Perhaps the most interesting thing was the old balls off the new drivers only flew 15/16 yards less. They may have lost something but it shows how much the driver - longer, lighter shafts and frying pan heads conducive to swinging as fast as possible - has contributed to the increase in distance.I agree. And yeah, those old balls were not exactly in mint condition - they'd undoubtedly lost some of their original pop.
Major League Baseball stuck with wooden bats when every other level switched over. Had golf done the same, all the ball technology in the world would have produced 15 yards more distance, instead of 40.Baseball is not overseen by one (or two, who agree) ruling bodies.
Tom: I agree with you and you could add in the graphite shafts which allow for much more custom fitting. However, you must remember that in baseball they own the ballparks and don't want to have to build all new parks plus there is a safety issue as the ball would be heading into the stands at much higher speeds and become far more dangerous.
Shots are getting longer whether it is the ball, the club or both. The simplest, quickest and cheapest solution is to reduce the distance the ball flies.I don't think it demonstrates that too well. If the difference is 10 yards, because the balls are degraded, is that worth all the fuss? 15? 20, over the last 30+ years, with almost all of that coming from the ability to swing the driver faster because it's lighter, longer, and has a bigger clubface? Everyone's going to have a different line, and unfortunately, we can't have a "new" dozen Titleist Professionals or Tour Balatas to try out. Or a "new" 1900 Pinnacle or Top-Flite.
I'm still curious, why the PGA Tour cannot adopt its own version of the rules of play?...especially when pretty much every other pro sport already does it...They can do whatever they want. But at their own risk… I think a lot of the charm in golf is that we play under the same rules. I think we'd lose a TON if the PGA Tour played bifurcated rules.
Would love to have seen his numbers with an old Pinnacle off both drivers...Probably pretty similar to the Pro V1 numbers. Slightly better aerodynamics (dimple patterns) on the modern ball, I'm sure.
“Greg Norman would have been such a killer with modern drivers.”
???
Is that like saying Ben Crenshaw would have done better if all putts were dead straight?
Wouldn't Norman's great driving ability been neutralized by modern equipment? I thought that was part of the point of the video and comments above.
It also makes Tiger's dominance even more staggering as equipment was helping guys to keep up with him.
Wouldn't Norman's great driving ability been neutralized by modern equipment? I thought that was part of the point of the video and comments above.
It also makes Tiger's dominance even more staggering as equipment was helping guys to keep up with him.
Yes! Norman fell off the radar right as the new drivers took over. Driving was the strength of his game ... not hitting iron shots under pressure like Scott Norwood.
I don't think driving has ever been the real strength of Tiger's game - certainly not in recent years anyway! So equalizing the driver might actually have helped him vs the field.
For clarification...his numbers were from Trackman, and all based on calculations off launch conditions, correct? Maybe I'm an idiot, but Trackman doesn't factor in cold, wet etc...when it's giving carry/roll/total yardages, does it? In theory if he turned around and hit with the wind the numbers would have been the same?
Wouldn't Norman's great driving ability been neutralized by modern equipment? I thought that was part of the point of the video and comments above.
It also makes Tiger's dominance even more staggering as equipment was helping guys to keep up with him.
Yes! Norman fell off the radar right as the new drivers took over. Driving was the strength of his game ... not hitting iron shots under pressure like Scott Norwood.
I don't think driving has ever been the real strength of Tiger's game - certainly not in recent years anyway! So equalizing the driver might actually have helped him vs the field.
Shots are getting longer whether it is the ball, the club or both. The simplest, quickest and cheapest solution is to reduce the distance the ball flies.I don't think it demonstrates that too well. If the difference is 10 yards, because the balls are degraded, is that worth all the fuss? 15? 20, over the last 30+ years, with almost all of that coming from the ability to swing the driver faster because it's lighter, longer, and has a bigger clubface? Everyone's going to have a different line, and unfortunately, we can't have a "new" dozen Titleist Professionals or Tour Balatas to try out. Or a "new" 1900 Pinnacle or Top-Flite.
What was interesting was as Lucas struggled with the wood I told him to imagine hitting the tee shot he would hit if he needed a par to win a tournament.
He got to the 18th hole in Portugal a week later needing a birdie to tie - after Tom Lewis made it from 50 feet for par on 17 - and drove it 25 yards into the lake on the left.
It's hard to be too critical though - he started the year with no status on the European Tour and after playing 15 tournaments (about) he's 38th on the money list.
Of course what doesn't come out in the final numbers of that video is what the miss rate was with the old driver. By all means let these magnificent athletes with fantastic diets who are just plain better thrash away with a persimmon driver. All the Trackman data is likely to do is help them find the ball 3 fairways away. We have de-skilled the game and made it all about power. When faced with the same dilemma baseball and tennis made changes to ensure technology didn't make it only about power.
Imagine baseball with oversized titanium bats where every hit was a home run. It would be boring to watch because the exceptional, a home run, would be the norm. Rules were changed to ensure that didn't happen. I take it post banning all but wooden bats in Major League Baseball that everyone stopped playing and no one watched any more?
I suppose it's impossible to go back to persimmon because everyone under 40 would have to totally re-learn how to play, and possibly some of them would be unable to cope.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a Persimmon Open once a year for enough money that it attracted the Tour players? I think I'd bet on Langer or Irwin or Tom Watson against most of the young guns.
I suppose it's impossible to go back to persimmon because everyone under 40 would have to totally re-learn how to play, and possibly some of them would be unable to cope.Point taken but I think I'd fade that bet all day--Langer, Irwin,and Watson were great drivers but elite players can adapt pretty quickly. And those 3 would eventually have to putt.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a Persimmon Open once a year for enough money that it attracted the Tour players? I think I'd bet on Langer or Irwin or Tom Watson against most of the young guns.
Seems like a reasonable compromise would be allowing the distance gains of the new ball but requiring a perfect strike to get them. If the new drivers had the same distance loss for off-center hits as persimmon drivers did, maybe there'd be less bomb/gouge. Risk/reward is something PGAT players figure out pretty quickly.
I get the charm/different from everyone else component. But specifically what would golf would lose if the PGA Tour had its own rules?I've answered that question a number of times. A lot of golfers like that they play the same game as the pros. And, unlike other sports, golfers often move up and down and play a variety of levels of competition: a PGA Tour player might play a weekend game against his friends or family, an amateur might play one weekend in his club championship and then the next weekend in a U.S. Open qualifier. You don't have college baseball players taking their metal bats to the major leagues a few weekends a year.
What is the incentive for the PGA Tour to adopt its own rules with regard to equipment?Good point. There is none.
The Tour is already bifurcated. Anyone on here can happily use U shaped grooves and I still love my Eye 2 + wedges. You cannot use U shaped grooves on Tour. Likewise I can change the brand and style of ball as many times as I like in a round. Try doing that on Tour.Hmmmm. The grooves, nobody's still using those, and if they are, they're worn as heck. They grandfathered old clubs so people didn't have to buy new ones so quickly. The one-ball rule? We have that in place for some of our higher level amateur events. It's a Condition of Competition IIRC, and anyone is free to use it.
What was interesting was as Lucas struggled with the wood I told him to imagine hitting the tee shot he would hit if he needed a par to win a tournament.
He got to the 18th hole in Portugal a week later needing a birdie to tie - after Tom Lewis made it from 50 feet for par on 17 - and drove it 25 yards into the lake on the left.
It's hard to be too critical though - he started the year with no status on the European Tour and after playing 15 tournaments (about) he's 38th on the money list.
Mike, can you clarify how they computed the "averages" for his drives with the old persimmon club? It seemed like they threw out the bad hooks and averaged his solid ones and they were still that far behind. What was a bad drive like for distance and direction?
I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?
I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?
The point on the grooves is that there were plenty of brand new u grooves out there when the rule changed. In fact virtually every club sold at the time had U grooves, Years on there are still plenty of golfers (the ones you mention who like to play the same game as the pros) still using u groove clubs. The world didn't end because the Tour decided that the Pros would play different equipment to the rest of the golfing world nor did the change force any of the equipment manufacturers to go broke. I know golfers who went out and stocked up on u groove wedges and who will use them right up tot he day they are banned. The fact that Jordan and Rickie use something different isn't a concern."The world didn't end because…" I feel you're overstating the importance/relevance/something of the groove rule. In 2010, manufacturers weren't allowed to keep making clubs which didn't conform, and most stopped in mid-2009. The rule really only affected wedges, which are frequently replaced and which wear down quickly. The regulation change was "staggered" (out as far as 2024) mostly because the USGA/R&A didn't want people to have to be angry about having to buy new clubs just to conform, but they knew full well that a three-year old 2008 wedge in 2011 was not getting performance above and beyond what a legal PGA Tour wedge made in 2011 was getting. So no, we weren't really - in actual practice - playing under two different sets of rules. (BTW, many iron sets already had conforming grooves, even in 2006, or 2007… again, the groove rules were mostly regarding wedges).
Once again, we're only talking about having a separate set of rules for the PGA TOUR, not top level AMs or otherwise, (which I agree Ams do play in a much more diverse set of tournaments). College golf, state AMs, regional championships, local club matches, would all remain unchanged.So you want to punish the top level ams, many of whom attempt to and/or do qualify to play in PGA Tour events, U.S. Opens, British Opens, etc. and/or are looking to make the transition to the pro ranks at some point? And what about the European Tour? Australasian Tour? Hooters Tour? Where do you draw the line?
So I will ask again, what do we all lose if the PGA Tour has a different set of rules, that are 99% the same with a few tweaks for equipment?I've answered this question a bunch of times. Many people seem to constantly downplay the appeal that playing under the same rules/gear has to a lot of golfers. It's a very important part of the charm, the allure, the draw… a thing that many really enjoy about the game.
EricYes Mice? Suffice to say, to your post, we're not living in the 70s anymore, and what we can learn about a relatively small population of golfers (compared to today, worldwide) did or didn't like 40+ years ago is of limited relevance, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong; wouldn't be the first time (today). But I don't think it's relevant.
Eric
The 'a lot of golfers like to play the same game as the pros' argument may be true in America. I don't know
But - when the Open Championship went to the 1.68 ball in 1974 and the European and Australian Tours adopted the same ball in the late 1970s the vast majority of amateurs in Britain and Australia continued to play with the 1.62 ball for another 4-5 years until it was banned. By vast majority, I'd guess 99% plus.
My assumption is if the same circumstance had played out in America very few would have been in any sort of rush to switch just because it was what the pros were playing.
And when the big ball came in I never heard of a single player who gave up because he or she had lost yardage - for the better players usually up to 20-25 yards of it.
In other words, I don't know anyone who would quit playing golf because they were no longer using the same equipment that the professionals are using.Straw man; I've never said people care enough to quit the game. I've simply said that for a lot of the people I know, part of the charm and appeal of golf is playing the same game.
In other words, I don't know anyone who would quit playing golf because they were no longer using the same equipment that the professionals are using.Straw man; I've never said people care enough to quit the game. I've simply said that for a lot of the people I know, part of the charm and appeal of golf is playing the same game.
Good (different) point by Jon Wiggett, too.
I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?
I was thinking something similar, only it was Sandy Lyle and his Ping 1-iron.
atb
To those who say Joe Public does not care what the PGA Tour players play. If that were true then the manufacturers would not be offering them millions of $ in some cases to play their equipment and wear there clothing. Of courses it matters.
What was interesting was as Lucas struggled with the wood
To those who say Joe Public does not care what the PGA Tour players play. If that were true then the manufacturers would not be offering them millions of $ in some cases to play their equipment and wear there clothing. Of courses it matters.
There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though. I think a lot of people knew Tiger played Nike and bought Nike clubs because of it, but I don't think very many of them could have told you the specific models... and even if they could, it's not like they were actually playing the same clubs he was playing anyways since the professionals don't use off the rack models.
"There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though."
Edward G. -
You are absolutely right about that. Golf companies (and other companies as well) hiring golf pros to endorse their equipment is much more about creating/establishing "brand identity" than promoting specific lines or types of golf clubs.
My guess is the vast majority of amateur golfers do not use the clubs most of the pros use, especially when it comes to their irons.
DT
Erik you said:
"So you want to punish the top level ams, many of whom attempt to and/or do qualify to play in PGA Tour events, U.S. Opens, British Opens, etc. and/or are looking to make the transition to the pro ranks at some point? And what about the European Tour? Australasian Tour? Hooters Tour? Where do you draw the line?"
To my knowledge the US Open and British Open are not governed by the PGA or Euro tour respectively
But requiring top level AMs to adjust is a fact of life in every sport. They use different bats and balls in MLB. They use a different ball, shot clock, and 3 point line in the NBA. Same for NFL, different ball....and I can go on and on with various other differences in other sports. No one freaks out or doesn't try to go pro because of this, they adjust and move on...or they don't.
P.S. Lets get real about why there is so much resistance to this idea, its because the equipment manufacturers will throw a shit fit tantrum because they too will have to adjust...that's all this is.
All good points-I would argue however that 40 years ago the club champ and a touring professional were a LOT closer(or at least they thought so :) ) to playing the same game (they could at least play the same tees even if they were miles apart in skill)What else is different? The Tour player can hit the same ball and same club 248 yards, so what separates him from the club champ? Athleticism. Speed. Tour players are further from the average club player because there are a lot more people playing golf now, and to be a Tour player, you have to be in a much smaller "top percentage" or you're not a Tour player. In the 1970s, to make up a number, the top 125 out of 10,000 good golfers were Tour players. Now it's the top 125 out of 10,000,000 good golfers. And #10,000 on that list is still pretty darn good.
Not too many club champs hitting 248 yard 4 irons.
…
Athleticism no doubt.....
To my knowledge the US Open and British Open are not governed by the PGA or Euro tour respectivelyThere's no incentive at all for JUST the PGA Tour to add such a rule. So any talk of bifurcation I assume, stupidly or not, to be set out as the Rules by the USGA/R&A.
But requiring top level AMs to adjust is a fact of life in every sport.Not for one week (the U.S. Open, or the U.S. Amateur). They transition to the minor leagues. In golf they'd have to choose between being at a disadvantage most of the time, just so they can prepare for the times they move up a level and play in a U.S. Open Qualifier or something, or have to deal with a disruption/change for one week or two rounds or whatever. It's not like other sports. And this would be true regardless of where you put the line. Golfers straddle the line more in golf than any other sport. A random good basketball player doesn't just get to play a few games in the NBA finals by qualifying to do so.
P.S. Lets get real about why there is so much resistance to this idea, its because the equipment manufacturers will throw a shit fit tantrum because they too will have to adjust...that's all this is.That's not my objection at all, and I have no ties at all to a manufacturer.
in my experience, most golfers barely pay attention to the professional tour and would only vaguely be aware of the changes. I still maintain that it's a very small percentage of golfers that would care about a rule change for the professionals.I do not share your experiences.
Edward,
sorry but you are wrong. The clubs that the pros play are freely available as is the customisation of said clubs for any player wishing to play them. Most top amateur players will be playing a model that is being played on the professional tours. In fact it would be interesting to see if you can name a player and their clubs which are not available to the public to purchase in order to back up your point of view!!
As for the ball, you are so far wide of the mark it is difficult to believe you would think it but please do let me know what player is playing which ball that is not available to the public.
Jon
Eric,Mike, please have the respect of spelling my name properly.
If in 30 years Cameron Champ type distance became the norm (and I have no doubt it will because the longest hitters of every generation became the norm in the next) - as the unimaginable 1991 distance of John Daly has become the norm now - would you agree something would need to be done to 'protect' the golf courses?I don't agree that Cameron Champ will become the norm (Web.com Tour players often drive the ball farther than PGA Tour players, and many don't keep their PGA Tour cards. Hank Kuehne?), and I'm not terribly interested in hypotheticals 30 years out.
And the argument about top amateurs having to adjust is a poor one in my opinion. As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions we all did the same during the transition to the big ball. The whole of the European Tour had to do it for the 1974 British Open.Yes, and on each occasion you've seemingly ignored the fact that the world is quite different than it was 40 years ago.
As has been said on this thread, the gap between the pros and a club golfer has never been greater.
The one difference in golf would be that I have played in events in the same season, even the same month, that would require me to change equipment in your scenario. That's not true in all those sports you mentioned. You play a whole season with the same equipment and then get an adjustment period.
However, it seems to me that the only people this really makes a difference for are high level amateurs that no longer have plans to play professionally. That's a pretty small group of people. Although it seems to have grown.
I'll believe it when I see it, but I'd love to see it, if only to see Erik's reaction :DIt's not my reaction I'm worried about. It's the reaction of those I've talked to who like that they are playing under the same rules and with the same equipment as everyone else. I'm one of those people, but I'm just one. I already choose to play with blades, because I like how they perform, and not a game-improvement club. I grew up playing persimmon and balata, even though I came to golf at about 14. I like the challenge. I'll be fine. But I will also feel that the game has lost something, and that if you're not playing with the "real" equipment, you're not "really" playing golf. The same way I feel about those who roll it every time they don't happen to get a perfect lie now - they're not playing "real" golf. They're playing some variant. The game is defined by the rules, after all, and if you're not playing under those rules you're not playing golf.
I'm not sure why the world is different than it was 40 years ago.Yet it has. The role and influence of manufacturers has changed. The role and influence of PGA Tour players has changed. The number of golfers has changed. How widespread the game is globally has changed. The average golfer has changed, as generations have changed - Millennials do things differently, buy differently, feel differently than Baby Boomers, both now and when they were similar ages.
Erik,
Part of the charm of golf has been that we all play the same game with pretty much the same equipment. One reason I think that golf is losing its charm for a lot of people is that the game they see on TV is miles away from the game most of us play. As has been said on this thread, the gap between the pros and a club golfer has never been greater. As the game becomes more high tech and more about power and speed it leaves the grass roots further and further behind. You break that charm you are talking about.
I was playing the other day with very storied amateur who plays off plus numbers. His best drive of the day left him 80m into a par 4. Three groups later a young amateur who is about to turn pro drove the green. Pro golf used to be great to watch because of the variety of player types. Pavin beat Norman in a US Open because the game had balance between power and finesse. It's just all power now. It's a shame that the best courses are being made obsolete but it's just as sad that pro golf has become one dimensional and boring and Tiger aside the ratings reflect that.
I'm curious, too, after you related the tale about peer pressure and the top amateurs switching, why so many people seem to think that wouldn't just happen again. If enough of the people who buy golf equipment play the "pro level" stuff, companies won't manufacture the "amateur level" stuff.
Erik
Apologies.
I'm not sure why the world is different than it was 40 years ago. It's just golf. Players adapt - they always have and the generation who started playing with wood and balata and finished up with today's equipment have had to adapt as much as generation since the second war.
And the exception has always become the norm one of two generations on - going all the way back to Ted Ray.
if not obvious, the reason why ANGC can do this for the masters is because it's the only event where the tournament in itself is more powerful and significant than those who compete in it.
Second, the assertion that we all play the same game with pretty much the same equipment is but a fantasy. I played the Scarlet course at Ohio State the day after the NCAA final round circa 1975 with the same set up and as a 2 or so handicap, I didn't break 90. I was a better player during the 1978 Columbus District GA Open at Muirfield Village and I only pared the par 3s (didn't break 90). The avg. golfer played a vastly different game than the top players then as well as today.Because you played badly, we don't play under the same Rules and equipment standards?
As to equipment, I have several friends who have spent $hundreds for club fitting and $4-5k+ plus for equipment. I read somewhere that when Tiger played Nike clubs, that the irons were actually Japanese forgings stamped with the Swoosh, each costing upwards $5k. I can replace every club in my bag for $500. One of my +handicap friends has a shaft in his driver costing $700+ I doubt that there is a single pro in the top 10 tours who plays anything similar to what is my bag.It's not illegal - you just don't choose to spend the money. But the rules and regulations for our equipment are pretty much the same as it is for them. We play to a hole that's the same size. Etc. We play under the same rules as they do.
"If enough of the people who buy golf equipment play the "pro level" stuff, companies won't manufacture the "amateur level" stuff."Erik B. -Sorry, but that statement makes no sense at all.
How about a St Andrews spec ball and all who wish to play TOC must play it (ie are given some within the green fee)?
Atb
BTW, nothing that I am aware of stops a Little League batter from swing a wooden bat. I never heard a kid being concerned about cheating because he was using the newest Easton $200+ offering.
BB was my first sport and bats have always broken or splintered. Louisville Sluggers was the Titleist brand of my day, and the wood and manufacturing seemed to be of high quality. Those of us who were economically sensitive would protect our favorite bats, often by wrapping the handle with electrical tape. I liked skinny-handled bats, so I tended to wrap them immediately because they seemed easier to break. I remember gluing and nailing splintered barrels, but they were never the same.
We do play by the same rules and club and ball specs.Which is all I ever say, and which bifurcation would eliminate. We play the same rules and the same equipment. They're better than most, so if you want to say it's a "different game," it isn't by definition… they're just better at it. But unlike other sports, it's literally the same rules and equipment.
BTW, nothing that I am aware of stops a Little League batter from swinging a wooden bat.That's beside the point. They're playing different rules and have an entirely different ruling body.
Sure, but...that’s a course set up issue the Tour wants birdies so the rough is short and the greens are soft. It’s also a maintenance issue because 8 footers are virtual gummies for the guy putting well. And lastly, I’m skeptical of the accuracy stats. If a pin is hard on the left corner (as many pins are within a few yards of an edge), the guy is likely aiming for the right edge of the fairway and misses by a few yards right. This is a better angle out of short rough than the left edge of the fairway.
Do you think the balance was that the top long players all of the sudden got enough straighter that they could swing as hard as they want?
Jim: you've mentioned before how the top players can find yards with optimization & club fitting etc, and more and more I see what you mean -- and it makes this topic even more complicated for me.
In the meantime, though, and since I don't think anyone's noted it yet, Brandel Chamblee (who, btw, is not a proponent of bifurcation, or of trying to limit technology because of the .1%) posted this telling stat the other day:
Correlation of distance to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-13%
1990-14%
2000-31%
2017-44%
Correlation of accuracy to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-53%
1990-48%
2000-35%
2017-12%
Which is to say: those who feel/sense/say that the game has changed dramatically in the last 3 decades, and that longer hitters now have an exponentially greater scoring advantage than did the Nicklaus era greats, aren't wrong.
P.S. I won't argue today's players are straighter, but they don't need to be....that's the point!
But why don't they need to be?
My argument is that it's because the course is set up to favor them...
Kalen, nobody is finding 70 yards so lets talk realistic individual preferences...not the strategic decision of hitting 90% of the fairways with a 3 iron versus 50% with a driver but picking up 70 yards.
The guy that's "bomb and gauging" it is maybe picking up 20 yards with his driver at the expense of some modest percentage of accuracy...10%? 20% max...
If people are truly making that decision, it's only because the green is equally receptive from both places...150 in the fairway with a 9 iron or wedge and 130 from the rough with Gap or Sand Wedge...
I hadn't thought of nailing back together a bat handle in years. Thanks for that.
Mike, my skepticism of rolling back the ball as a solution to the downstream problems seems to be supported by Cameron Champ finding 20 more yards with a creative club fitting session and Francisco Molinari finding 25 yards with some exercise and optimization work last off season.Brandel Chamblee just tweeted out that professional golfers are 0.0002% of golfers. I'm with you - let's stop worrying about that tiny percentage and worry about the 95-99%. And for 95% of golfers, 6500 yards is enough.
I would suggest we focus on the people playing 99+% of the golf on our courses and try to build the game for them. When will the top clubs stop enabling the devolution of the game at the top level by spending millions of dollars to change their course in order to attract the Tours?
I think the most important question is did the Pro V/newer driver combination allow players to swing 100% with little fear of a crooked/mishit consequence. If yes, that would seem to be a paradigm change--the newer technology altered the risk/reward and length/accuracy equations.I think that, given enough time to adjust (a few weeks/months), Dustin Johnson et al would still be swinging a persimmon headed driver with a steel shaft and a balata ball at about 100%, too. PGA Tour players are better players now than 40 years ago, and they better understand how distance can help them shoot lower scores. Guys still swing their 3-woods pretty hard…
:o https://youtu.be/w7TSMTDqmZg (https://youtu.be/w7TSMTDqmZg)Thanks for highlighting.
1959 Slaz vs 2018 AVX
Nice story Duncan.What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?
I wonder to what extent there’d be a different outcome if instead of two extremely good amateur players there was a field of 156 elite tour-pro players, 60 of whom had an average over 300 yds off the tee, and some of who’s games were on fire that day and for each day over a four consequtive day period?
Atb
Nice story Duncan.What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?
I wonder to what extent there’d be a different outcome if instead of two extremely good amateur players there was a field of 156 elite tour-pro players, 60 of whom had an average over 300 yds off the tee, and some of who’s games were on fire that day and for each day over a four consequtive day period?
Atb
I understand the angle that some courses are over-spending to chase PGA Tour players and the like, but even those courses are a minority, and that’s their decision-making, not the ruling body making a decision for everyone.
Nice story Duncan.What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?
I wonder to what extent there’d be a different outcome if instead of two extremely good amateur players there was a field of 156 elite tour-pro players, 60 of whom had an average over 300 yds off the tee, and some of who’s games were on fire that day and for each day over a four consequtive day period?
Atb
I understand the angle that some courses are over-spending to chase PGA Tour players and the like, but even those courses are a minority, and that’s their decision-making, not the ruling body making a decision for everyone.
Quite.
A pro tournament isn't going to come to Cavendish, or to 1880 of the 1900 or so courses in England.
The average age of a golf club member in England is well over 60. The average handicap is well over 18.
Overwhelmingly, golf is a pastime for middle-aged men and women. Those taking up golf as youngsters and excelling at it to a very high level are outliers. Welcome outliers, but outliers none the less.
Golf is currently going through an existential crisis. It requires a constant supply of new middle-aged entrants to replace the old participants who are dying off.
Golf is a difficult enough game as it is to take up at any age - the more so in one's 40s or 50s. Changing the rules on equipment to make it harder and less enjoyable is not a sensible way forward IMO.
Let the pros play their own courses. Bifurcation.
Nice story Duncan.What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?
I wonder to what extent there’d be a different outcome if instead of two extremely good amateur players there was a field of 156 elite tour-pro players, 60 of whom had an average over 300 yds off the tee, and some of who’s games were on fire that day and for each day over a four consequtive day period?
Exactly a more scientific survey-and also who's to say they wouldn't have preferred less layup holes and a chance to showcase their driving skills
Because distance isn't just an asset of the elite-plenty of low non-elite players driving the ball into unintended areas on and off the course, as well as increasing the disparity in distance the ball travels while diluting the social aspect (different tees) of the game
A pro tournament isn't going to come to Cavendish, or to 1880 of the 1900 or so courses in England.
More's the pity-sadly that ship sailed in 1930
Golf is a difficult enough game as it is to take up at any age - the more so in one's 40s or 50s. Changing the rules on equipment to make it harder and less enjoyable is not a sensible way forward IMO.
Maybe, yet the game grew by leaps and bounds in previous hickory and persimmon eras.
perhaps because the divide in distance between athletic and not wasn't so large and demoralizing and "par protection" wasn't in full force to torture us all
Let the pros play their own courses. Bifurcation.
Agreed and as Erik has pointed out, many will self impose a rollback via ego as many did with blades
The game takes too long for millennials. Shorten the game and you make the game quicker. Less distance, less ball searching. I don't see how shortening the game makes it any harder but it does make it quicker.
When it comes to forming my opinions....
I'll take thousands of data points of rounds of actual Pro golfers in peak form played on various courses and years of play....over a measly 2 data points.
Shorter courses, less time to play, less acreage to maintain etc etc, fine by me. And even better if said courses are playing fiery and have difficult/evil green surrounds and putting surfaces.
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html)
Look at the guys who still make a living at the bottom of the list. 270yds given the firm conditions the pros play week after week is average at best. I doubt if Piller outdrives his wife half the time.
And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.
Why does that matter when at least 23 individuals have bettered Carl Lewis in the 100 meters over the last 30 years?
I'm more interested in how there is an equipment problem if a professional husband and wife each drive the ball only as far as an average high school kid. It just feels so inclusionary.
If these clubs and balls were so easy to hit wouldn't everyone trying to make a living average 300yds?
Calling Zac Blair...What is the real issue here?
And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.
50% - The ball!I don't agree with your list at all Calen.
And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.
Eric,
Of course you are right, there are lots of things that have contributed to increased distance. But its a bit of a mixed bag of cause and effect that I would roughly guess to be:
10% - Improved Coaching and Techniques
10% - Better Player fitness
10% - Faster Course setups
20% - Golf Clubs
50% - The ball!
I have come to the conclusion that the modern driver has taken all the challenge and therefor the fun.Really? ALL of the challenge?
I have come to the conclusion that the modern driver has taken all the challenge and therefor the fun.Really? ALL of the challenge?