In the distance race, the golf ball matters but is not the Excalibur

[Ben Hollerbach]

In general, those that have rested on the side that players today are hitting the ball too far have settled on a change to the ball as being the easiest and most effective means to correct this issue. While I agree that a change in the rules around the ball could have a profane effect on how the game is played, I would be a fairly controversial change and could greatly anger a large majority of the golf industry. I would love to see the USGA and R&A work with the tours to begin to implement tour specific ball specs, but once again I don't see that happening.

As the majority of players in golf still do not hit their drives over 230 yards, the problem is really relegated to the upper echelons of the game, so a proper solution should really have no impact on how the masses play. Presumably, this means there will not be one perfect solution, but rather a series of small changes that can effectively influence top end distance. In a conversation with my brother the other day he suggests that a change in acceptable tee length used on the professional tours could be fairly impactful in adjusting the driving distances among the worlds best. He suggested that the tee is made shorter.

Trackman testing has proven that hitting up on the ball can have a large impact on total distance. At the clubhead speed of the top tour players, ~120mph, a change in angle of attack (AOA) can result in a difference of 15 to 30 yards in total distance.


The average pga tour player has an AOA of -1.3* and a carry distance of 275, but of course the great concern with the ball is not in the average.  However, the majority of the bombers on tour who carry the ball over 300 yards have attack angles near +3*.  Their more elevated AOA is being greatly aided by the height of the ball off of the ground. By limiting the tee on the professional tours to a height of 1.5 or 1.25 inches, the angle of attack into the ball would be flattened by necessity, reducing the total carry distance of the bombers.

This would be a fairly simple change to implement. Tee's of this length were standard 20 years ago and are still made today. It would not be a big change to the industry as a whole. From the tour perspective, I'd fathom the player reaction would be similar to the groove rule back in 2010. A lot of hot air, but after a year or so a moot point. From the perspective of the casual player, the taller tee's would still be permitted for their usage and would have no impact on their day to day play.


This change may not be "enough" on its own for many people.  But Its unquestionably it would reduce driving distance on tour.  This is the obvious first step that no one is discussing.

[Thomas Dai]

I recall that both Peter Thomson and Nick Faldo have suggested the tee height limit at various times in the past.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Wow never heard of this.  Interesting theory.  Also is there a limit to tee height on the tour?

[Ben Hollerbach]

The USGA limit is 4".


Back in the day Moe Norman would use a coke bottle as a tee, until he was told it was no longer allowed, so he switched to a golf pencil with the eraser removed.

[Sam Andrews]

A couple of years ago I posited No tee pegs equals shorter courseshttp://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62465.0/topicseen.html


Some exploded that it was just making it harder for everyone (I still don't get that, we only have 18 shots a round where we can tee it up) and some suggested that it would wreck the turf on the teeing ground.


Others, however, were more inclined to look upon it favourably as a way to limit the pros because they would only be hitting 3 woods (290-300 yards). AOA is definitely a factor in current driving distances -- we are coached to try to hit it up now -- so a short tee could be a middle way. It would help save the turf on the tee and could hinder the current optimum AOA that is achieving these monster distances.


Means I can carry one fewer club too!


[/font][/size]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I did some quick math, and even with a ball teed up less than 3/4", there's plenty of room to hit up 3° while still missing the ground by a reasonable margin. +3° isn't that much.

Plus you could always get a flat bottomed 1.25" tee and have PLENTY of height.

Plus, why penalize players who like to tee it up higher? Why try to legislate HOW a player swings a driver, up or down? We've had tees and a 4" limit for quite a long time, have we not? I think it was invented in the 1800s.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Erik,

Thanks for your reply, the fact you put pen to paper to try and calculate the effect shows the idea intrigues you. Although I'm a bit confused by the contradiction you made in your response. In the first paragraph, you suggest your math showed that hitting up +3* would still be possible with a shorter tee; but in paragraph 3 you suggest players having to change their swing? If the same launch conditions can be obtained with a shorter tee, the why would the swing change?

The change in tee height isn't as drastic as returning to sand molds of the 1800's, but rather a return to what was standard less than 20 years ago. Overall it would not be a big change.

I'm not suggesting that you couldn't still have a positive AOA with a shorter tee. I think everyone would agree that a taller tee makes hitting up on the ball easier, thus shortening the tee would just simply add an extra level of challenge on the tour player to get that extra distance.


Also, I'd love for you to share your calculations for how you concluded potential AOA and various ball heights.

[MCirba]

Very intriguing theory and I'll look forward to watching others much more knowledgeable than me provide further scientific analysis.

[Matthew Mollica]

Erik - you need to research the history of the tee a little further.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thanks for your reply, the fact you put pen to paper to try and calculate the effect shows the idea intrigues you. Although I'm a bit confused by the contradiction you made in your response. In the first paragraph, you suggest your math showed that hitting up +3* would still be possible with a shorter tee; but in paragraph 3 you suggest players having to change their swing?

I simply said that some players like to tee it up higher.

You're trying to force players to hit down, not up. The "change" is coming from you, not me.

but rather a return to what was standard less than 20 years ago. Overall it would not be a big change.

If we had larger headed drivers back then, it wouldn't have been standard even then.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - you need to research the history of the tee a little further.

In what way? The modern golf tee was invented in the 1800s. The patent was issued in 1899, IIRC.

And 4" has been a legal tee height for quite some time, IIRC (ruleshistory.com doesn't seem to have the Appendices on the site).

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm not asking for, or expecting, any player to use their driver to hit down on the ball.


There were clubs built nearly 70's years ago that had face heights of ~2", but players of those days were not using long tees. The internal construction and weighting of modern clubs, as well as the spin rate of golf balls, has changed how drivers are used.


The first time the 'tee' was defined under the rules of golf was all the way back in 2004. At which time they limited it's height to 4". quite a long time indeed!

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps an even simpler bifurcation solution.  Ban all tee use in Pro events only! 


Even cheaper than creating a new ball.  I love it!

[Ben Hollerbach]

I wouldn't even consider it a bifurcation. In application it would look very similar to the one ball rule used at high level am and pro events.


It's just a simple first step to help bring the top end distance back under check. A shorter tee will result in a reduction in total driving distance.

[Tom_Doak]

This sounds like the "public option" of healthcare debate fame:  say real change is too expensive or difficult, propose a half solution that would keep all the big players while, then abandon even the small option in the name of "bipartisan compromise"


My old friend said it best 30 years ago: Americans are going to ruin golf

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The first time the 'tee' was defined under the rules of golf was all the way back in 2004. At which time they limited it's height to 4". quite a long time indeed!

The point I was making there is that you could have teed the ball up plenty high since the 1800s, but because the driver heads were smaller you didn't need to. But it was legal.

And that even a 1" tee would be enough to hit up 3-5° with a modern driver, so a tee height restriction of 1.25" or 1.5" wouldn't do anything to change the game at the professional level.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Has anyone addressed the differences in the science of growing grass and its effect upon distance?


Seems to me the fairways of today look as fast as the greens in 1968?

Just wondering.

[jeffwarne]

Has anyone addressed the differences in the science of growing grass and its effect upon distance?


Seems to me the fairways of today look as fast as the greens in 1968?

Just wondering.

True, grass is shorter and often a factor on Tour roll.....
but that's not affecting the absurd carry distances pros achieve now.


Many couses had less irrigation years ago also...
At Southam[ton old timers talk about players driving the first green down sea breeze ( 392 yards) prior to irrigation
Doesn't happen now

[Ben Hollerbach]

This sounds like the "public option" of healthcare debate fame:  say real change is too expensive or difficult, propose a half solution that would keep all the big players while, then abandon even the small option in the name of "bipartisan compromise"My old friend said it best 30 years ago: Americans are going to ruin golf[/size]

Tom, I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that a shorter tee would ruin the game? Or could this just be a partial solution?

And that even a 1" tee would be enough to hit up 3-5° with a modern driver, so a tee height restriction of 1.25" or 1.5" wouldn't do anything to change the game at the professional level.

So we agree that shortening the tee won't cause any harm or detriment to the game on the professional level. I think everyone agrees that a taller tee allows for a higher AOA.  Therefore, the potential exist for a reduction in distance through shortening the tee height.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,


I was thinking the same. If tees are banned at the pro level, and they have to hit everything off the deck.  I would think by default it would eliminate most of the absurd 330+ drives.  Sure they can still hit the 3 wood 290-300, but there is the 10-15% right there. In the absence of a different ball, at least this would keep them at bay on 14 of 18 holes on the course.

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


I was thinking the same. If tees are banned at the pro level, and they have to hit everything off the deck.  I would think by default it would eliminate most of the absurd 330+ drives.  Sure they can still hit the 3 wood 290-300, but there is the 10-15% right there. In the absence of a different ball, at least this would keep them at bay on 14 of 18 holes on the course.

Just what the game needs; another excuse by the best players to demand even higher levels of maintenance....exactly what would happen if you take away the tee. Then it trickles down, and when a course can’t keep up with ridiculous levels of maintenance, no one plays there, ultimately closing down the joint.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,


I was thinking the same. If tees are banned at the pro level, and they have to hit everything off the deck.  I would think by default it would eliminate most of the absurd 330+ drives.  Sure they can still hit the 3 wood 290-300, but there is the 10-15% right there. In the absence of a different ball, at least this would keep them at bay on 14 of 18 holes on the course.

Just what the game needs; another excuse by the best players to demand even higher levels of maintenance....exactly what would happen if you take away the tee. Then it trickles down, and when a course can’t keep up with ridiculous levels of maintenance, no one plays there, ultimately closing down the joint.

Perhaps Joe,


But were talking about one back tee box that would be used one week out of the year? And given how precise these guys are, they won't be taking big 3w divots like an average hack would.  Seems a far smaller price tag than continuing to acquire more land and put in extra back tees again and again.


P.S.  I know this "solution" it out of the box, but continuing to do nothing is the real enemy.  Incremental changes IMO are almost always better.

[Joe Hancock]

Kalen, I’m being a bit of a Devils’ Advocate here, but there would never be any chance a golf course would maintain a back tee different than the rest.....they would increase all the rest to match the back tees, that’s the way the “business” works. We humans do things with unintended consequences, and then we try to undo the consequences, and that’s what’s happening here. I don’t think there’s a fix, honestly. I have my preferences, but the industry is generally against that because, well, there’s no money in doing less.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, I’m being a bit of a Devils’ Advocate here, but there would never be any chance a golf course would maintain a back tee different than the rest.....they would increase all the rest to match the back tees, that’s the way the “business” works. We humans do things with unintended consequences, and then we try to undo the consequences, and that’s what’s happening here. I don’t think there’s a fix, honestly. I have my preferences, but the industry is generally against that because, well, there’s no money in doing less.

Fair enough Joe, I know you're a rabble rouser!


But I really don't think they'd have to do anything fundamentally different.  Most tees are maintained like fairways anyways, they would just need to keep the back tees closed for a month before the tourney so they are in pristine shape on game day.  Seems pretty easy....


P.S.  They don't seem to have any issues with Par 3 tee boxes for tourneys, and they take far more damage.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think everyone agrees that a taller tee allows for a higher AOA.  Therefore, the potential exist for a reduction in distance through shortening the tee height.

No, not really. Yes, a 3 1/4" tee might allow for a +20° AoA or something, but nobody's trying to do that. +3 to +5° is all that some players will ever want (and as we've seen -1.3° is still the average), and that can be accomplished with a very, very short (3/4") tee.