Jim,
A big advantage of the R&A study is that
the R&A controlled for club selection. So the 3 yard gain is for
drivers only. This isn't true with the tour averages. The tour mixes in drivers, 3 woods, and lesser clubs into the average, and if the rate of usage changed for those clubs, that will impact the difference between the averages.
I think the 3 woods (and less) are more frequently used lately because on many holes there is no room for the big hitters to hit driver, and/or because the hole lengths are such that the benefits of the extra distance are not worth the risk of hitting a driver. Changes to the courses haven't yet been able to keep up with the changes to the equipment, so there is less need to hit driver. I don't watch a lot of pro golf, but I usually pay attention at a few courses, and, anecdotally, big hitters are no longer hitting drivers on holes where they used to always hit driver.
To answer you question, I've never seen a study on the frequency of 3 woods off the tee, but that is my theory and my observation.
Do you or Bryan or Paul have proof that 3 woods are used at the exact same frequency now as 20 years ago? If you want to use the changes in tour averages as an exact measure of technological gain, then given the drastic changes to the game, don't you think that you ought to have the burden of proving that your methodology is adequately controlled?
The R&A study is fatally flawed because they use all drives, not just good ones.
Average golfers mishit drives in 1996, and they mishit drives in 2012. I can't think of any (non-technology driven) reasons why the mishit rate among average golfers might have significantly changed during this time period. Can you? If the rate mishit rate is practically constant, then the mishits ought not throw off the relative change in driver distance between 1996 and 2012.
You'd have a much better point if we were discussing the the absolute distance an average golfer could hit the ball with solid contact and ideal (for him/her) launch conditions. But I am not using those numbers to make that sort of claim. Rather, I am just comparing the relative change from 1996 to 2012.
That is the main difference in my approach to your and Paul's and Bryan's approach. I am not pretending that either study are reflect lab conditions. I am not pretending that either figure provides an exact measure. I am using the two studies to give us a
rough approximation of the magnitude of the changes for the true groups. And, roughly speaking, these data sources suggest that elite players have picked up around
10 times the gains as average players. Could it be 8 times the gain or 5 times the gain? Sure. Could it be 12 times the gain or 15 times the gains? Sure. Neither source perfect, both may have understated the gains a bit. So it is difficult or impossible to put an exact number on it.
But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit? Preposterous.
The Tour average numbers are at least representative of more frequent "good" drives for those people, don't you think?
I agree that tour players more frequently hit good drives. I am not sure that the tour numbers are more representative of what tour players are capable of doing with a driver, though, because the tour numbers include 3 woods and other clubs off the tee, not just driver.
Do you have any proof/evidence that there are more 3 wood or "babied" drivers being hit today?
See above.