance issue.  When I see a guy whinging about distance after he whips out a driver as big as a log and takes an almighty swat at the latest hum dinger - I don't take any notice.  Hypocrites are a dime a dozen.  When the consumer cares enough to change his behaviour, that is when real change about distance will happen.  Until then, its all clap trap.  

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

As I always point out in this recurring discussion, if you want Tiger Woods to hit the ball like they did "before this nonsense started" you're either going to have to make them play a Cayman ball or you're going to have to also change a lot of stuff beside the ball. An additional 30mph of clubhead speed plus better mechanics isn't something you can take away easily. And if you make everyone play a ball that Tiger hits no further than Jack was hitting it in 1970 then the rest of us aren't going to be able to hit out of our own shadow.

P.S. And by the way, if "they" were to force the Tour players to play an 80's vintage Titleist Tour Balata and "they" make all current technology golf balls non-conforming, I'll gladly go back to playing Top-Flite two-piecers. Just don't pretend it's going to make tomorrow's players not hit it any harder than the heros of your youth.

Brent,  you seem to be approaching this on more of an emotional level than rational.  The heros of my youth weren't golfers.   The equipment has changed a lot in the past decade or so.   Surely considering whether or not this has had a negative impact on the game is not such a bad thing, is it.     What does it matter to you if Tiger Woods only hits it 300 with a good poke instead of 360?  He'll still win.   So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?

[Brent Hutto]

So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?

Because that is way, way, way, way far back. And it will be farther back still another decade hence.

And I wasn't being rhetorical in saying they could start playing 80's style golf balls on the Tour for all I care. Within reason, I am all for "rolling back" golf ball performance to what the USGA pretended to limit it to while their head was in the sand for a decade. If you are proposing to place an actual limit, enforced by a meaningful spec and testing regimen that retroactively halts golf ball progress circa 1990 I do not object.

But I'm pointing out that it will not restore driving distances to their 1990 level, nor will it do more than temporarily slow down modification of golf courses to longer and longer lengths nor will it foreclose on the increases in distance (and height and spin and control and consistency) that the next generation of players will achieve. And the generation after that.

For decades upon decades treating golf as an athletic endeavor and training golfers as athletes was not widespread. It is now and the majority of the stuff you decry comes from factors other than the ball. So I keep repeating, you're going to have to "roll back" the ball to something ridiculous if you want to see PGA Tour events on 6,400 yard courses again.

[DMoriarty]

So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?

Because that is way, way, way, way far back. And it will be farther back still another decade hence.

And I wasn't being rhetorical in saying they could start playing 80's style golf balls on the Tour for all I care. Within reason, I am all for "rolling back" golf ball performance to what the USGA pretended to limit it to while their head was in the sand for a decade. If you are proposing to place an actual limit, enforced by a meaningful spec and testing regimen that retroactively halts golf ball progress circa 1990 I do not object.

But I'm pointing out that it will not restore driving distances to their 1990 level, nor will it do more than temporarily slow down modification of golf courses to longer and longer lengths nor will it foreclose on the increases in distance (and height and spin and control and consistency) that the next generation of players will achieve. And the generation after that.

For decades upon decades treating golf as an athletic endeavor and training golfers as athletes was not widespread. It is now and the majority of the stuff you decry comes from factors other than the ball. So I keep repeating, you're going to have to "roll back" the ball to something ridiculous if you want to see PGA Tour events on 6,400 yard courses again.

Brent surely training makes a difference but the jumps in distance directly correspond to the advances of technology, particularly ball technology.   See Jim Kennedy's post above.   In fact if you go back and look tournament by tournament you can see the huge bump that some players received from the ProV1 or ProV1x.   Here is a chart I did a few years ago of the players who switched to the ProV1x in 2003.   It shows the yardage they gained in that single year.   



This was no gradual change as the result of hard work,  this was a huge boost because of changing equipment.  Recall Ernie Els, who switched before the Kapalua Tournament  (before most had switched.)   He was like a different player, driving it well beyond where anyone had in previous tournaments and well beyond the competition.  (Come to think of it, that probably shows up on his 2002 average, so the difference for him should probably be a little larger.)

And note that players without a high swing speed received little or less benefit.

[Brent Hutto]

And for my final comment...the same comment. I have no objection to lopping five percent or ten percent or thirteen-point-seven percent off the ODS. Whatever you suppose would make it right is fine by me. But it won't stop the lengthening of golf courses.

P.S. Just to state my own interest in golf ball design, let me say this. When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.

[DMoriarty]

And for my final comment...the same comment. I have no objection to lopping five percent or ten percent or thirteen-point-seven percent off the ODS. Whatever you suppose would make it right is fine by me. But it won't stop the lengthening of golf courses.

P.S. Just to state my own interest in golf ball design, let me say this. When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.

Again, I don't think this is about ego or reminiscing of days of yore.  It is about protecting the courses and making them viable for those that hit the ball different distances.   

And I doubt it will return to the Rock Flite days.    If the USGA thinks it through (a big if) they could very easily limit or roll back the ball so that those like us with out 125 mph swing speeds would not be adversely impacted at all.  They could even through a bone to the manufacturers by giving them some wiggle room and incentive to bring up those at the bottom a bit while lowering the top a bit.  Think of a teeter totter as the top goes down a bit must necessarily come up.   If the fulcrum is properly set, then same necessarily applies to rates of distance increase/decrease per change in club velocity. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brent,
No worries, nothing anyone does to rein in the Pros will have much effect on the rest of the golf world, all 99.5 % of it.

[Andy Hughes]

Out of curiosity, is there a single person on this board who truly believes they hit the ball too far and it has made the game too easy for them?  I find it baffling that there is always so much sturm and drang on here about an issue that really only involves the tiniest of slivers of all golfers. 

[Craig Van Egmond]

Andy,

     Not me. I'm still waiting for all those gains. 

[DMoriarty]

Andy,

Not me either, but this isn't about me.  It is about the golf courses. 

Even though the changes haven't had much impact on many of us, they have impacted enough so that many of our great old courses are being changed and many of our new courses are over-sized monstrosities from the beginning.  Many courses can no longer reasonably accommodate a long hitter and short hitter, at least not from the same tee.   These are serious problems for golf design and therefor golf.   

[Jason Topp]

Out of curiosity, is there a single person on this board who truly believes they hit the ball too far and it has made the game too easy for them?  I find it baffling that there is always so much sturm and drang on here about an issue that really only involves the tiniest of slivers of all golfers.  

Perhaps not, but this issue has impacts far beyond what you suggest:

I compete in local interclub competitions with 13 other clubs, many of which were built in the 1920's and have classic designs.  8 of the 14 have significantly lengthened their courses in the last 10 years.  Four of the other courses already play in excess of 7200 yards.  I cannot imagine how much money has been spent on those renovations.

I compete in a tournament in Iowa at a 6800 yard course that used to be considered a good test of golf, not overly stern but a challenge for a top level player.  Two years ago, a member of my foursome drove a 370 yard green with about a 10 mph tailwind.  No top competitor hits more than a pitching wedge for any approach on a par four unless something seriously went wrong off the tee.  The only time one sees a mid to long iron played by a contender is for second shots on par fives and tee shots on par threes.

Any new course that wants to challenge a top flight player while still being playable for the rest of us, now probably needs to build a 7500 yard course.  Such courses typically involve much longer walks to get around the course - increasing the time it takes to play, discouraging the health and experiential benefits of walking because the walk is more difficult and increase the expense of the game because of the additional land involved in such a course.  



For another perspective, here is William Flynn's description of an ideal test of golf quoted in the Linc Rhoden Interview on this site  http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001


"Linc: When Flynn designed an 18 hole course, he designed it to require the full range of shot values. Every shot provided a challenge, and Flynn mixed the challenges to provide great variety during the round. During the course of the round Flynn challenged the good player to hit a very wide yet specific range of shots, his standards of play. His greatest and perhaps unique strength was to design 18 holes from the viewpoint of encompassing the full range of shot values for the good player, while providing an enjoyable experience for the less-skilled player. To quote Flynn:

‘Getting back to the average good course it does seem that from 6,200 to 6,600 yards should suffice for length.

‘Dividing this up into holes there would be say four short holes ranging from the mashie to the full wood shot.

‘One real three-shotter, not merely a hole somewhere over 500 yards.

‘Two drive and full wood shot holes, one with a big carry on the drive as the premium with an easy entrance to the green, the other with accuracy on the drive but with the premium on a big carry for the second shot.

‘One drive and high spoon shot, accuracy off tee and carry to the green.

‘One drive and full cleek shot to narrow entrance and slightly terraced green.

‘One drive and high midiron carry to green.

‘Two drive and full midiron run to green with narrow entrance.

‘One drive and high mashie iron carry to green.

‘One drive and mashie to narrow entrance.

‘One drive and mashie all carry to green.

‘One drive and mashie niblic to island green.

‘One drive and run up on narrow terraced green straight away.

‘One drive and runup, elbow or cape type, with premium on length of drive.

‘ The above list is not at all arbitrary but covers generally the possibilities in an eighteen hole layout.’

The above was written in 1927, while Huntingdon Valley was under construction. In the same articles Flynn notes that the US Open was played that year on a course of 7000 yards! It was Oakmont. He indicated championship courses would be over 6600 yards. In the writings I have seen, he did not provide any changes in shot values for a ‘championship’ course from those listed above."


In that interview, Rhoden does an interesting comparison between the shots Flynn envisioned,Hogan in 1948 and the shots now required at Huntington Valley by our own Jim Sullivan:


 Hole       1928          Hogan    1948       Sullivan 1999
 C1.401       Drive, 3 Iron       Drive, 7 Iron       3 Iron, 8 Iron
C2. 420       Drive, Full Wood       3 Wood, 4 Wood       3 Iron, 4 Iron
C3. 557       Drive, 3 Wood, Pitch                    Drive, 3 Wood       Drive, 5 Iron
 C4. 213       Full Wood                       4 Wood          3 Iron
 C5. 381       Drive, 5 Iron       Drive, 8 Iron       3 Iron, 8 Iron
C6. 191       High Spoon       3 Iron          6 Iron
 C7. 435       Drive, Cleek       Drive, 4 Iron       Drive, 8 Iron
C8. 412       Drive, Wood       Drive, 6 Iron       Drive, 9 Iron
C9. 431       Drive, Full Wood       Drive, 4 Iron       Drive, 7 Iron C
 



Of course - this data is prior to the [edit] 5% distance gain that was achieved between 1999 and 2001 further increasing the disparity.

[Mark Smolens]

I also find it somewhat absurd that at age 52 I hit the ball much further than I did 20 years ago.  I realize that it's my increased conditioning and flexibility from my adult-onset fitness program  .  Yes, these distance gains are incrementally small compared to the best players in the world, but any rollback would also cause my sorry game less loss of distance as well.  And that way, the Links Trust would not need to bastardize the Road Hole by building a new tee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()