[Thomas Dai]

There’s a road across the 1st and 18th fairways on TOC at St Andrews. It’s called Granny Clark’s Wynd.
In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd unless there was a good wind from behind .... and don’t give me any tosh about Jack Nicklaus driving the green in 1971 coz that was with a very strong wind from behind, a firm fairway and a 1:62” ball and even Doug Sanders drove the green that day and he only ever used a half swing!
These days it is commonplace for tee shots to reach the 18th green during The Open.
Seems to me that the distance from the 18th tee used at The Open to Granny Clark’s Wynd would be a good historical reference point for tee shots, ie no shot irrespective of ball or club type or player or combination should ever be able to carry over Granny Clark’s Wynd from the 18th tee in still air conditions.
Atb

[Stephen Davis]

The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd

Really?

[Thomas Dai]

In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd

Really?

Yip.
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yip.
atb

No. It's a 230-yard carry.

[Thomas Dai]

Yip.
atb

No. It's a 230-yard carry.

So what!
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No. It's a 230-yard carry.

So what!
atb

Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.

[Thomas Dai]

“Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.“

Some of us have had the benefit of actually playing the hole ourselves on many occasions with persimmon and balata and have at other times stood at the side of the hole watching numerous major championship winners and other elite players do so using the same sort of equipment.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

No. It's a 230-yard carry.

So what!
atb

Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.

Considering that before 1985 the average driving distance on the PGA tour was less than 260 yards, a carry of 230 yards sure sounds rather hard to obtain by at least half of the PGA tour back in those days.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Some of us have had the benefit of actually playing the hole ourselves on many occasions with persimmon and balata and have at other times stood at the side of the hole watching numerous major championship winners and other elite players do so using the same sort of equipment.

I took your post as applying more to Tour players than to all golfers, so that is probably the bulk of the disagreement, and my mistake.

But we still probably have different definitions, as I played persimmon and balata on a softer course than the Old Course when I was a junior, and a decent number of us would carry it 230+. (Which speaks to the case that the gap has grown.)

At any rate, even 15% is a BUNCH. Back to 1980.

[JLahrman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubd-spHN-0

[Peter Flory]

Have been watching the scotch game at OFCC with interest since I know it so intimately.  Bryson nearly driving 10 and then carrying a 3-wood to the front of the 11th green is crazy.  The 10th hole was named "Carry" because it had a diagonal trench/ creek that was about 180 yards from the back tee box.  And the back tee box was added in modern times to combat length.  He carried the remnants of the trench by 203 yards and would have been by 235 from original tee location. 

[Terry Lavin]

Have been watching the scotch game at OFCC with interest since I know it so intimately.  Bryson nearly driving 10 and then carrying a 3-wood to the front of the 11th green is crazy.  The 10th hole was named "Carry" because it had a diagonal trench/ creek that was about 180 yards from the back tee box.  And the back tee box was added in modern times to combat length.  He carried the remnants of the trench by 203 yards and would have been by 235 from original tee location.

I watched the coverage too. BDC was showing off/having fun with the driver on a couple holes, but I was struck by the hybrid he hit on the long par-4 14th, especially because one of his opponents hit driver within a foot of that tee shot.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Watching the replay of the '91 Ryder Cup.  That would be a decent year to roll back the tech.  Langer was still playing persimmon even though metal drivers were common (indicating that they couldn't have been much better).  Irwin played a metal driver, but a persimmon fairway wood.  But overall, it has the feel of modern golf on the approaches and short game.

I've been having similar thoughts as to a return to that period as well. Possibly for similar reasoning but with a different line of thinking.


Between 1983 and 1994 the average driving distance on tour was a shade over 261 yards, with the shortest and longest years being within 2.5 yards of 261. This was a long and consistent run of standard play on tour that bridge may have had little influence on the tour average but may have impacted the longest players on tour, Over this same 12 year period the longest driver on tour increased 6.5 yards.


Using the Masters and US Open as reference points for a comparison between course length and driving distance we can then extrapolate what distance would be needed today to present a similar distance related challenge to today's players. Over the last 10 years Augusta National would need to have played on average 295 yards longer, The US Open would need to have been played on average 393 yards longer, and these courses would have needed to average 7,723 yards to compare.


In relative sense, players today are playing championship courses that are 1-2 clubs shorter on every hole than they were 30 years ago. There is little point to lengthening the game anymore especially when only the best of the best can truly use it to their advantage. We no longer marvel at the chance for a player to win a major at double digits under par, that seems to be much of the norm today. We view player's struggling, or not struggling, on the golf course in a relatively binary way. But we fail to grasp that among of field of 150 players its possible that even on an incredibly difficult course it's possible with today's equipment for one player to exploit the game well enough to torch a course for 72 holes.


Even back in the 1983-1994 period that I highlighted previously it was possible for players to hit the ball great distances, but it was not done with great frequency. The equipment did not hold them back from doing it, but it required a great swing to gain the reward. Today's equipment allows players to miss the ball 300 yards and keep it in play. Missed shots should not be marginalized the way they can be today. Any evaluation on the game should focus on impacting player accuracy first. A ball that would reduce a players accuracy on miss struck shots will force players to dial it back for "normal" play without eliminating the potential for a prodigious shot when the time calls for it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ben, how much — if any — credit do you give to the idea that players are better today than they were in 1983-1994 and don't "miss it" very often anyway? How much credit do you give to the fact that they swing faster, and would have averaged > 261 ± 2.5 yards if they were transported back to 1989 and given a week to get used to playing those clubs/balls?

There's no right/wrong answer here, as we have no way of figuring this out. Just a question, almost entirely opinion, but I'm curious as to your answer.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom D,


The variable here is the ball.  A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens.  Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid.  In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.

There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. 

My reply to Tom Doak was that if I had to hit the reduced distance ball being discussed from 170 yards, I'd be swinging a 3 hybrid.  With a ProV1, I am hitting a 5 iron.   The difference in club length between my Ping I500 5 iron (38.25") and my TM M6 3 hybrid (40.75") is 2.5".  Most golfers I know hit their shorter clubs with greater accuracy on average, myself included.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Erik,


Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time. Especially when speaking of their ability to swing at speed and hit the ball accurately with any level of consistency.


Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers in the history of the game, Greg Norman had a high swing speed and in the late 80's, early 90's averaged under 280 yards off of the tee.

[Lou_Duran]

The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."

Really?  Who are you playing with and where?  I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6.  I treasure every one of those yards.


Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once.  I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.


Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences.  I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game". 


As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either.  Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing).  I've never seen an adult play a range ball.  Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.


 

[Mark Pritchett]

You can gain distance easily (and free) by moving up a tee. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.

2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86

Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.

Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.

[Matthew Mollica]

how much — if any — credit do you give to the idea that players are better today than they were in 1983-1994 and don't "miss it" very often anyway? How much credit do you give to the fact that they swing faster, and would have averaged > 261 ± 2.5 yards if they were transported back to 1989 and given a week to get used to playing those clubs/balls?

Sure stronger golfers, higher swing speeds, taller athletes, lighter shafts, better shafts etc all play a role.
Are they the chief factors responsible for burgeoning distance from the tee?


I suspect you've seen this before Erik.


https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sure stronger golfers, higher swing speeds, taller athletes, lighter shafts, better shafts etc all play a role.
Are they the chief factors responsible for burgeoning distance from the tee?

I suspect you've seen this before Erik.

https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1

I have. My only point, small as it is, is that it's not just the equipment that's "improved."

[Matthew Mollica]

Totally agree with you. 👊🏻

[Jim Sherma]

There were plenty of guys then that could hit a ball as far as Norman with his equipment. They just couldn’t control it like he could. Now they all can. It’s the margin for error on the club face that has expanded, allowing higher swing speeds to be more advantageous.

Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.

2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86

Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.

Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom D,


The variable here is the ball.  A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens.  Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid.  In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.

There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. 

My reply to Tom Doak was that if I had to hit the reduced distance ball being discussed from 170 yards, I'd be swinging a 3 hybrid.  With a ProV1, I am hitting a 5 iron.   The difference in club length between my Ping I500 5 iron (38.25") and my TM M6 3 hybrid (40.75") is 2.5".  Most golfers I know hit their shorter clubs with greater accuracy on average, myself included.

Sounds like you have a mini-7 wood. Club manufacturers do crazy things to sell you more length. Traditionally, a 3 hybrid started as being the same length as a 3 iron. I have to wonder if there is bigger gap between how far you hit 3 vs. 4 than how far you hit 4 vs 5.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()