Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Cliff Hamm on February 04, 2020, 12:30:51 PM
-
https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/usga-ra-publish-conclusions-of-distance-insights-project/ (https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/usga-ra-publish-conclusions-of-distance-insights-project/)
-
Cliff: Golf Governing Bodies Say “Time To Rein In Distances” (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68008.0.html) right here on GCA already.
-
Pages of drivel
102 pages of summary, and then 15 pages of conclusion... we've all been aware of this for years...
multiple quotes by an inept leader, then this gem..
"we're too early in this"
Anyone who thinks Jack Nicklaus at 23 wouldn't have hit a 45 inch optimized Taylor made twist face and and multilayer ball 360+ yards a la Tony Finau on 18 Sunday simply is not a student of history or technique.
The guy broke 9 inserts in his 42 inch XX steel shafter driver in 1961.
Of course this generation hits it farther-better technique, physical conditioning, more athletes selecting golf, but to barely broach the subject of equipment(the 800 lb elephant in the room) in the blathering article just tells me it's more of the same. And quite frankly, I think it's probably actually too late as the golf world has adapted for better or for worse.
In 2002 with the ball and the increased rebound effect of thin spring-faced drivers by say '05. combined with the dialed in optimization of launch and spin-provided all the evidence these luddites needed, but they dug their heads deeper in the sand(preferring instead to invest their time in rendering Shinnecock green's lifeless)-digging them out of the sand now is quite frankly useless and insulting-especially at this point with many of current the gains coming from the player's training and technique themselves.
But they went after grooves, and anchored putters-then shoulder high drops.
Can't wait till someone wins with the stand alone putter-which is somehow legal in the bubble world these dottering fools live in.
-
In 2002 with the ball and the increased rebound effect of spring-faced drivers by say '05 provided all the evidence these luddites needed, but they dug their heads deper in the sand(preferring instead to invest their time in rendering Shinnecock green's lifeless)-digging them out of the sand now is quite frankly useless and insulting-especially at this point with many of the gains from the player's training and technique themselves.
You're talking about the "stability through regulation" phase? Distances didn't seem to change much there.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/L1ukmXvz/distancegraph.png?v=94550201026205bf278f3aad668a10ab)
Also, I think the jumps around 2015 to today are a result of players understanding strategy, how important driving and distance can be, etc.
-
Erik, sorry. Didn't see that when I posted and with a reply don't want to make changes....
-
Erik, sorry. Didn't see that when I posted and with a reply don't want to make changes....
Yeah, oh well, maybe Ran or someone can merge the topics. Jeff posted in here too, and now I have again, so…
(I do think this is a better titled topic than the other one.)
-
Erik,
Agreed on 2015-now gains mostly
In addition to recognizing bomb and gouge as strategy-especially with top heavy money.
Also, a generation weaned on Tiger came of age during that period
I'm pretty sure we agree here.
the ship sailed.
The USGA's commentary now insults me.
-
Erik,
I think there is plenty of correlation in that graph if not out-right causation.
If you focus on the PGA Tour line and break it up into 3 - 12 year segments, the middle segment with significant club and ball innovations shows a massive jump:
1) 1980-1992 - Start 256, Finish 260 = 1.6% Distance gains.
2) 1992-2004 - Start 260, Finish 286 = 6.2% Distance gains.
3) 2004-2016 - Start 286, Finish 290 = 1.4% Distance gains.
-
I wonder how many pages this thread will reach? :) :)
Atb
Also see this thread - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68010.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68010.0.html)
-
I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is. If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.
-
I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is. If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.
Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?
-
edit.
-
I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is. If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.
Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?
+1
One of the biggest myths out there.
Elite players don't miss the sweet spot bacause they swing full speed.
Might not control the face as well at super high speed,but it's really not a sweet spot issue for an elite player.
aim small-miss small
-
I was interviews twice about this topic. Boy did I let the lady have it (respectfully of course!) I forewarned her before both interviews that I am passionate about this ludicrous distance issue, and how everyday joes and jills are flipping the bill for it in the end. Good to see that they didn’t try to doctor up the stats with some smoke and mirrors.
-
I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is. If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.
Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?
Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed. It appears as though they are usually not going after it. Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.
If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist. It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing.
-
Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed. It appears as though they are usually not going after it. Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.
That's only 6 MPH lower than what the report shows as their driver swing speed, most of which comes from the 2" or so from the shorter shaft. They're going after their 3Ws just as hard (except on the holes where they're just bunting it out there a little). Give them a good lie (on a tee) and they're gonna be able to go even a little bit harder.
If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist. It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing.
They are good at hitting the sweet spot.
Did you read @jeffwarne's post a few up?
-
I was interviews twice about this topic. Boy did I let the lady have it (respectfully of course!) I forewarned her before both interviews that I am passionate about this ludicrous distance issue, and how everyday joes and jills are flipping the bill for it in the end. Good to see that they didn’t try to doctor up the stats with some smoke and mirrors.
I noted that too, John. But I also noted they used language carefully, and didn't engage/challenge the equipment companies too directly -- which I think is probably understandable this early in the process. Yes: they do say that "Equipment Rules" will be a main topic/focus, but they also contextualized that, ie:
Both the USGA and the R&A took pains not to focus on the dramatic gains of 2000-2004, but instead to note: "the consistent increase in hitting distance and golf course lengths over the last 100-plus years" (USGA), and that "the impact of long-term hitting distance increases on some of golf’s essential elements are now clear" [the R&A, my bolding in both cases].
The risk I see is that, in being so circumspect & careful, they are establishing a framework for the future debates that will minimize potential outcomes & limit the scope of possible solutions.
The other 'risk' (from the perspective of my personal wishes) is that both governing bodies are doing this quite intentionally, i.e. are being so circumspect precisely because they wish to minimize outcomes & limit the scope of possible solutions.
The "over the last 100 years" time frame is accurate, I suppose, but does seem to downplay the titanium factor; and the phrase "hitting distance increases" seems to be intended to 'spread the blame around' -- superior athletes, better training, differing maintenance practices, the benefits of custom fitting, more wind, and err, um, 460 cc trampolines.
-
Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed. It appears as though they are usually not going after it. Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.
That's only 6 MPH lower than what the report shows as their driver swing speed, most of which comes from the 2" or so from the shorter shaft. They're going after their 3Ws just as hard (except on the holes where they're just bunting it out there a little). Give them a good lie (on a tee) and they're gonna be able to go even a little bit harder.
If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist. It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing.
They are good at hitting the sweet spot.
Did you read @jeffwarne's post a few up?
Erik:
Maybe you shouldn't talk down to Peter. I hear he's a pretty good golfer. Maybe better than you, even.
His point is sound: if the pros are as good as you say, they won't miss having their big drivers taken away, and that would help matters, wouldn't it?
-
Maybe you shouldn't talk down to Peter. I hear he's a pretty good golfer. Maybe better than you, even.
I didn't, nor does one's ability to play really matter all that much here.
PGA Tour players go at their 3Ws pretty hard, too, and I am of the opinion that limiting drivers to about that size won't result in much of change at all.
His point is sound: if the pros are as good as you say, they won't miss having their big drivers taken away, and that would help matters, wouldn't it?
I feel my point (above) is sound as well.
The problem exists only at the professional level. The 0.01%. Limiting the size of the drivers to the size of a 3W or something won't have much of a change, and if it's just at the pro level… it won't have accomplished anything. And, if it's at every level, it will make the game more difficult for average golfers.
-
I have no issue if the USGA wants to limit driver size.
But i fear it would be another misguided attempt to limit distance via theory.(to say nothing of unintended consequences for amateurs)
They said the same thing about grooves-That players would hit less drivers or not swing as hard with driver out of fear of being in the rough and losing control with "new" grooves.
Didn't directly address the issue.
A driver doesn't go 340 yards because of head size-shaft length plays a role, and perhaps a small head on a 45 inch driver could play a role and make harder to hit, but I promise you the elite will swing just as hard,for the same reasons cited above-they are good enough to hit the center and grew up swinging at that speed so it's simply normal with graphite shafts.
Address the real issues-hot faces, lower spin faces, multicover balls that allow low spin at some speeds/lofts and high spin at other speed/lofts. Or don't address them and just dial back the ball.
Bescause I'd hate to see anoter opportunity wasted chasing a theory(grooves did nothing-anchor ban did nothing) rather than an actual cause..
-
I hve no issue if the USGA wants to limit driver size.
But i fear it would be another misguided attempt to limit distance via theory.(to say nothing of unintended consequences for amateurs)
They said the same thing about grooves-That players would hit less drivers or not swing as hard with driver out of fear of being in the rough and losing control with "new" grooves.
Didn't directly address the issue.
A driver doesn't go 340 yards because of head size-shaft length plays a role, and perhaps a small head on a 45 inch driver could play a role and make harder to hit, but I promise ypu the elite will swing just as hard,for the same reasons cited above-they are good enough to hit the center and grew up swinging at that speed so it's simply normal with graphite shafts.
The semi-rare time when Jeff and I are on the same page. Driver head size is not a solution, and will punish amateur golfers (if they're subject to it) far, far more than the negligible difference it would make to the PGA Tour level players.
-
Here is what some of the pros think...
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/ (https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/)
-
Don’t know which of these 2 threads on the same subject to post on, so I’ll try here since it has the most replies.
I am wondering—What happens if the PGA Tour and the European Tour thumb their noses at this report and refuse to do anything? It seems pretty obvious that that is their present intent. Bifurcation without the Tours going along seems meaningless, right?
If the US and British Opens were played with a rolled-back ball or other equipment—and even assuming the Masters went along—, would anything really be accomplished?
It seems to me that before anyone gets too excited about anything happening, we need to see what, if anything, the Tours are going to do. We can roar on about one side or the other of the argument. But we seem to be just deluding ourselves, without the Tours.
-
Here is what some of the pros think...
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/ (https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/)
“My caddie and I were just discussing this and what would bring it all back is a golf ball that didn’t go as straight, that curved more. Then you’re going to think twice about hitting driver. Hitting the ball straight should be a skill. You can’t deny that power is important, but that’s what makes a sport a sport. Tell me a sport where power isn’t important. Now, is it disproportionately important? That’s the question the ruling bodies have to answer.” - Stewart Cink
-
Jim
In theory, if Open courses (and presumably all USGA /R&A event courses) used a rolled back ball there is no need to alter the courses. If true, and that is a huge if, that goes a very long way to solving the problem.
Ciao
-
Stewart Cink, in that article posted by Rob, argues that it's the consistent ball flight, not the ball flight distance, that really benefits the pros. The implication being that if there was a standard that made flight stability/predictability require more skill, that would help bring the equipment back into line with the course-stock.
Along those lines I heard a golf-stats-guy on Fried Egg pod say how most pros are playing solely on the y-axis (length). Bringing left-right more significantly back in play for pros could make their game more challenging.
And, from a bifurcation standpoint, if you changed the ball to be more skinny (or shorter or whatever) you could easily make up "Champion Competition" standard spec. Then comps could just specify that Champion Competition ball. It's not bifurcation, it's just a different yet accepted standard. And, bonus, the rest of us could go buy and play the Competition ball if we wanted to be like the pros. It's just another ball.
-
It's crazy to think that DL3 led the tour in driving distance in 1994 with a persimmon driver @ 284 yards. That was only 2 years before Tiger turned pro and it was in the age of the metal driver. Except for John Daly, the next man to lead the tour in driving distance was at a 321 average- almost 40 yards past Love.
Here is a pro known for his ball striking precision!
https://youtu.be/EMKVbuo_WSg?t=37 (https://youtu.be/EMKVbuo_WSg?t=37)
If they did roll back the equipment, they might need to install nets.
-
Here is what some of the pros think...
Paul Casey makes the worst argument of them:
“There’s an argument for this. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. But the golf courses became longer because the golf developers said if we can make the golf courses longer, we can get four more houses on that hole and two more on that hole, etc. That’s more money. And that’s when the manufactures and the players – including the amateurs – rose to the challenge. They had to start hitting the ball longer. I don’t like us players and the manufactures getting the blame. We’re not the only ones to blame.”
I am sorry, Paul, but this is total b.s. If a developer has 300 or 400 acres, he doesn't demand that the golf course take up more of it. It may be correct that many architects are complicit in making their courses longer than necessary, but that's an effect of the problem, not the cause.
-
I’ve never understood the calls for an equipment rollback. The main argument seems to be that courses “need” to get longer. Why? To keep pros from scoring lower? What does that matter? Keep courses as they are. Let pros score whatever they can. Lower par, if that matters. It’s just a number...
If a club wants a longer course for vanity reasons, let them pay for it. Otherwise, leave courses alone. The average golfer has enough trouble scoring on existing courses, regardless of their equipment.
The time for the mile run has decreased over time. No one saw the need to add length to keep the times the same.
-
Tom,
What is not total BS is the fact that, as a whole, golf course owners have made these decisions to lengthen/expand their courses for whatever their reasons are.
The golf ball goes farther and straighter so it's easier for the top players...but how many of them play at Stonewall each year? Just to pull a local example of your courses?
If Stonewall decides their courses need to constrict or expand for any reason, they will and Stonewall itself will deal with the results.
-
Here is what some of the pros think...
Paul Casey makes the worst argument of them:
“There’s an argument for this. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. But the golf courses became longer because the golf developers said if we can make the golf courses longer, we can get four more houses on that hole and two more on that hole, etc. That’s more money. And that’s when the manufactures and the players – including the amateurs – rose to the challenge. They had to start hitting the ball longer. I don’t like us players and the manufactures getting the blame. We’re not the only ones to blame.”
I am sorry, Paul, but this is total b.s. If a developer has 300 or 400 acres, he doesn't demand that the golf course take up more of it. It may be correct that many architects are complicit in making their courses longer than necessary, but that's an effect of the problem, not the cause.
Total bullshit.
But again that's on the USGA for letting this normalize when there was a massive jump just after 2001-2005 and they were in full on denial mode.
The first round I played with a ProV 1 my drives were a club longer as well as each iron-thats 20-30 yards per hole.
But they dottered as they always do despite how obvious it was and crazy obvious to a high speed (over 110 mph-player which I'm not)
The horse has been out of the barn a long time and they may never catch it as an entire generation has never played anything BUT a hot multilayer ball and rebounding low spin (as needed)driver
-
And, from a bifurcation standpoint, if you changed the ball to be more skinny (or shorter or whatever) you could easily make up "Champion Competition" standard spec. Then comps could just specify that Champion Competition ball. It's not bifurcation, it's just a different yet accepted standard. And, bonus, the rest of us could go buy and play the Competition ball if we wanted to be like the pros. It's just another ball.
I'm not sure why you see that as "not bifurcation"?
I’ve never understood the calls for an equipment rollback. The main argument seems to be that courses “need” to get longer. Why? To keep pros from scoring lower? What does that matter? Keep courses as they are. Let pros score whatever they can. Lower par, if that matters. It’s just a number...
Hear hear. Or is it "hear here"? :)
Look, if they want to cap distance as it is NOW, cool. I don't know how they can really do that, because guys can always swing a little faster, but cool. I don't want to see 8,000 yard courses either, but we're also living in an age when Oakmont, Pinehurst, Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, The Old Course, etc. have all hosted major championships.
But again that's on the USGA for letting this normalize when there was a massive jump just after 2001-2005 and they were in full on denial mode.The first round I played with a ProV 1 my drives were a club longer as well as each iron-thats 20-30 yards per hole.
What would you have had them do, given the ODS at the time, and without taking away the surlyn "distance balls" (the Pinnacles, etc.) that the average golfers played?
Seriously, with hindsight aiding you and all of that, what would you have done? Mandated 43" as the max length of a club instead of 48"? Mandated that drivers be made out of at least 90% wood? What? I don't see much you could have likely done to the ball without making the balls played by average golfers illegal, as they were solid-core, multi-layer balls.
-
And, from a bifurcation standpoint, if you changed the ball to be more skinny (or shorter or whatever) you could easily make up "Champion Competition" standard spec. Then comps could just specify that Champion Competition ball. It's not bifurcation, it's just a different yet accepted standard. And, bonus, the rest of us could go buy and play the Competition ball if we wanted to be like the pros. It's just another ball.
I'm not sure why you see that as "not bifurcation"?
It's as bifurcated as the rules for match play vs. stroke play are bifurcated. Anyone can choose match play or stroke play under the rules of golf...but...the rules are different depending on your choice.
-
Erik,
That's the beauty of just changing the ball, because none of the rest matters. A flight limited ball doesn't care what the hell its hit with. The dimpling, size, and weight can be tweaked so the ball only goes X distance with X Initial Velocity...
-
And, from a bifurcation standpoint, if you changed the ball to be more skinny (or shorter or whatever) you could easily make up "Champion Competition" standard spec. Then comps could just specify that Champion Competition ball. It's not bifurcation, it's just a different yet accepted standard. And, bonus, the rest of us could go buy and play the Competition ball if we wanted to be like the pros. It's just another ball.
I'm not sure why you see that as "not bifurcation"?
I’ve never understood the calls for an equipment rollback. The main argument seems to be that courses “need” to get longer. Why? To keep pros from scoring lower? What does that matter? Keep courses as they are. Let pros score whatever they can. Lower par, if that matters. It’s just a number...
Hear hear. Or is it "hear here"? :)
Look, if they want to cap distance as it is NOW, cool. I don't know how they can really do that, because guys can always swing a little faster, but cool. I don't want to see 8,000 yard courses either, but we're also living in an age when Oakmont, Pinehurst, Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, The Old Course, etc. have all hosted major championships.
But again that's on the USGA for letting this normalize when there was a massive jump just after 2001-2005 and they were in full on denial mode.The first round I played with a ProV 1 my drives were a club longer as well as each iron-thats 20-30 yards per hole.
What would you have had them do, given the ODS at the time, and without taking away the surlyn "distance balls" (the Pinnacles, etc.) that the average golfers played?
Seriously, with hindsight aiding you and all of that, what would you have done? Mandated 43" as the max length of a club instead of 48"? Mandated that drivers be made out of at least 90% wood? What? I don't see much you could have likely done to the ball without making the balls played by average golfers illegal, as they were solid-core, multi-layer balls.
Erik,
You bring up very legitimate points.
Prior to the ProV1 there was a tradeoff-spin or distance.
The multi-layer changed that. (Ironically I was a year-late adopter of the PrV1 as I was playing the Spalding Tour Edition which I coveted for spin and workability while being durable)
Smarter minds than mine could figure it out, but there would have to be a construction tradeoff between distance and spin-want to bust it long at the Tour level-use a Pinnacle but lose the spin.(Jim Feree did this for years)
Want the spin? use a simulated balata or Tour edition type ball.
These guys were willing to put forth wedge grooves as driver distance regulators, and banned anchoring without actually changing the way many people putt with a long putter(unless you trust the player or use a telescope), and even encouraged forearm anchoring with their muddled arbitrary rules changes.
A distance rule might very well be muddled or overcome by far smarter manufacturers, but at least address it, and they should have addressed it many, many years ago, before it was normalized and generational.
As far as "freezing it "now"-they've been saying that for years.
Any change needs to be a rollback, or simply accept that's it's normalized and do nothing.
-
It's worth bearing in mind that various other non-golf specific issues are also mentioned in the report, as the extract below shows.
"Watch out, there's a Greta about!"
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EP_3sHzW4AAz4UT?format=jpg&name=small)
-
It's as bifurcated as the rules for match play vs. stroke play are bifurcated. Anyone can choose match play or stroke play under the rules of golf...but...the rules are different depending on your choice.
I get your drift, but I don't quite agree because playing vastly different equipment, week in and week out, is a bit different than a traditional Local Rule.
That's the beauty of just changing the ball, because none of the rest matters. A flight limited ball doesn't care what the hell its hit with. The dimpling, size, and weight can be tweaked so the ball only goes X distance with X Initial Velocity...
What's the beauty? I'm missing the context here - what are you responding to?
Smarter minds than mine could figure it out, but there would have to be a construction tradeoff between distance and spin-want to bust it long at the Tour level-use a Pinnacle but lose the spin.(Jim Feree did this for years)
Want the spin? use a simulated balata or Tour edition type ball.
Maybe.
I am not so sure that you could write rules that mandate some sort of spin in a way that manufacturers and players wouldn't just figure out how to work around it rather quickly.
These guys were willing to put forth wedge grooves as driver distance regulators, and banned anchoring without actually changing the way many people putt with a long putter(unless you trust the player or use a telescope), and even encouraged forearm anchoring with their muddled arbitrary rules changes.
Be fair now. That was to address "bomb and gouge." That was to address the idea that hitting the ball into the rough had no penalty. Now, we can show that hitting it in the rough is a 0.25 shot penalty, or a 70-yard penalty, depending on how you want to look at it. I wouldn't be so sure that the groove change was a failure.
And, I disagree with you on the putting thing. I think they didn't like that people weren't "swinging" the clubs from their arms. So, they wrote it in such a way that you can't anchor.
If two Champions Tour players are still anchoring, well, that's on them. If they can sleep at night… whatever.
A distance rule might very well be muddled or overcome by far smarter manufacturers, but at least address it, and they should have addressed it many, many years ago, before it was normalized and generational.
But again, what would you have done…? Years ago, what would you have done to not penalize the average amateur playing his Pinnacles? Maybe your "force a choice between spin and distance" was your answer… again, I just don't know how you'd write such a rule that couldn't be overcome pretty quickly.
-
Ever since the golfing public has had the taste of the high profile professionals — beginning with early American tournaments until modern televised events — the average player has longed to emulate the length of the professional. "Father is better," and certainly more 'macho' than just focusing on accuracy. Unlike Wm Flynn, who said "Accuracy, carry and then length..." the modern golfer is all about "Length, carry and then accuracy." Not everyone, but I would say most.
So, this leads to golfers not always playing the appropriate tees. Unless, of course, the course (or a few holes) only have "appropriate" tees. For example, on a shortish par-4 nearly everyone can "win" when playing from the farthest back tees. But, on a long par-5, the 200 yard player struggles from the back. Yet, just one long hole here and there will not convince him to shift. So, we leave him with too long of a golf hole, and on the aggregate, too long of a golf course. One not designed for him, but for the longer player — or even a professional.
There is no debate — we have built courses longer since the 1960s than we were building them previously. And, we have done this to keep up with the hitting distances of the minority — yet a minority that has a strong and passionate following.
-
We discuss this issue periodically. I have expressed my view before. Aside from the environmental issues and the impact on the speed of play related to the increased distance which I attribute largely to new equipment (I saw Nicklaus et al in their primes) there has been a significant impact on competitive golf at its highest level which has made the game less interesting. Before the substantial increase in distance which coincided with the introduction of the new ball combined with advances in drivers, players were required to use all the clubs in their bag in order to win big tournaments. Nicklaus was outstanding in most phases of the game, with wedge play as his largest weakness, but his biggest ball striking advantage was his mastery of long irons. Recall his shot to 17 at Pebble which was a 1 iron. When was the last time we saw a player have to hit a long iron unless he was driving on a tight hole or laying up. Instead,as a rule, mid or short irons are used as second shots to par 5's. Thus the game has changed in a way that at the top end makes it less interesting and the players need a different and less varied set of skills.
Erik, the science that allows increase in ball distance can also reduce it. Baseball, at the professional level, decided to keep bats wooden to keep stadiums relevant among other reasons. The ball gets incrementally varied from time to time (unofficially), mounds get raised and lowered, and those limited changes have some impact on power numbers. However baseball has managed to limit the impact of technology. In golf, the technology exists to limit ball distance . Whether the ship has already sailed and/or whether the powers that be, who have no official power to govern the game (unlike MLB) have the resolve to take on the manufacturers and players who endorse the equipment is a different question.
-
Tom,
What is not total BS is the fact that, as a whole, golf course owners have made these decisions to lengthen/expand their courses for whatever their reasons are.
The golf ball goes farther and straighter so it's easier for the top players...but how many of them play at Stonewall each year? Just to pull a local example of your courses?
If Stonewall decides their courses need to constrict or expand for any reason, they will and Stonewall itself will deal with the results.
The same reason amateurs play “the tips”, or buy the latest and greatest equipment...because whatever the pros do, they feel like they have to also. I can’t tell you how many owners/greens chairs I’ve talked to that have the “we need (or want) to get a pga tournament here” mentality. Majority are so delusional it’s not even funny anymore.
-
When was the last time we saw a player have to hit a long iron unless he was driving on a tight hole or laying up.
Brandel Chamblee addressed this: players hit as many long-irons now as they pretty much always have. Some are now second shots on par fives, yes, and some are on par threes. But, despite what you said, they're not hitting mid- to short-irons on a bunch of par fives.
Besides, we can't complain about loft creep in one topic while bemoaning guys hitting par fives with 5-irons (that are yesteryear's 3-irons) in another.
Erik, the science that allows increase in ball distance can also reduce it.
Maybe. It remains to be seen whether it's fair, or whether it would affect average players, and those on the line should they bifurcate.
Baseball, at the professional level, decided to keep bats wooden to keep stadiums relevant among other reasons.
I've understood that one to be more about player safety than ballpark dimensions. Besides, not only are home runs exciting, they're the way the game is going. Players don't swing down anymore. It's all about exit speed and launch angles.
In golf, the technology exists to limit ball distance .
We've been under those regulations for decades. You can't regulate how fast people swing.
The same reason amateurs play “the tips”, or buy the latest and greatest equipment...because whatever the pros do, they feel like they have to also. I can’t tell you how many owners/greens chairs I’ve talked to that have the “we need (or want) to get a pga tournament here” mentality. Majority are so delusional it’s not even funny anymore.
I keep wondering where these courses are, because I don't think as many courses have "lengthened" in the last 20 years as most people seem to think.
6500 yards remains plenty of distance for the vast, vast majority of golfers.
-
Interesting that Chamblee makes that assertion. In the absence of shotlink data, does he have another source or is that his personal recollection. There are plenty of us who have been interested observers of the game for longer than he who have different recollections. Moreover, merely taking a look at the distances players were hitting the ball and comparing them to the length of courses leads one to the inexorable conclusion that longer approaches combined with lesser distances achieved with irons and fairway woods required greater use of longer clubs for approaches. I note that increases in distance have outstripped growth in course yardage even at the tournament level. I will stipulate that I am not Brandel Chamblee nor do I possess his certainty that he is correct with respect to all things golf.
-
https://www.golfchannel.com/video/golf-central-reaction-2020-distance-report (https://www.golfchannel.com/video/golf-central-reaction-2020-distance-report)
Chamblee says that players are still hitting long irons. On par 5’s and off the tee. I didn’t hear anything about par 3’s. I may have missed it.
According to him rough is the answer and he IMO, takes some pretty good shots at the architectural community. I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the architects here.
-
According to him rough is the answer and he IMO, takes some pretty good shots at the architectural community. I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the architects here.
Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.
-
According to him rough is the answer and he IMO, takes some pretty good shots at the architectural community. I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the architects here.
Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.
Not quite sure about this.
Shorter drivers are usually physically weaker individuals and thus not so able to hit from rough and longer grass should they go in it.
Atb
-
Tom,
What is not total BS is the fact that, as a whole, golf course owners have made these decisions to lengthen/expand their courses for whatever their reasons are.
The golf ball goes farther and straighter so it's easier for the top players...but how many of them play at Stonewall each year? Just to pull a local example of your courses?
If Stonewall decides their courses need to constrict or expand for any reason, they will and Stonewall itself will deal with the results.
Jim:
I have always been a conscientious objector in the distance wars. Stonewall was built at 6700 yards (par 70 helps), and even with a bunch of back tees *that the USGA proposed for hosting the US Mid Amateur* I think it's still under 7000.
Most of my clients have not insisted on building 7000 yard courses or they probably would not have called me in the first place. Maybe 2% of the golfers complain that my courses are too short, and fewer that they're too easy.
It's ridiculous that so many people who don't play the back tees make value judgements about courses based on the yardage from the tips.
It's also a shame that great players are so seldom asked to hit great shots.
-
It's also a shame that great players are so seldom asked to hit great shots.
+1
Great line and so true.
Atb
-
Bifurcation is nonsense.
Grandfathering is where it's at. Everything up until 202X is legal. Everything after must conform to this...
I can't wait until I hear in a few years from somewhere well right of Blue #4, "Yo, Joe, I wonder if this ProV I just found is still conforming?"
Cause that guy is going to put it in play within the next three holes and you all know it.
A rollback hurts nobody and we'll all forget about it within 5 years.
The first tee of a muni, somewhere, in 2023: "I can't BELIEVE the USGA rolled back my Titleist Velocity!"
::)
-
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?
"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."
Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.
-
"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."
Maybe it's all just about the allure of the number 300?
-
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?
"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."
Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.
Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
-
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?
"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."
Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.
Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
Golf participants are much too diverse to draw a meaningful average. It's like talking about the average depth of the world's oceans.
-
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?
"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."
Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.
Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
Golf participants are much too diverse to draw a meaningful average. It's like talking about the average depth of the world's oceans.
If you take someone new to tennis that is only used to playing with a racquet head bigger than a $20 pizza and tell them they have to use a Davis racquet from the 1970’s you will lose some players. I don’t know what percentage or number that would correlate to but there will be a cause and effect. I think it’s the same for golf. I’m not condoning bifurcation but merely making an observation.
-
There used to be a 1:62” ball and a 1:68” ball.
The 1:62” went further but the 1:68” US spec ball eventually became the standard size and has been so now for several decades.
I don’t recall folks giving up the game when the longer 1:62” was phased out and replaced by the shorter 1:68”.
Funny old world.
Atb
-
Couple of thoughts. I remember when the Pro V1 first came out Phil Mickelson was saying he was 40 yards longer with it. I doubt that's actually true, but he said it wasn't so much that the ball went further, but that the lower spin meant he could hit it harder without fear of it flying offline. It's that the ball has the control of a balata, but the distance of a Pinnacle. If you really want to rein them in, then make them play a spinnier ball. There is a regulation about ball speed under certain test circumstances (or there used to be anyway - I think they may have changed how that worked). Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?
The issue I have with the length pros are playing and the courses they play is not what score they shoot. I don't really care if they're -20 or -2 at the top of the leaderboard. What I don't want is to have the courses reduced to hitting wedges on every hole. I like seeing them hitting a 4 iron from 220. I occasionally (very occasionally these days) play by hitting something really short off the tee so I can hit long clubs into holes. If a hole is 350 yards, it's fun sometimes to play it by hitting a wedge off the tee and a three wood to the green rather than hitting three wood and then wedge. I'd like to see the pros playing where they have to hit long irons and woods to par 4s. Those don't exist now. That would also make angles matter a little more methinks.
-
Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
As someone who aspires to reach average, and who is a romantic enough to play hickories in every day rounds, I can tell you how much more confident I am and enjoyment I get day-to-day hitting my giant Callaway driver and my shot-improvement Adams hybrid-irons. For me, a victorious golf shot is one that goes straight, and it's no given that's going to happen.
For reference, I hit drives in the 230 range and a 7-iron 145.
As much as I like the idea of playing retro equipment, and I really do, my 17 index is the best I've ever carried with all the modern equipment benefits I've mustered, and that's pretty damn not yet average.
For me, keeping big headed drivers and springy balls takes some frustration out of that game, which has to be a good thing for people who have similar skillsets. And I don't know why the leadership of the game would want to make the game harder for me, I think I've amply demonstrated that it's plenty hard enough.
For the master golfers, however, that same equipment (or its equivalent for the highly skilled) appears to have changed the nature of the championship game. If the governing bodies want to rein that in, then I hope they do it without making me play small-headed, fickle clubs again.
Maybe that means bifurcation. IMO there are already little bifurcations in the rules. For example, I understand that during stipulated rounds like pro tournaments players have to declare the make and model of ball they play and stick to it during the round. However, in all other rounds, players can use a different type of ball from hole to hole, choosing, say, I high spin ball for short par-3's and a long low spin ball for longer holes. That sounds like a bifurcation of rules designed to address equipment-enabled competitive imbalances.
If that's what bifurcation actually means, then I'm for it.
-
Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
As someone who aspires to reach average, and who is a romantic enough to play hickories in every day rounds, I can tell you how much more confident I am and enjoyment I get day-to-day hitting my giant Callaway driver and my shot-improvement Adams hybrid-irons. For me, a victorious golf shot is one that goes straight, and it's no given that's going to happen.
For reference, I hit drives in the 230 range and a 7-iron 145.
As much as I like the idea of playing retro equipment, and I really do, my 17 index is the best I've ever carried with all the modern equipment benefits I've mustered, and that's pretty damn not yet average.
For me, keeping big headed drivers and springy balls takes some frustration out of that game, which has to be a good thing for people who have similar skillsets. And I don't know why the leadership of the game would want to make the game harder for me, I think I've amply demonstrated that it's plenty hard enough.
For the master golfers, however, that same equipment (or its equivalent for the highly skilled) appears to have changed the nature of the championship game. If the governing bodies want to rein that in, then I hope they do it without making me play small-headed, fickle clubs again.
Maybe that means bifurcation. IMO there are already little bifurcations in the rules. For example, I understand that during stipulated rounds like pro tournaments players have to declare the make and model of ball they play and stick to it during the round. However, in all other rounds, players can use a different type of ball from hole to hole, choosing, say, I high spin ball for short par-3's and a long low spin ball for longer holes. That sounds like a bifurcation of rules designed to address equipment-enabled competitive imbalances.
If that's what bifurcation actually means, then I'm for it.
It's not bifurcation - the one-ball rule has been an optional local rule for decades. Any committee may choose to implement it. You might as well call marking the golf course "bifurcation" because a Tour Event or USGA Championship will be far more well-marked than your every day golf course.
What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?
And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.
-
It’s interesting to hear arguments about how “if” we make the game more difficult than it currently is(and it’s never been easier), we might lose players.
A) What are the motivations to not lose any players? Does the game of golf benefit from having as many participants as possible, considering some of the attitudes that come with? I’d advocate for growing the game, with the target audience being folks who appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the game for its’ challenges rather than bloating the game with people who want to make it easier. If golf wasn’t a good enough game to promote back when it was difficult, why is it desirable to do so now?
B) Golf, as a physical endeavor, is difficult. It takes time and effort to improve. Instead of bemoaning the idea that the game “might” be more difficult if your drives are 4 yards shorter, embrace the idea that it isn’t just you that is affected. Whatever reason you are drawn to the game still exists....
C) The idea of making golf easier takes away an inherent ability that is part of the game....intellect. The easier the game is on the whole, the less advantage the smarter player has in a match. I’m not sure why otherwise smart people who golf, don’t understand this. (This adage applies to perfectly manicured, homogenous bunkers and the like, as well)
D) I wonder if my position is generational and out of date.
-
What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?
And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.
That's a good point re: would my game be different with a dialed-back ball.
I took the position a few years ago that I should at least play a single make of ball, I chose the Bridgestone E-6, to take a variable out of my game. With all of the noise introduced by an unpredictable swing, I don't think it mattered. And if it's just the ball that's dialed back I don't think that would matter to me.
-
What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?
And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.
That's a good point re: would my game be different with a dialed-back ball.
I took the position a few years ago that I should at least play a single make of ball, I chose the Bridgestone E-6, to take a variable out of my game. With all of the noise introduced by an unpredictable swing, I don't think it mattered. And if it's just the ball that's dialed back I don't think that would matter to me.
I'm not sure that ball is even red-lining the specs currently.
-
Joe -
I don't know if it's generationally out of date, but it may be temperamentally much less common these days.
And yet, I don't think any rules/equipment change will have much impact at all on participation rates.
Those who temperamentally want -- and have always wanted -- to play what the pros play, and/or to adhere strictly to the rules, and/or to embrace the inherent challenge of the game will be able to continue doing that.
And those who temperamentally have always been fine with playing the equipment that best suits the game and/or don't mind taking mulligans and improving their lies with a little nudge of their foot, and/or who play golf most of all to be with their friends and don't particularly want to make the game any harder, well, they will also be able to keep playing the game exactly the way they want.
(And architects who want to design with the new rules/equipment in mind can find their niche there, while those who want to market themselves differently are free to do that too.)
I now think much of the kerfuffle about this comes from those who have a professional mandate to care and/or who are paid to add to the kerfuffle, e.g. officials with the governing bodies, lawyers with the equipment companies, magazine writers, past and current golf pros etc.
I think for the vast majority of the rest of us (and, as Kyle says, trying to determine who is/isn't 'average' is misguided), the phrase 'this too shall pass' comes to mind -- and it will 'pass', IMO, much more quickly and easily than most imagine.
-
Peter,
Bingo.
The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.
-
Peter,
Bingo.
The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.
Wait....this is all about money? Can’t be....
-
Peter,
Bingo.
The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.
Wait....this is all about money? Can’t be....
Shocked!
This is the key to understanding any resistance from the manufacturers. While it doesn't matter in the abstract what spec the manufacturer's build to, in reality, each manufacturer's market position is highly dependent on how well they've positioned themself relative to the existing standards. Every manufacturer has to be concerned about how a change in the standards might negatively impact their market position relative to their competitors.
-
Tom Doak,
We agree on the error in making wholesale golf course decisions and changes specific to such a limited proportion of players/rounds. Obviously some projects, like your recent one in Texas, are a project specifically for that reason but a course like Stonewall is not.
I only used Stonewall as an example of your courses that's close to home, not that they've gone down this rabbit hole...although if they added 250 yards for the US Mid Am, they're not immune. We played the Philadelphia Amateur there last summer and the course doesn't strike one as long (and I'm not) for that local level of competition...to your point. I shot 83 so your second point is also safe here.
My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.
The Tour circus is the measuring stick for obsolescence and the best thing for 99.99% of clubs is to have the Circus stay away...
Maybe you could expand on your statement that great players should have to hit more great shots.
-
It’s interesting to hear arguments about how “if” we make the game more difficult than it currently is(and it’s never been easier), we might lose players.
A) What are the motivations to not lose any players? Does the game of golf benefit from having as many participants as possible, considering some of the attitudes that come with? I’d advocate for growing the game, with the target audience being folks who appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the game for its’ challenges rather than bloating the game with people who want to make it easier. If golf wasn’t a good enough game to promote back when it was difficult, why is it desirable to do so now?
B) Golf, as a physical endeavor, is difficult. It takes time and effort to improve. Instead of bemoaning the idea that the game “might” be more difficult if your drives are 4 yards shorter, embrace the idea that it isn’t just you that is affected. Whatever reason you are drawn to the game still exists....
C) The idea of making golf easier takes away an inherent ability that is part of the game....intellect. The easier the game is on the whole, the less advantage the smarter player has in a match. I’m not sure why otherwise smart people who golf, don’t understand this. (This adage applies to perfectly manicured, homogenous bunkers and the like, as well)
D) I wonder if my position is generational and out of date.
Bingo-we're worried about losing players with a never ending list of demands.
The attraction of golf is that it can never be mastered-some of us enjoy spectating golf nearly as much as we enjoy playing it and tire of watching world class classic courses where now the strategy being which of 4 wedges to pull, or whether a fairway undulation is unfair because of a sidehill lie on a 7 iron approach to a par 5.
So we lose the two players who actually notice they lost 4 yards...I'd say 95% of the amateurs I play with overestimate how far they drive it by 20-50 yards, so what exactly is a four yard or even a 10 yard loss when you tell me you drive it 280 but actually hit it 240 and now it's 234.
It's always interesting when we get to my drive that's gone 258 and they remark that it was over 300 because I'm 30-40 ahead of them.Which really brings into question what they think when my assistant joins us who actually has hit it 320.
And if you really are affected, wouldn't it be nice to walk forward to the tee instead of walking backwards to every tee on a classic course?
While we're on that... :) when did 20 handicaps earn the right to have short irons into every green with their own set of tees(that's what the handicap shot is for).
30-60 years ago golf was growing in leaps in bounds with people who played either the reds(women) or the whites(men) and very few who played the blues(pro) Now we've got a tee for everyone and yet we're whining that people are leaving the game.
When we play in the winter the balls goes easily 10% shorter-we adjust-nobody tallks about quitting.
While we're on the topic, I've seen people quit-not because they were short off the tee-they just didn't have the patience, attention span or work ethic to improve. That happens but let's not continue to alter our game to retain an entitled trust fund millenial who never learned the mentioned life skills.
I will give the caveat though that the USGA waited so long that fewer and fewer have a clue what I'm ranting about, the normalization of have it your way golf (right as they all started leaving coincidentally)
Rant over(perhaps punctuated by the fact that I've been confined to the floor on ice for four full days with another inflammation episode of my herniated disks...)
-
In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:
1) Spectators lining the fairways and greens
2) Spotters to find balls that in many cases would be lost.
3) Super quick greens rolling 2-3 higher on the stimp that normal play
4) Tucked pins 2-3 yards from the edge of the greens
5) Bunkers in pristine condition, 100% of the time.
6) Every player with a caddy providing details and info to the nth degree
7) Using the way back tees
8) Rules officials at your beckon call to make rulings and enforcement of walks of shame, etc.
9) Equipment manufactures on premises to make last minute tweaks as needed.
10) Scoring trailers at the end of each round ensuring accuracy and protocol.
11) Designated drop areas and clearly marked aka spray painted hazard lines
etc, etc, etc.
The game is already bifurcated, whether one admits it or not. Having a tour ball, would just be one more thing to add to the ever growing list. Even the latest set of rules has exceptions for lost balls, OB, etc between normal and tournament play.
-
Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes. Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases. If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
Follow the money. Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.
-
Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes. Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases. If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
Follow the money. Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.
Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....
-
What would be the benefit to any single individual if the Tour ball were rolled back?
Keep in mind, the Tour already plays forward from the back tees on a great number of holes every week...
-
Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes. Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases. If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
Follow the money. Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.
Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....
I can't think of any sport that has capped or rolled back equipment and has significant markets for equipment on the scale of golf. Sports markets where equipment is reduced to a commodity tend to be very limited in revenue growth.
-
In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:
1) Spectators lining the fairways and greens
2) Spotters to find balls that in many cases would be lost.
3) Super quick greens rolling 2-3 higher on the stimp that normal play
4) Tucked pins 2-3 yards from the edge of the greens
5) Bunkers in pristine condition, 100% of the time.
6) Every player with a caddy providing details and info to the nth degree
7) Using the way back tees
8) Rules officials at your beckon call to make rulings and enforcement of walks of shame, etc.
9) Equipment manufactures on premises to make last minute tweaks as needed.
10) Scoring trailers at the end of each round ensuring accuracy and protocol.
11) Designated drop areas and clearly marked aka spray painted hazard lines
etc, etc, etc.
The game is already bifurcated, whether one admits it or not. Having a tour ball, would just be one more thing to add to the ever growing list. Even the latest set of rules has exceptions for lost balls, OB, etc between normal and tournament play.
Similar differences exist between Public Municipal courses and Private Country Club courses. Should a Country Club ball exist, as well?
This isn't bifurcation. It's gentrification.
-
Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes. Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases. If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
Follow the money. Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.
Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....
Survival without remaining true to oneself is merely survival.
-
Dave,
Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.
They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc. And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.
But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?
-
Dave,
Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.
They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc. And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.
But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?
The disadvantages of having a 300 million dollar war chest
You're afraid someone will take it if you do the right thing (ask any of them privately and will tell you what they'd like to do)
How ffffing ironic
-
Dave,
Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.
They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc. And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.
But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?
Little of that is regulated by the industries. Helmets, sneakers, gloves, pads, etc. are not governed by rules. Shoes and clothing are not regulated. Most of the spending in the sports that you mentioned is unaffected by regulation. Balls, and bats are, but they are a minuscule market compared to golf clubs and balls.
-
Interesting that Chamblee makes that assertion. In the absence of shotlink data, does he have another source or is that his personal recollection. There are plenty of us who have been interested observers of the game for longer than he who have different recollections.
Yes, he has ShotLink data. 175-225 is still one of the key areas of the game. Players who excel in that area are strongly correlated to perform well.
I think it's possible, if not likely, that you're both over-estimating how many long-irons guys hit into 6700-yard courses in the 70s or 80s or whatever, and under-estimating how few they hit these days. Combine that with the fact that lofts are stronger now, so a modern 7-iron might be an Arnie-era 5, and you get this skewed perception.
Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.
Obviously the "weekend golfer" isn't playing a PGA Tour event.
Bifurcation is nonsense.
Grandfathering is where it's at. Everything up until 202X is legal. Everything after must conform to this...
I agree with the first, but… it's not like there aren't regulations in place right now. Guys are just swinging a little faster. The ball has been maxed out for nearly 20 years, and drivers too. Optimization of launch angles might still have a little room for growth (not in our understanding of them, just in how many players truly optimize), and players will swing faster, maybe. That's about it. We're out of runway. I don't think the trend will "continue" unless we also continue to have firm fairways, etc.
Why not do something like bowling does with changing oil patterns. Keep the fairways firm at 250, and slowly make them a bit softer out to 350 or so. It'll help reduce the differences in distance and reduce overall distance.
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game?
I don't think anyone on here is an "average golfer" in the sense of the word that people use when they say that.
Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?
That would reduce distance slightly, but probably not as much as you think. Compare these two shots, at 2250 and 3750 RPM. Note also that even though the spin axis is 20°, neither ball curves much. Increasing the spin doesn't necessarily guarantee you're going to tilt the spin axis more.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/DOuvbr4E/Screen+Shot+2020-02-06+at+4.06.34+PM.png?v=e6104791ba8b7037ce97925d30cb5f5f)
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/bLuG455o/Screen+Shot+2020-02-06+at+4.07.11+PM.png?v=148ad6963165764c80d04b0942540e5b)
11 yards, and not much more curve. (Shot 1 was with a 10° spin axis tilt).
My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.
:thumbsup:
In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:
Straw man. Those aren't bifurcations in the actual rules, or else you could say golf has been bifurcated as long as we've had the chance of different weather for the 8:20am tee times than the 1:40pm tee times.
Your list has no actual bifurcations in it.
If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
They ARE stopped, and balls ARE all subject to the same technical restrictions. They have been for decades. I don't understand posts like this: do you think balls are unregulated or something? The golf ball is one of the most highly regulated pieces of equipment in sports.
It's all just marketing BS.
-----
P.S. Not for nothing, but I laugh when I see people say the current ball doesn't spin. No, it spins… just go sit at a public course any time. PGA Tour players are just good, and their balls don't curve much mostly because of that, and only a little bit because of the golf ball. It's not like many PGA Tour players back in the 80s were hitting duck hooks and 60-yard slices accidentally when they swung 5% harder.
-
Interesting that Chamblee makes that assertion. In the absence of shotlink data, does he have another source or is that his personal recollection. There are plenty of us who have been interested observers of the game for longer than he who have different recollections.
Yes, he has ShotLink data. 175-225 is still one of the key areas of the game. Players who excel in that area are strongly correlated to perform well.
I think it's possible, if not likely, that you're both over-estimating how many long-irons guys hit into 6700-yard courses in the 70s or 80s or whatever, and under-estimating how few they hit these days. Combine that with the fact that lofts are stronger now, so a modern 7-iron might be an Arnie-era 5, and you get this skewed perception.
Shorter hitters who used to compete by being straight drivers will always call for more rough, oblivious to how it affects the weekend golfer.
Obviously the "weekend golfer" isn't playing a PGA Tour event.
Bifurcation is nonsense.
Grandfathering is where it's at. Everything up until 202X is legal. Everything after must conform to this...
I agree with the first, but… it's not like there aren't regulations in place right now. Guys are just swinging a little faster. The ball has been maxed out for nearly 20 years, and drivers too. Optimization of launch angles might still have a little room for growth (not in our understanding of them, just in how many players truly optimize), and players will swing faster, maybe. That's about it. We're out of runway. I don't think the trend will "continue" unless we also continue to have firm fairways, etc.
Why not do something like bowling does with changing oil patterns. Keep the fairways firm at 250, and slowly make them a bit softer out to 350 or so. It'll help reduce the differences in distance and reduce overall distance.
Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.
Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game?
I don't think anyone on here is an "average golfer" in the sense of the word that people use when they say that.
Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?
That would reduce distance slightly, but probably not as much as you think. Compare these two shots, at 2250 and 3750 RPM. Note also that even though the spin axis is 20°, neither ball curves much. Increasing the spin doesn't necessarily guarantee you're going to tilt the spin axis more.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/DOuvbr4E/Screen+Shot+2020-02-06+at+4.06.34+PM.png?v=e6104791ba8b7037ce97925d30cb5f5f)
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/bLuG455o/Screen+Shot+2020-02-06+at+4.07.11+PM.png?v=148ad6963165764c80d04b0942540e5b)
11 yards, and not much more curve. (Shot 1 was with a 10° spin axis tilt).
My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.
:thumbsup:
In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:
Straw man. Those aren't bifurcations in the actual rules, or else you could say golf has been bifurcated as long as we've had the chance of different weather for the 8:20am tee times than the 1:40pm tee times.
Your list has no actual bifurcations in it.
If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.
They ARE stopped, and balls ARE all subject to the same technical restrictions. They have been for decades. I don't understand posts like this: do you think balls are unregulated or something? The golf ball is one of the most highly regulated pieces of equipment in sports.
It's all just marketing BS.
-----
P.S. Not for nothing, but I laugh when I see people say the current ball doesn't spin. No, it spins… just go sit at a public course any time. PGA Tour players are just good, and their balls don't curve much mostly because of that, and only a little bit because of the golf ball. It's not like many PGA Tour players back in the 80s were hitting duck hooks and 60-yard slices accidentally when they swung 5% harder.
The ball does spin less now off a driver,and generally curve less-both on purpose and accidentally-but a ball still can easily be hit wildly as low spin can't help a ball started 50 yards off line.
Interestingly back in the era mentioned(80's and the 70's), because of the spinnier ball and wooden heads, there were far more right to left players as only the elite who shallowed out(Hogan, Trevino, Leitzke) or truly powerful(Nicklaus, Stadler) could hit a fade with enough power to play that way(or so we believed).
To create a draw, many more good-very good players played from underneath the shaft plane(in to out) which created a far greater need for timing the body and hand/arm release, so in their case swinging all out could affect their timing and make the fairways more difficult to find.
I'd say 95% of the club pros juniors and top amateurs I worked with in the late 80's and 90's were too far under the plane, reducing their day to day consistency, especially under pressure.
Players today are far more on plane or even slightly over it and have been taught from an early age to allow the club to go back to the left(inside-square-inside) to avoid excessive in to out--which doesn't work well at all with a low spin ball.
The greats of all eras have always played on plane, but there certainly was a drive-the-legs generation of the 1970's who played golf from way too inside-out for a long or successful career, and certainly many from that era suffered with bad backs from all the lateral lower body drive(popularized by Johnny Miller and Jack Nicklaus who talked about driving the legs probably more than they did) and hung back upper to a high finish(Danny Noonan)
There were a lot of short careers in the 1970's (Mark Hayes, John Schlee) Those that lasted altered their motions (Tom Watson, Faldo, Price) The rest of us became "those who can't do teach"(ers) who suffer with bad backs.
Despite my constant moaning about equipment, certainly much of the gains have been from better technique, lighter equipment from a young age, and optimization of equipment, ball, physique and technique.
-
Forget this thread and the possible rule changes: I just learned more about the golf swing at the 'macro level' and, more importantly to me, my particular golf swing, from Jeff W's single post than I did from all the years of reading countless books and too many hours of youtube combined.
That was just excellent, Jeff - the big picture and the small, all in one neat package. Thanks much!
-
An additional point, players can "go after" the ball harder with a ball that spins less and a larger more forgiving clubhead. The penalty for off center hits is smaller
-
The greats of all eras have always played on plane, but there certainly was a drive-the-legs generation of the 1970's who played golf from way too inside-out for a long or successful career, and certainly many from that era suffered with bad backs from all the lateral lower body drive(popularized by Johnny Miller and Jack Nicklaus who talked about driving the legs probably more than they did) and hung back upper to a high finish(Danny Noonan)
There were a lot of short careers in the 1970's (Mark Hayes, John Schlee) Those that lasted altered their motions (Tom Watson, Faldo, Price)
This Danny Noonan?
"He gets it up to the top OK, but then he slams his hips to the left," Boyd said. "[Noonan] hadn't played golf in about 20 years because he's a Zen practitioner and doesn't believe in country clubs.
http://www.badgolfer.com/departments/features/michael-okeefe-profile.htm
-
An additional point, players can "go after" the ball harder with a ball that spins less and a larger more forgiving clubhead. The penalty for off center hits is smaller
IMO this point is vastly over-stated. Guys were good in the 80s, and the guys playing now are better yet.
-
Erik
When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook? It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more. I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.
-
When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook? It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more. I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.
Jason Day topped a driver at Kapalua or whatever a few years ago. Zach Johnson hit the ball with a practice swing. Heck I think Justin Thomas popped one up a little at Kapalua, perhaps, too. Or maybe Sony. They hit shanks occasionally, too, and will blade a ball now and then as well.
But, overall, Tour players are better than they were in the 80s.
-
Erik
When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook? It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more. I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.
I certainly still have the snap hook still-less spinny, just as left :)
-
I remember when, as assistant, watching a fellow pro in a tournament hit one straight up and it going 80 yards and he was more concerned about the "idiot" mark on top of his driver head. Don't see many idiot marks anymore.
Jeff, I can still hit it left too but just not the Palmer on 16 at Olympic in 66 caliber snapper.
My point is that the tour pros may be better and the fields are much deeper top to bottom, they just aren't THAT much better. The issue is as much the tour pros getting so much more distance out of the new equipment vs. the average player.
-
My point is that the tour pros may be better and the fields are much deeper top to bottom, they just aren't THAT much better. The issue is as much the tour pros getting so much more distance out of the new equipment vs. the average player.
Oh, for sure, smaller heads (or whatever) would slightly increase the weird shots we'd occasionally/rarely see.
Though I think their information was pretty light, the reports did have numbers about how much distance amateurs gained. It might be (maybe?) more than you think. (I'd think a fair way of judging is by percentage.)
Oh, there's a tweet: https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1224727472190697472 (https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1224727472190697472)
From 1995 to 2019 Avg drive for tour player increased 10.6%. From 1995 to 2019 avg drive for amateur players increased 8.0% (200 yds to 216 yds).
So it's not the full amount, but it's not what I'd call an insignificant gain… plus, I wonder if the 8% would have been larger had all amateurs been playing balata instead of distance balls back in 1995.
-
Erik
When was the last time you saw a scratch player hit a pop up or snap hook? It happened up into the late 1980s even occasionally among tour pros but not any more. I hardly see it among my 18 handicap students.
I certainly still have the snap hook still-less spinny, just as left :)
Me too!
-
1980, first year of official driving statistics, Dan Pohl led at 274.6. Tour average 256.8. Wooden drivers and balata balls. I will stipulate that the dollars, Tiger, etc have brought better athletes and better training into the game. I'll even give credit to instruction although the best always seemed to figure out how to get it done. But the difference in that space of time is too great to attribute to increased athleticism. Take a look at films of Snead and ask yourself whether the current players are better athletes. The young Nicklaus was enormously powerful. I can name others who are lesser known. Clearly on an across the board basis, the current players are better conditioned athletes but that does not explain the vast gains, particularly when compared to prior similar time periods. Historically,each time there has been a major change in distance it has been connected to changes in technology whether you start with the advent of the Haskell ball or earlier. The question presented is not whether technology has impacted the game but whether one wishes to stop it. Put a different way, when has the game become "mature" so that regulations should be enacted to preserve it. Putting aside my preference for competition where a wider variety of skills are required, the greatest argument for deciding the game (equipment) is mature, or even that it should be rolled back, is the impact it has on our playing fields. Regardless of whether it makes sense for the average club member, there is tremendous pressure to make one's club a "championship" test. Thus clubs and owners push to lengthen their courses to the limits of their property. Those who can afford to buy more land,e.g. Augusta, buy land. Putting this in perspective, average length hitters today hit shorter clubs into Augusta's par 5's than Nicklaus did in his prime. It is not credible to suggest that today's average to short hitting pro is more powerful than Nicklaus. So courses are made longer even though a miniscule number of members play from the back tees. Maintenance costs go up, environmental impacts increase (although in fairness to my superintendent friends, this can be a good thing), lengths of rounds go up etc. All of this so that a long drive is 325 yards as opposed to 275. I can recall watching golf on television when a 260 yard drive was deemed to be very long and nobody pooh poohed it. The first thing we need to do is agree on the impact of equipment. It has taken awhile for the USGA and the R&A to recognize that reality, although apparently there are some on this Board who disagree. Then there has to be a decision made on what, if anything, to do about it. Finally, there must be sufficient fortitude and resources (likely devoted to litigation) to implement the decision.
While I like the way the game was played when courses were effectively longer, I continue to enjoy watching the pros. My main concerns are the impact on architecture, recognizing those who resist such as Tom, and the increased pressure on the economics of the game.
-
"The question presented is not whether technology has impacted the game but whether one wishes to stop it. Put a different way, when has the game become "mature" so that regulations should be enacted to preserve it."
I think that's it precisely, and that you put it just right, Shel.
The 'fields' are no doubt better now than back then, but the 'greats' were just as great.
The only alternative to grappling with the tough questions of if & when the game has become mature and how & to what extent it should be preserved is to say, in essence, that there is no other "game" but the one that is being played today (or that will be played 'tomorrow'), and so there is nothing to "preserve".
-
But the difference in that space of time is too great to attribute to increased athleticism.
It's a lot of things.
- Longer clubs.
- Lighter clubs.
- The ball.
- The conditioning of the fairways (height, firmness).
- Launch monitors and optimized launch conditions.
- An increased understanding of how important distance is to scoring.
Take a look at films of Snead and ask yourself whether the current players are better athletes.
That comment, if you're talking about me, is in regards to the average PGA Tour player, who is a better golfer now than they were during the 1960s. Or 1980s.
Clearly on an across the board basis, the current players are better conditioned athletes
There we go.
Thus clubs and owners push to lengthen their courses to the limits of their property.
I think the number of clubs doing this over the last 20 years has been over-estimated by many. 6500 yards is long enough to serve the needs of almost all golfers. This is, at best, a ~0.01% problem IMO. And I don't really care what they do, or what they shoot. It's not like they play great courses week in and week out, anyway.
-
Erik, I am involved in the administration of amateur golf in the greater Chicago area. Perhaps it is different where you reside, and I will rely on others to describe their experiences, but here I assure you that the lengthening of courses has not been an occasional event. The interesting thing is that courses used to try to get to 7,000 yards. Now??
-
Erik, I am involved in the administration of amateur golf in the greater Chicago area. Perhaps it is different where you reside, and I will rely on others to describe their experiences, but here I assure you that the lengthening of courses has not been an occasional event. The interesting thing is that courses used to try to get to 7,000 yards. Now??
I don't doubt that's how you feel, but I would rather see actual data on this type of stuff. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe my "anecdata" either.
Page 42 of the Distance Insights Report has some information on this stuff. I won't quote it, but it notes the average course length of courses opened in 2011-2016 is < 7000 yards, and that courses lengthened were not abundant in number (though their numbers lack some clarity).
The median and 90th percentiles for course length haven't increased much since the 1980s. The top line is 7500 yards, the second line is 7000. So, 7100 in 1980 and just over 7200 now?
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/kpumXxPO/Image+2020-02-06+at+10.23.30+PM.png?v=635bbb51c278d1bfb6835080d17c0a95)
And again… 6500 yards is fine for almost all golfers.
This is a ~0.01% problem, if you stipulate that it's a problem at all.
-
Erik, I limited my comments to personal knowledge. I am familiar with almost all of the renovations in my area over the last 20 years. Increased length is a reality. Incidentally, your suggestion that longer clubs and lighter shafts added to length confirms that equipment changes are a significant factor in increased lengths. As far as agronomic factors, many courses did not have the extensive irrigation systems almost universally in use so that a fair number had baked out fairways adding to distance. Of course this was more true from the 40's (before my time) through at least the mid 60's.
-
Erik, a question, just to understand better your perspective:
Say there were only 10 golf courses in all of America that have been (and will continue to be) lengthened and renovated to suit the modern game and to serve as venues for pro-level championships -- only 10, in the entire country, but all of them golden age classics, all of them the best & most indicative examples of work by the greatest architects of all time, and none of which you or I will ever play.
For you: are those 10 courses worth 'preserving' in anything resembling their original form, and simply because they represent unique expressions of creative genius and are storehouses of the game's history and spirit?
And, more to the point: if preserving those courses and allowing them to continue to serve as venues for pro-level championships that 'play' in some way like they did for Hogan and Nicklaus required that the USGA bring in new rules & regulations limiting and/or rolling back equipment technology, would you think those new rules worth it?
There's no 'right' answer here: some people on this board who I'm fond of and who I often agree with I suspect would say "no"; others might surprise me and say "yes". But I think that this 'yes or no' is really one of the key drivers of our individual POVs on the broader question -- i.e. not only our views on/reaction to driving stats and our opinions on sustainability/maintenance costs etc, but also this: are a few truly great courses worth preserving as championship fields of play, simply because they are truly great?
Peter
-
In the interest of fairness to the architects and membership, two recent restoration projects in the Chicago area, Bob O' Linc and Old Elm did not add significant length
-
What would be the benefit to any single individual if the Tour ball were rolled back?
Keep in mind, the Tour already plays forward from the back tees on a great number of holes every week...
That's the problem, we don't know who that player is now, because the shift toward a power game over a "finesse" game has been so complete that a player who simply can't generate ultra-high club head speed isn't going to rise to the level where we'd even see them. Not even in elite junior golf.
I've walked the fairways with a bunch of juniors (as a volunteer walking scorer at AJGA events) and they are LONG. I walked with Akshat Bhatia when he was 15 and it was incredible how far he hit it. Now, he's gone from junior to pro, skipping college and in 11 rounds on Tour he's averaging 316 yard off the tee.
That puts him 5th in driving distance at AGE 18!! The only players ahead of him are Cameron Champ, Grayson Murray, Ryan Brehm and Bubba Watson.
I'll say the same thing I say every time this comes up. We need a lighter ball. Not the reviled Balloon Ball of the 30's that was both balata and 1.55 ounces. But maybe somewhere around 1.58 to 1.60 instead of the current 1.62.
A lighter ball will curve more. Abd this effect will increase as ball speed increases, because aerodynamic drag increases exponentially as speed goes up.
A lighter ball at the highest ball speed will lose more of it's speed in the first 100 yards (or 50 yards, or 150 yards) than a ball launched at lower velocity. (FWIW, it's a product of the ballistic coefficient and the cross-sectional density of a sphere).
So truly short hitters like women and seniors wouldn't lose as much percentage-wise. They's also benefit from the fact that a lighter ball is easier to keep airborne, which would again affect the elite players because they'd slightly see more of a likelihood of the ball "getting away" from them.
Their response could take two paths, play a ball that spins less, taking away their ability to control shorter shots after they landed, or learn to swing "under control" just like Jack Nicklaus and every other long hitter from the balata ball days.
And anyone who says today's "athletes" of golf are head and shoulders above guys like Jack needs to read this (https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson).
If you don't want to read it, it's simply makes the point that in 1963 JAck won the PGA long drive contest by hitting a BALATA ball with a 42.75" PERSIMMON DRIVER... 341 yards.
Thats a yard longer than what it took to win that 2014 contest with a titanium driver and multi-layer ball.
-
Erik, I limited my comments to personal knowledge. I am familiar with almost all of the renovations in my area over the last 20 years. Increased length is a reality.
I know you did. I'm just looking for some actual numbers, because I feel the "reality" where I live is a bit different. Heck, the course I play most often opened in 2008 and tips out at 6900 yards.
Incidentally, your suggestion that longer clubs and lighter shafts added to length confirms that equipment changes are a significant factor in increased lengths.
As did the other things I listed. My point was it's more than just "adding spin to the golf ball." That will get you, at most, a few years (and a few yards) back.
Say there were only 10 golf courses in all of America that have been (and will continue to be) lengthened and renovated to suit the modern game and to serve as venues for pro-level championships -- only 10, in the entire country, but all of them golden age classics, all of them the best & most indicative examples of work by the greatest architects of all time, and none of which you or I will ever play. For you: are those 10 courses worth 'preserving' in anything resembling their original form, and simply because they represent unique expressions of creative genius and are storehouses of the game's history and spirit?
I would say, in that vastly different scenario, that the courses should be preserved as such.
However, the scenario you proposed is nowhere near the 100+ year reality that we have now. The PGA Tour does not regularly play "unique expressions of creative genius" or "golden age classics." They visit TPC Scottsdale.
My perspective is that 6500 yards is enough for the vast majority of golfers. That courses that want to lengthen to cater to the tiny percentage of golfers who can play at those lengths are making decisions for themselves, and nobody's forcing them to do that. That I don't think what 0.01% of golfers can do should dictate the terms by which the rest of the golf world should abide, and before you say "bifurcation," that I'm against that as well for reasons I've shared a few times.
And, more to the point: if preserving those courses and allowing them to continue to serve as venues for pro-level championships that 'play' in some way like they did for Hogan and Nicklaus required that the USGA bring in new rules & regulations limiting and/or rolling back equipment technology, would you think those new rules worth it?
No, because I don't really care if players hit the same clubs in as older players, because time moves on. In choosing Hogan and Nicklaus, you're setting a marker where someone else might say we should go back to hickory so players could hit the same clubs as Ouimet or Sarazen or Jones.
I don't really care if, some day, they no longer play championship golf at The Old Course, because it will still be there for the vast majority of golfers to enjoy. The ones for which the on-course back tees (not the off-course British Open tees) are still too much of a challenge. I also think that the impact of equipment is pretty much done - we have standards, and we domesticated the Pinnacle, and guys are swinging faster these days, but that's going to reach a limit, too. If you think the PGA Tour is going to turn into the WLD, watch those guys and realize how seldom they hit the ball within a 60-yard-wide area.
I also don't really care if they continue to play the Old Course and shoot -26 because the wind doesn't kick up for four days. People talk about how "par is meaningless" but then talk about how they can't stand to see people beating up some course here and there. And, I think the doom and gloom about courses hosting majors and PGA Tour stops is over-done, too. Pebble is barely 7000 yards and just hosted another great U.S. Open (albeit one in which the USGA was a bit gun-shy). Oakmont stands up to the guys.
Some of the game's best holes are the short ones. You want to reward more "skills" in the game - look at the 10th at Riviera. Look at the second at Oakmont. Those holes don't require a 4-iron approach shot, and never did. They require skill, touch, and thought. They confuse the guys.
175-225 is still a highly important yardage on Tour. It's where Tiger lived and breathed, and where the others who are now at the top of the game gain a lot of separation. So what if a guy is hitting the 15th at Augusta with a 5-iron now instead of a 5-wood or a 2-iron? The 5-iron has the loft of a 3-iron and the greens are firmer, faster, and more dangerous than they were when Nicklaus was playing it anyway.
Some people will talk about the "excitement" of watching PGA Tour golf, but I don't see that point either. Excitement comes from a few areas, including the personalities at play, the storylines, the closeness of the tournament on the back nine, the shots pulled off… etc. TV coverage shows a guy hitting a ball, the ball against the sky, and the ball landing on the green. We know for a fact that if the guy hits a 4-iron, it's going to generally finish farther from the hole than the guy who hits an 8-iron, so which is more exciting? Yes, us golf geeks can appreciate the extra skill it takes to hit a 4-iron to 30 feet than an 8-iron to 25 feet, but… so? If TV golf coverage never told you a yardage again, and added three clubs to everything the caddies flashed to the on-course reporter, would golf suddenly be more exciting because you think the guy hit a 5-iron instead of an 8-iron?
I didn't agree with all that Brandel Chamblee said, but I did with a lot of it. I think you could slow the fairways down (even doing the tapered idea that was my own twist on that), make them longer (amateurs like a little cushion anyway, and it'll reduce chemical use as well), and grow the rough at PGA Tour stops a bit longer.
There's no 'right' answer here: some people on this board who I'm fond of and who I often agree with I suspect would say "no"; others might surprise me and say "yes". But I think that this 'yes or no' is really one of the key drivers of our individual POVs on the broader question -- i.e. not only our views on/reaction to driving stats and our opinions on sustainability/maintenance costs etc, but also this: are a few truly great courses worth preserving as championship fields of play, simply because they are truly great?
Why can't we have new courses, like Whistling Straits, enter the fray? Why does a course we played 120 years ago have to be played today, when it can still be played by 95% of golfers?
I run an event called the Newport Cup, named after the site of the first U.S. Open. It's not long enough to support U.S. Open play anymore, but 95% of golfers can get all the challenge they need from that course, no? What's so wrong with that?
Note: These are totally my opinions, and everyone gets to have their own, of course. Nobody's "right" or "wrong" because we're not talking about facts here. I appreciate that environmental concerns and societal pressures are valid and legitimate concerns. I do not want the government deciding that golf needs heavily regulated. I wish we could go back in time* and, somehow, create a game where a long par five was 390 yards and even expansive golf courses could fit into < 100 acres, and long drivers talked about how they can occasionally hit it 200, but we can't, and history is what it was, and even Nicklaus was hitting it 341 in the 60s. That's our history. (* And even if we could craft that game in our time machine, I wonder if people wouldn't bemoan the 5,500-yard monstrosities that started to spring up as golf became a richer sport that athletes began playing more regularly…).
I've walked the fairways with a bunch of juniors (as a volunteer walking scorer at AJGA events) and they are LONG. I walked with Akshat Bhatia when he was 15 and it was incredible how far he hit it. Now, he's gone from junior to pro, skipping college and in 11 rounds on Tour he's averaging 316 yard off the tee.
And how's he fared in those 11 rounds? It's not just about power. The game still requires a ton of finesse, touch, and skill. Speed is a "skill" in every sport; golf is no different there.That puts him 5th in driving distance at AGE 18!! The only players ahead of him are Cameron Champ, Grayson Murray, Ryan Brehm and Bubba Watson.
He's played six PGA Tour events. He's missed the cut in six PGA Tour events.
And anyone who says today's "athletes" of golf are head and shoulders above guys like Jack needs to read this (https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson).
Nobody's said that today's golfers are better than perhaps the second-best golfer of all time, Ken. The average PGA Tour player, however, is much better now than in the 60s to 80s, though.
-
Erik,
You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.
Allow me a romantic hypothetical.
Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?
Certainly we've built plenty of tees at most courses where players could simply move up a few yards-or God forbid hit a slightly longer club in from their regular tee-you know the one that was in and popularly used in 1975 before someone gave them a freaking chart telling them that's where they should play based on their 5 iron distance.
Suddenly rounds would be slightly shorter from less back and forward walking.
Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)
Classic courses would have less need to be bastardized by USGA annointed Open Doctors(wouldn't hold my breath on this one)
Less tees would be required and the game could be more social as the difference between long and Super long would be less in total yards.(yes you can poke holes in this one)
Why is the game better now on what is a larger scale than it was 25-40 years ago.
And yes I'm picking an era but I'd be perfectly fine with 1925ish as well-even less walking-in fact when I play my persimmon and soft Bridgestones I hit it about the distance of that era-Fairways seem a lot wider at 230(of course the ball used to run out) and no walking back.
If courses haven't lengthened as you state, why is golf better with the ball going 10-15% farther?
Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?
Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?
And if they do enjoy it more, why are we so dang worried about people leaving the game?
and if you can successfully dispute all of that..
Would golf be even better if/when we gain another 10%?
Which we could easily do by further changing the rules for more face rebound(ERC on steroids) and hotter balls.
If more distance is good, why not even more?
Why not 1 minute abs?
Seems odd to say golf is better with the ball going 10-15% farther, but then not agree that another 10% would be a good thing.
Seems suspiciously like picking an era as well.
OT-I started a thread years ago about having one or two sets of tees and 5 or 6 different "hottnesses" of balls.
We all play the same tee but DJ plays the SloV1, I play the ProV1, my dad plays the FastV1, my wife the FastV3.
That thread went nowhere......:)
-
You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.
Thank you. Many of the people who disagree with me also make compelling points and have done their homework. I just don't agree with them, in the same manner in which they don't agree with me.
Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?
Why not just 15% for everyone? I hate arguments like this because they get bogged down and defeated (IMO) in semantics. Where does it switch from 10% to 15%? Why have a break point at all?
Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)
My oh my, all that from a 5-10% drop in distances, eh? I think you're over-reaching a bit.
Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?
0-5 handicappers aren't hitting all that many wedges on 400-yard holes. That range of handicap still averages about 155 yards in. So, if they hit wedge there, it's not a 48° club very often; they're just hitting a 7- or 8-iron marked with a "P" or a "W." Or maybe it's the Titleist "P43". :P
Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?
Golf is still ridiculously hard. Equipment can only help the average golfer so much.
and if you can successfully dispute all of that..
I can't dispute it any more than you can "prove" any of it. This is all just opinion. From both sides.
If more distance is good, why not even more?
Straw man argument. Just because "no reduction in distance" is seen as "good" by some doesn't mean they're also saying "more distance" is also good.
-----
Edit: a question for you, Jeff. Do you agree or disagree that 6500 yards is "enough" golf course for 95% of the world's golfers? Do you agree that the "distance problem" is almost entirely limited to a small part of the golf world (of which you are likely a member [to clarify: a member of the "very very good golfers" group, not a "part of the problem"])? Do you also think that if golfers across the world lost 10% of their distance, that golf courses would in fact have to renovate and build new tees and possibly re-configure hazards, etc. in the opposite direction - shorter - so that people could continue to play and enjoy the game? What would happen to the current "back tees?"
-
Erik,
I think Ken makes some excellent points in his post. Of course driving distance isn't the only thing a pro needs to be successful, but it does correlate the best, by a wide margin, to actually winning on tour.
I did some analysis a couple of months back on all the winners on tour in 2018-2019, and found that over half the time (52.4%) the winner was ranked in the top 25% for Driving Distance for the year. Conversely, only 19% of the time was the winner in the top 25% for Driving Accuracy.
Perhaps this weekend I'll post up my analysis for all 5 categories I tracked: Driving Distance, GIR, Sccrambling, Total Putting, and Driving Accuracy.
-
I think Ken makes some excellent points in his post.
I'm being a bit facetious when I say this, but… "… and then undoes them all by pointing out that Nicklaus hit it past everyone in the 60s." :) I chuckle when rollback proponents bring that up. And again, I'm being a bit silly there, so don't take that as a slight to the rest of what Ken wrote.
Of course driving distance isn't the only thing a pro needs to be successful, but it does correlate the best, by a wide margin, to actually winning on tour.
No it doesn't.*
I did some analysis a couple of months back on all the winners on tour in 2018-2019, and found that over half the time (52.4%) the winner was ranked in the top 25% for Driving Distance for the year. Conversely, only 19% of the time was the winner in the top 25% for Driving Accuracy.
* It correlates the best if you're only considering two (or five, below) statistics. My goodness! And what did you find for that stat in the 1980s? The 1960s? Power has always been an advantage. Nicklaus relied on it. Palmer. Hogan. Snead. Heck, power/speed being an advantage is one of the ways I determine what is a sport vs. a game.
Perhaps this weekend I'll post up my analysis for all 5 categories I tracked: Driving Distance, GIR, Sccrambling, Total Putting, and Driving Accuracy.
In this day and age, you tracked five categories? And… those five?
SG:Approach matters more than SG:OTT, and even OTT we see the 60-70 yard difference between tee shots that find the rough versus the fairway. The truth is the long hitters are still pretty accurate. The strokes they gain hitting the fairway + 20-30 yards are more than offset by the extra 1-2 times per round they find the rough over the "short but accurate" hitters.
(Oh, and that doesn't consider that SG:Approach is "hurt" when a player hits it farther. Rory and DJ have a tougher time gaining shots with their approach shots when they are hitting from 130 than another player does from 160. And yet, SG:App still matters the most.)
-
Erik. Regarding Nicklaus, perhaps you failed to consider where he hit that shot. It was in a long drive contest where he could go after the shot full bore without any penalty for hitting it off line. Note the significant reduction when he was playing for keeps likely caused by the "spinnier" balls and the small sweet spot on the smaller wooden driver. Surely you are not implying that the current ball is no longer or easier to control than wound balata given your prior posts.
-
Erik. Regarding Nicklaus
Despite me - twice - trying to call attention to this fact, you took my response far too seriously.
-
Erik,
There is approx 150-200 different measurements on the PGA Tour stat site, so I will certainly not attempt to correlate all of them. In lieu of that, I wanted to take a quick stab at testing the hypothesis: Does distance off the tee correlate the best to winning on tour?
So I picked out a critical measurement (as noted above) from each main category: Off the Tee, Approaching the Green, Around the Green, and Putting. I didn't using scoring stats because that doesn't tell us anything about the different components of actually playing the game. I then added Driving Accuracy as a control of sorts to compare to Driving Distance and i'm not surprised it correlated the worst to winning of all 5 measurements I looked at.
The results at least anecdotally suggest what many of us suspect and even you have preached over the last couple of years that distance off the tee is most important and these guys are instructed to hit it as far as they can as often as they can.. and that accuracy is far less important to winning. (I'll post the specifics up later today)
P.S. It looks like I can go back to 2002 in all of these categories, so I may do that as another comparison point over the weekend...
-
You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.
Thank you. Many of the people who disagree with me also make compelling points and have done their homework. I just don't agree with them, in the same manner in which they don't agree with me.
Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?
Why not just 15% for everyone? I hate arguments like this because they get bogged down and defeated (IMO) in semantics. Where does it switch from 10% to 15%? Why have a break point at all?
Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)
My oh my, all that from a 5-10% drop in distances, eh? I think you're over-reaching a bit.
Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?
0-5 handicappers aren't hitting all that many wedges on 400-yard holes. That range of handicap still averages about 155 yards in. So, if they hit wedge there, it's not a 48° club very often; they're just hitting a 7- or 8-iron marked with a "P" or a "W." Or maybe it's the Titleist "P43". :P
Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?
Golf is still ridiculously hard. Equipment can only help the average golfer so much.
and if you can successfully dispute all of that..
I can't dispute it any more than you can "prove" any of it. This is all just opinion. From both sides.
If more distance is good, why not even more?
Straw man argument. Just because "no reduction in distance" is seen as "good" by some doesn't mean they're also saying "more distance" is also good.
-----
Edit: a question for you, Jeff. Do you agree or disagree that 6500 yards is "enough" golf course for 95% of the world's golfers? Do you agree that the "distance problem" is almost entirely limited to a small part of the golf world (of which you are likely a member [to clarify: a member of the "very very good golfers" group, not a "part of the problem"])? Do you also think that if golfers across the world lost 10% of their distance, that golf courses would in fact have to renovate and build new tees and possibly re-configure hazards, etc. in the opposite direction - shorter - so that people could continue to play and enjoy the game? What would happen to the current "back tees?"
Well in Erie..
nothing would happen to the back tees :)
-
There is approx 150-200 different measurements on the PGA Tour stat site, so I will certainly not attempt to correlate all of them. In lieu of that, I wanted to take a quick stab at testing the hypothesis: Does distance off the tee correlate the best to winning on tour?
My point was simply that you chose poorly, or misleadingly. SG:App matters a good bit more than SG:OTT, despite the fact that longer hitters have a harder time gaining SG:App from closer to the hole.
You said "driving distance correlates the best to winning on tour, by a wide margin." Yes, it might correlate the best only out of the few stats you hand picked, but that's like saying a goalie's save % most strongly correlates to his team's success because you're comparing it against only their PK rate, how much the fans like the team logo, and the average weight and height of their bottom six left wingers.
We have much better stats than the five you chose. Plus, you aren't even able to say whether this is new or was also true using your selection of stats in the 40s, 60s, or 80s.
I didn't using scoring stats because that doesn't tell us anything about the different components of actually playing the game.
SG isn't really a "scoring stat" per se. It rates the value of a single shot. You can add them together to get scoring, but separately, they tell us where the game's best are gaining the most shots. It's the perfect tool to determine what skills actually matter. And what we find is that approach shots matter the most, not driving (let alone just driving distance).
FWIW, in 2019:
- Wyndham Clark was 5th in Driving Distance, but 88th in SG:OTT at 0.084 because he wasn't very accurate.
- Reeves and Mullinax were 7th/8th but neither was in the top 30 in SG:OTT. Not accurate enough.
- Davis was T10 in DD, but outside the top 60 in SG:OTT. Not accurate enough.
- Scniederjans was top 20 in DD… and 161st in SG:OTT, losing 0.285 strokes off the tee. REALLY not accurate enough.
- Ditto Phil Mickelson. T19 in DD, 165th in SG:OTT losing almost a third of a shot off the tee for his inaccuracy.
Driving distance doesn't matter as much as you're pitching, and good golfers have almost always been longer golfers. The best "short" player might have been Gary Player, and he had success many decades ago when the Tour was much weaker than it is now.
Distance matters. Of course it does. Speed matters in every sport. But so does accuracy in golf, as nobody's regularly hitting it 70 yards past anyone else, and that's about the difference between a ball in the rough and a ball in the fairway. Accuracy still matters, too. (Besides, it's easier to hit a ball in the fairway when it goes 40 yards shorter, even with the same angular accuracy.)
The results at least anecdotally suggest what many of us suspect and even you have preached over the last couple of years that distance off the tee is most important
I have not preached that "distance off the tee is most important" if you're talking about all the skills in golf. Again, even on the PGA Tour, a ball in the rough is equivalent to a ball in the fairway 60-70 yards further back.
------
Jeff, I answered your questions. How about taking a stab at mine?
-
Erik,
Sorry I was doing a rant on just this subject on SiriusXM with jim McLean-should've had you call in (taped for tomorrow-there goes my Callaway contract)
Given that some of my favorite golf courses tip out at 6300-6500 sure I"d say 6500 is plenty of golf course for most players.(So yes we agree)
But the reputation of many/most elite courses is established by what events they have held or how they hold up against elite players in a competition.
I'd just like to see courses play somewhere near where they were designed, but as we know that's a moving target for hundred year old course.
Yes 6500 is plenty of course for most...but I'm not sure why the best players have to settle and not be tested as they were 30 years ago.....
But that doesn't mean my 10 handicap son doesn't have to wait on 325 yard par 4's. before pelting it 60 yards off line into someone's yard(but I've been wrong enough times to make him wait). I would argue he'd have more fun hitting it 15% shorter and find more balls-his score wouldn't suffer.
Palmetto is 6300 yards and has fantastic greens but I will admit I get agitated when I see their young bombers hit wedges into every hole and short irons into par 5's and remark what a fun little course, like their girlfriend's little sister.
That course could easily have hosted US Mid Am or even a US Am in 1980, but now it's passed by for longer more recent courses.
Aiken GC, a lovely course but would never host anything of any significance, yet was a reasonable length in 1912.
Multiple MET area courses ditto-instead these go to newer courses that can find 7000 (Winged Foot, Baltusrol)plus yards-certainly not better courses, just have room for the work of the latest "Open Dr." and therefore newer and bigger.
Inwood being a prime example of a great course distance passed by. Bobby Jones hit a 4 iron into the 400 yard 18th.
Apawamis-great course that tech just demolished-. Even iconic National Golf Links is a pitch and put, merely defending par by resorting to green speeds never ever conceived by the original architect. Difficult due to this , sure but a completely different kind've difficult for elites. The rest of us, an incredible gem, but again, why must the elite not enoy the brilliant challenge it once was?
More will follow.
Chambers Bay and Erin Hills are quite low on the fun factor, but are perfectly scaled for today's Championships.Just takes 5 hours to play 'em
I'd much rather play a ball where Merion,Inwood(scene of my first blown major) and Palmetto were relevant and you and I could play the same tees as competitors in a Major,without walking back 120 yards.Granted I'd have a long iron or wood in and they'd have a mid to short iron,
but we'd see the same course without walking 8 miles.
Professional golf spectating is a big part of my enjoyment in golf, and is for many others.
It's one of the few sports where current participants can spectate and compare what they did or would do on a hole.
Or they derive enjoyment from watching how a pro plays a shot on TV,
Some of that is lost when they're not ever hitting a long iron or fairway wood and usually one of their wedges.
On most classic courses no new tees would be needed as so many forward and senior tees have been built, but even if they weren't the average guy hasn't gained that much and I doubt he'd lose that much. that said, in a generation where 20 handicappers think they should be able to hit the same club into a green as a pro, well yeah they'd need to move up to the forward tees.
Would back tees be abandoned? They already are at many modern courses and at resorts like Bandon the back pads rarely are used as the tee color convinces people they are on the "back" tee that's 50 yards behind them .
So yes at courses designed to be "relevant" with modern balls , many back tees would be abandoned.
More sustainability. Now would they need more shorter tees? No as forward tees exist at nearly every course and that 130 yard woman isn't getting her current distance from caving the face and a low spin driver so she didn't gain much-wouldn't lose much.
And EVERY time I've moved a forward tee forward I've been screamed at by the women! (of course they could always play the senior tee that sits in its place..but I digress...)
-
Why not 1 minute abs?
:)
While everything else you said made perfect sense, this is non-sense.
Workouts are 7 minutes. Not 1 minute and definitely not 6 minutes. 7 minutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2di69FmhE)
-
Why not 1 minute abs?
:)
While everything else you said made perfect sense, this is non-sense.
Workouts are 7 minutes. Not 1 minute and definitely not 6 minutes. 7 minutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2di69FmhE)
It's actually about the only thing that made sense to me.
I'm even confusing myself.
After a week on my back I'm looking for the spring loaded driver...
-
In several ways golf is an outlier regarding the effect of technology on the sport. Most sports have defined playing surfaces, and the participants are competing against each other directly. So the amazing progress in tennis racket technology equalizes among players because they all play the same landform. Not so for golf. If technology overwhelms the land, then Gca suffers by a fair margin.
Ira
-
Chris Solomon pointed out what a great test of golf Royal Melbourne was during the Presidents Cup. I'm sure "par" was hidden a little by match play, but I don't recall too many people blitzing the course like Phil/Sergio in their Ryder Cup, either. He pointed out that the course isn't that long, and yet because the greens were firm and the ball rolled, angles mattered, as did your precise landing spot and the way you could control spin. And we got to see a LOT of creativity from Tiger.
Maybe, and I'm paraphrasing him, the answer was to simply keep golf courses the length they were, but make them firmer (at least near the greens… but if it's firm in the fairways the ball can run into trouble, too) and make sure they have enough contour to keep the attention of the guys.
This can't work everywhere, and not everywhere is built on sand so the drainage wouldn't work everywhere. Maybe it wouldn't work anywhere except a few very specific places… which is probably the real answer, but still… I feel he made a good point. And the Presidents Cup was incredible golf to watch.
-
Erik,
It looks like you're missing the point. The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors. Of those players you picked in your last post, only Mickelson won last year, so the others are not relevant to this question. One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first? Given over half of the winners on tour are in the top 25% of Distance off the tee, that sure seems to be the best place to start on average. And perhaps if they're already in that top 25% look to improving GIR %s, etc.
In my analysis I looked at all 42 winners last year on Tour and gathered 5 data points on each winner for a total of 210 data points. Here is the summation of the data and how it correlates.
(https://i.imgur.com/zIlrjrY.jpg)
This shows the aggregate stats for each winner on tour last year and their relative rank to everyone else on tour in the aforementioned categories. It includes the median value as well as analysis for success rates in each ranking quadrant. For example, 76.2% of winners on tour came from the top 50% in Driving Distance, 64.3% for top 50% in GIRs, etc.
At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...and this data set at least suggests there may be something there. A better balance between these categories would be more interesting over the constant bomb and gouge assault you see from the leaders week in and week out.
-
Erik,
It looks like you're missing the point. The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors. Of those players you picked in your last post, only Mickelson won last year, so the others are not relevant to this question. One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first? Given over half of the winners on tour are in the top 25% of Distance off the tee, that sure seems to be the best place to start on average. And perhaps if they're already in that top 25% look to improving GIR %s, etc.
In my analysis I looked at all 42 winners last year on Tour and gathered 5 data points on each winner for a total of 210 data points. Here is the summation of the data and how it correlates.
(https://i.imgur.com/zIlrjrY.jpg)
This shows the aggregate stats for each winner on tour last year and their relative rank to everyone else on tour in the aforementioned categories. It includes the median value as well as analysis for success rates in each ranking quadrant. For example, 76.2% of winners on tour came from the top 50% in Driving Distance, 64.3% for top 50% in GIRs, etc.
At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...and this data set at least suggests there may be something there. A better balance between these categories would be more interesting over the constant bomb and gouge assault you see from the leaders week in and week out.
Bye Bye Broadie ;D
-
It looks like you're missing the point. The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors.
I'm not, and since you haven't run the stats to know how much distance correlated in the 1940s, or the 1960s, I also see little "point" in what you're trying to do.
One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first?
You'd be laughed out of the locker room if you tried to talk to a player, agent, coach, caddie… anyone with an analysis based on the five stats you chose.
Look, again, you're using really old statistics, and only five of them, when much better statistics exist.
At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...
No, again, distance only trumps "the other four stats" you chose.
And, you don't know if that relationship (even if we limit it to your four stats) has changed since the 40s, 60s, etc.
+++++++
This doesn't feel particularly on-topic, so I attempted to be brief in re-stating my opinion there.
-
Erik,
That's a terrific Straw man argument you've set up by insisting this must be compared to stats from the 40s and 60s...which don't exist. Which even if they did, you would then just dismiss them as too 'old" anyways.
As for the measurements in each of the main categories, which ones are supposedly "better"? Most of the other ones on the PGA Tour Stats site are for specific yardages, or 3 putt avoidance, etc, which doesn't provide nearly enough overall context.
P.S. In case you missed it, i'll re-post this: " this data set at least suggests there may be something there" I have no trouble admitting this is far from conclusive, but at least enough of an acid test to further pursue. Once again its a simple question. What correlates the best to winning on Tour?
-
That's a terrific Straw man argument you've set up by insisting this must be compared to stats from the 40s and 60s...which don't exist. Which even if they did, you would then just dismiss them as too 'old" anyways.
It'd show (or not show) a trend - that "driving distance" is becoming more and more important.
This still feels off topic, and rudimentary at that. Better players hit it farther? Duh. That's always been the case. Distance - speed - is an advantage in just about every sport. And a 250-yard tee shot hit 3° offline will find more fairways than a 320-yard tee shot hit 2.5° offline.
-
The report is a good read (https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/DIPR-FINAL-2020-usga.pdf) and has many interesting sections and insights:
- Condensed history of balls and clubs from pre-1850 to today
- Analysis of factors impacting distance
- Charts showing that driving distance is the one skill that has increased in importance (relative to others) on the PGA tour
- Of 11 factors, recreational golfers said that the factor least representative of "success in golf" is driving distance
Lot's of other good material in there. Definitely recommend it for a read.
-
EVERY time I've moved a forward tee forward I've been screamed at by the women! (of course they could always play the senior tee that sits in its place..but I digress...)
Well, I could have told you that one. They DO NOT LIKE being pandered to by men, and that's how it comes across to them.
The funny thing is, if you build a new course and put the tees pretty far forward, they love them. I was at a dinner the other night for 90 crazy-avid golfers, and the two who were most effusive in their fondness for my courses were both women [out of less than ten at the dinner overall].
-
It's a point that's been made by many others (here and elsewhere) and many times before, but it's worth repeating:
While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.
In other words: in terms of shooting the lowest and winningest scores, the scale has never been weighted so much in favour of the longest driver than it is now.
The 'balance of required skill sets', ie accurate irons, a deft short game, excellent putting, distance off the tee, has never been as unbalanced as it's been in the last decade and a half.
The game *has* changed -- and, from what I read, every golf pro and great player and expert observer old enough to have competed in & watched the game when it was differently 'weighted' and more evenly 'balanced' recognizes this.
The only debate is between those who think that all change is good -- or at least inevitable & irreversible -- and those who don't.
-
While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.
I don't think you're wrong… but where's the proof of this? How much has it shifted (if, and I doubt that this is true, but still: if it has shifted)?
I think you're probably right, but are we talking about a small shift? A huge one? What's the data?
-
It's a point that's been made by many others (here and elsewhere) and many times before, but it's worth repeating:
While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.
In other words: in terms of shooting the lowest and winningest scores, the scales have never been weighted so much in favour of the longest drivers than it is now.
The 'balance of required skill sets', ie accurate irons, a deft short game, excellent putting, distance off the tee, has never been as unbalanced as it has been in the last decade and a half.
The game *has* changed -- and, from what I read, every golf pro and great player and expert observer old enough to have competed in & watched the game when it was differently 'weighted' and 'balanced' recognizes this.
The only debate is between those who think that change is good -- or at least inevitable & irreversible -- and those who don't.
Actually, there is more to it than that.
Every time I have talked to PGA TOUR players about course setup for Tour events, they have told me that the setups are biased in favor of the longest hitters in the field.
Courses are designed so that in no wind, longer hitters can carry much of the trouble off the tee, while shorter hitters must thread the needle through the trouble.
The bias comes when there is wind: if the hole plays into the wind, Tour officials will move the tees up so that the long hitters can still carry the trouble, and the short hitters still can't.
I would guess that has something to do with the results you are highlighting.
-
Erik -
I'm just on my phone right now, and it's hard to 'search' for past threads/post with it, but I'm almost sure I saw the data here on gca.com (but also other places) several months ago. I'll try to search when I get home.
P
-
E -
I did find this. I'll just post, without extra comment or attempts to analyze. (As Tom points out, there are more factors than I realize.)
Correlation of distance to scoring average on the PGA Tour:
1980-13%
1990-14%
2000-31%
2017-44%
Correlation of accuracy to scoring average on the PGA Tour:
1980-53%
1990-48%
2000-35%
2017-12%
-
The USGA and R&A have also provided a library of 57 supporting analyses and reports. Some are other studies and some are original research.
In the original research, no. 33, "How Golf Courses Change (Global)" (https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance%20Insights%20Library), summarizes analyses of aerial photos of 80 courses, looking specifically at the changes that have been made to them over the years. (Link may only get you to the list of reports. Scroll down to 33 if that happens).
Very interesting is that a few of the championship courses they include specific details for are Merion and Oakmont. For each they calculate the amount fairway lost over the study period. It's a lot.
Merion - 1939 - Present lost 6.6 acres, 24.5%
Oakmont - 1938 - Present lost 14.9 acres, 38.6%
Olympic Club (Lake) 1938 - Present lost 18.3 acres, 42.3%
Shinnecock 1938 - Present lost only 2.2 acres, or 4.8%.
If the listed courses Shinnecock started with the most fairway and still has way more (43.8 acres) than any to the listed courses. Erin Hills currently has 38.5 acres. Bay Hill has 30.2 and all of the other championship courses have fairway acres in the 20-30 range.
Of their more modern courses, Quail Hollow, Bellerive and TPC Scottsdale have the biggest lost fairway acreage.
Lots of other interesting statistics on the changes over the years.
1920's courses lost an average of 17.1% of their greens, 30's courses lost 22.4%, 50% courses lost 19.1%. In fact courses from every decade represented lost green area (other than the courses from the 40's, which can't be many).
Report also talks about bunkers, tees, turn-points, centerlines and boundaries.
The discussion notes that older courses started with larger fairways than modern courses.
-
The bias comes when there is wind: if the hole plays into the wind, Tour officials will move the tees up so that the long hitters can still carry the trouble, and the short hitters still can't.
I would guess that has something to do with the results you are highlighting.
From the report: "And while each 1mph increase in tailwind can add a little over 2 yards to a drive, if the wind is against the player it will cost nearly 3 yards per 1 mph of wind speed."
-
E -
I did find this. I'll just post, without extra comment or attempts to analyze. (As Tom points out, there are more factors than I realize.)
Thanks. That's a Brandel tweet citing (apparently) Bill Felber data. So while I'm still not inclined to disagree, I'm also not inclined to trust Felber data. :)
Anyway, this is all a bit of a side point for me. Power tends to take over lots of sports. Not saying it's good or bad, just that's what tends to happen. Which makes sense to me, since "power" and "speed" are some of the basic building blocks of athleticism. The others might be… coordination? Flexibility/agility?
From the report: "And while each 1mph increase in tailwind can add a little over 2 yards to a drive, if the wind is against the player it will cost nearly 3 yards per 1 mph of wind speed."
Yeah that applies to anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaibYxMd0P8
-
Have to leave it here for tonight, Erik, but while all of this is indeed a bit of a sidebar (and I was mostly just following up on what Ken M brought to mind) your last response to me was very interesting:
I agree that power & speed are basic building blocks of athleticism, in golf and all other sports, and so are the coordination & flexibility that you mention. It's your 'what else?' that caught my attention.
You know and can play the game significantly better than I can. Wouldn't you agree that, at least traditionally, one of the best things about golf is that it had and made room for -- and rewarded -- more 'what elses' than any other sport/athletic endeavour?
What made golf unique was how broad a definition of athleticism the game allowed for.
-
Wouldn't you agree that, at least traditionally, one of the best things about golf is that it had and made room for -- and rewarded -- more 'what elses' than any other sport/athletic endeavour?
I don't know. Like what?
I don't really want an answer, though, because I'm a big fan of staying on topic, and I feel I've done enough to wander that I don't want to keep wandering. As of right now I don't have more to say on this topic. It'll be interesting to see what the next two years brings.
I'm in the wrong place to think I'm in the majority. I'm in a small minority here, and that's fine. At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.
-
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game great courses based on a tiny fraction of golfers, either. That's why I don't build "championship " tees on most of my courses.
I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf. Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players? Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough? Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?
-
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game great courses based on a tiny fraction of golfers, either. That's why I don't build "championship " tees on most of my courses.
I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf. Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players? Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough? Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?
Leave courses alone. Let the pros score whatever they can on existing courses.
Adding length only helps the long hitters relative to the shot makers. A recent article quotes Jim Furyk as saying that he could compete on shorter courses, but not on long ones.
I have never understood the reasoning for lengthening courses. Vanity? Most golfers already play tees that are too long for their game.
-
Why are people going on about long hitters ruining the game and hence the need that the ball be rolled back? Erik is correct that the top players have always been on the whole long hitters. The problem is not that long hitters have an advantage but rather that the distance they hit it is too far. The 330 yards of today needs to be reduced to 275yards which turns a 7500 yard course into one just over 6250 yards.
Shortening the ball is a step forward not backwards.
Jon
-
I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf. Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players? Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough? Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?
No. Pebble just hosted a U.S. Open and is barely 7000 yards. Royal Melbourne just hosted a great Presidents Cup and is not long. Length only makes it more likely a long player will win. Shorter courses make it possible for more players to win.
So no to 8000 yards. No to 20-yard fairways and penal rough (the latter can have its place). And, yeah, I don't care that much what the final score is. Like I wrote earlier, many here wanna say "par is irrelevant" and many here love "half par holes" and such, so what's wrong with playing a U.S. Open or a PGA on a course that has a few par-3.5s and par-4.5s on it? Who cares if the winning score is -10? Was the Pebble Beach U.S. Open bad because Gary shot -13?
-
many here wanna say "par is irrelevant" and many here love "half par holes" and such, so what's wrong with playing a U.S. Open or a PGA on a course that has a few par-3.5s and par-4.5s on it? Who cares if the winning score is -10? Was the Pebble Beach U.S. Open bad because Gary shot -13?
Considering the scoring at Medinah #3 last year, I think the winning score is headed toward -20 rather than -10. I don't really care much about that, but lots of people will make lots of decisions on that basis . . . including the USGA and the R & A, who have been one of the prime movers of lengthening courses for the past 20 years. [Did they mention their role in that in their report?]
I just go back to what I said earlier: it's too bad that there are so few opportunities to see great players hit great shots. Watching Brooks stuff a wedge on a long par-4 is not my idea of a great shot.
-
Tom, you hit it right on the head. So long as those in control think that par is important we'll see efforts to lengthen courses for important tournaments. Those who aspire to have their courses resemble those that host majors will want to follow suit, regardless of whether it makes sense. Despite the efforts to lengthen courses, tour players will hit a fewer variety of shots than their predecessors and the opportunity to see them exhibit the full range of their abilities will be lessened. All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment. When a long drive was 275 yards, those playing thought it was a long drive. Whether a shot is long is a perceptual issue based on a power player's outside limits. There is no magic in a number whether it is 250, 350 or 450. But it makes a difference regarding the length of the course, the cost to maintain a course and the time needed to play. it also makes a difference to those manufacturing and narketing equipment and to those who are paid to endorse the equipment.
-
All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment.
The equipment has limits, and has had limits for decades. You can debate whether the limits were reasonable (to you), but not that they exist.
-
The equipment has limits, and has had limits for decades. You can debate whether the limits were reasonable (to you), but not that they exist.
Agreed.
So why does it bother you so much to discuss adjustments to those reasonable limits?
The way it's presented in the media, it sounds like the governing bodies would be kneecapping equipment "innovation", but they have spent the past 40 years innovating within limitations.
To me the best analogy is auto racing. "Fans want speed," but engines are restricted in many ways, and the restrictions keep getting dialed back over time. The trick is you can't tell how fast they are driving, except in relation to one another. The reason to dial back the speed was to keep drivers [and possibly bystanders] from getting killed . . . for golf the reason would be to keep courses from getting killed.
-
So why does it bother you so much to discuss adjustments to those reasonable limits?
It doesn't bother me. I just don't think changes are needed.
-
The emphasis on the distances achieved by Tour Pros is misplaced IMO.
Young single handicappers in the club game are now routinely hitting drives of 300 yards. 450 yard holes which average players struggle to reach with a fairway wood are reduced to a wedge approach for the better young players at most clubs, rendering the strategy of many holes obsolete for them but not for the pack behind them. Adding longer tees is simply not an option in most cases and artificial contrivances such as narrowing fairways at 290 yards more often than not compromise the original design intent.
Possibly more worryingly, even relatively poor golfers with youth and strength on their side are now able to launch golf balls 270 yards or so without any great control over the direction they head. On tight 100 year-old courses this is a potential safety issue - particularly if the fairways have become lined with trees obscuring visibility from one fairway to another.
If the ball was restricted to maybe 80% of its current distance it would make little difference to 90% of golfers. We would have maybe a 7 iron shot into a 370 yard green instead of an 8 iron. Or a 3-wood instead of a 5-wood or hybrid. So what?
The long hitters would still hit the ball further than average or short hitters and would still have the advantage of a shorter second or third shot. Golf courses would have to played strategically and skillfully again rather than being overpowered. They would also be safer and more pleasant places with fewer errant balls hurtling across adjacent holes. Ball manufacturers would sell just as many balls - just slightly different ones!
What's not to like?
-
Young single handicappers in the club game are now routinely hitting drives of 300 yards.
Perhaps not as often as you think.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/YEud5xoo/Image+2020-02-09+at+4.45.16+PM.png?v=3aecc6407d075e629e49b0159629a295)
If the ball was restricted to maybe 80% of its current distance it would make little difference to 90% of golfers.
Oh my.
What's not to like?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Also, https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-far-do-average-golfers-really-hit-it-new-distance-data-will-surprise-you (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-far-do-average-golfers-really-hit-it-new-distance-data-will-surprise-you)
-
When you boil it down the essence of great architecture is angles. Playing for the right angle into the green produces a better chance for the player to succeed. Without the angles that Capt. Thomas presented at the 10th at Riviera we would have none of the intrigue it still possess today. A 450 yard par 4 used to provide this, now we need par 4’s in excess of 500 yards to make angles meaningful on courses which can’t achieve the firmness of Royal Melbourne; there are a precious few courses in the World which can present this type of firmness on a regular basis. A wedge to the green eliminates playing the angles. This, to me, is the root of the discussion. Why would you want to negate the architecture of our great courses to keep the profit margins of the manufactures at their current levels?
-
Erik,
All your figures and charts prove is that with my 12 handicap, 220 yard drives, and 59 years behind me, I am the epitome of the "average golfer".
All I know is that 20 year-olds are routinely 50-75 yards past me. They may be in the rough, but they're 50-75 yards past me!
That in itself isn't the problem. Most of them can't hit the green with a wedge! The problem comes from the mindset that driving distance is all-important. It shouldn't be.
Maybe better options than pulling back the ball would be to restrict drivers to the size of current 3-woods and to outlaw tee-pegs...
-
Erik, You are correct. Limits exist. But clearly, the discussion is about whether the existing limits achieve reasonable goals and that has been the context all along. In future discussions I will be more precise. In the law, we call your argument a distinction without a difference.
-
Erik, You are correct. Limits exist. But clearly, the discussion is about whether the existing limits achieve reasonable goals and that has been the context all along. In future discussions I will be more precise. In the law, we call your argument a distinction without a difference.
And what would the law call an outright lie, like "All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment." Or do you just get to make up your own facts in court? "Your honor, the USGA and R&A are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment."
I object.
Duncan, I don't know that your "anecdata" is admissible in court. Nor is any of this, really, since we're not trying to determine any real inherent truth, and there's no one judge or even jury. We're mostly just talking about personal opinions. I'm in the small minority here on GCA re: distance, and that's fine by me, and I've said my bit and will mostly (try to) remain quiet, but ya can't go around saying "they're unwilling to limit equipment." (You didn't say that, Duncan.)
-
Eric, This shouldn't devolve to a series of individual attacks although it seems that is where you tend to end up in a number of threads. Let me make it clear. I conceded that I misstated to the extent that I suggested that there were no regulations although one might concede that a meaningless or ineffective regulation is tantamount to no regulation at all. If you would like to engage in a discussion of legal matters, i invite you to enroll in my Professional Responsibility, Trial Advocacy Courses or Bankruptcy Law classes which take up the bulk of my time as I wind down my active practice. I generally leave golf instruction to PGA pros like you. But I understand the position that underscores all of your arguments. You think the game is fine as it is and attribute the increased distance to bigger and better players utilizing better equipment and benefiting from better instruction. I will concede that fields are deeper and that good instruction is more readily available. I have also observed the differences in equipment and conditioning. We simply disagree that the game, at the highest levels, is as interesting as it was when even the best players were required to hit a greater variety of shots largely because the ball did not go as far and straight. I do not believe that among the very best players, the current crop is more powerful in any meaningful way than prior generations. Certainly the fact that middle of the road players hit it as long as or longer than the longest players of only 30 or 40 years ago suggests that there is more at work here than mere improvements in technique or conditioning. Accordingly, classic tests have become less relevant absent "tricked up" conditioning or extreme weather conditions. A case in point was today's tourney at Pebble where high winds and firm greens made scoring difficult. It was interesting to see players struggle to hit long irons on holes where they usually hit short or mid irons. Incidentally, I agree that the new equipment hasn't changed the way regular players interact with classic courses in any material way. So the discussion is centered not only on how better players are impacted by the regulatory bodies inability to effectively restrict distance (is that better?) but the impact it has on other aspects of the game. Because, notwithstanding your protestations and counter anecdotal evidence, clubs that want to be viewed as "championship caliber", watch the tours and emulate the courses built or expanded to try and contain the pros. Ask the architects on this board how many clients voice these sentiments. Some of our friends like Tom Doak generally resist or are hired by enlightened owners but too many are not and the ensuing impact on costs, speed of play etc. follow. But please understand, many of us get it. You don't think there is a problem and you don't think that it is having a significant deleterious impact on architecture. We just disagree.
-
Eric, This shouldn't devolve to a series of individual attacks
You said something false; I pointed it out. That's it. Maybe it's not happened to you, but I've had conversations with people who actually believe there are no "regulations." I try not to assume what people know or don't know.
You think the game is fine as it is and attribute the increased distance to bigger and better players utilizing better equipment and benefiting from better instruction.
Yes, close enough. Equipment is definitely better than the 90s, and when people attempt to summarize my position for me, they often downplay how much weight I give better equipment.
You don't think there is a problem and you don't think that it is having a significant deleterious impact on architecture. We just disagree.
Also not quite, but close enough. The main difference being that I don't think how 0.01% of the world's golfers play golf should matter much at all.
But yeah, we disagree. I'm not in favor of any change at this point. If some club somewhere wants to spend their money, that's their prerogative. It's a free market, and IMO, 95% of golfers are perfectly content with 6500 yards or less.
-
From reading the report and a few of the studies in the library my takeaway from it all is that distance is a case of the tail (elite male golfers aka the Tours, and wanna-be "championship" courses) wagging the dog (the rest of us non-elite golfer and non-championship courses.
I commend the USGA and R&A for doing quite extensive research and study of the distance issue. It provides a pretty good context for an informed discussion about whether or what to do about distance. Everybody should read the report and the accompanying reports in the Library her.
https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance%20Insights%20Library (https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance%20Insights%20Library)
For context, I am an aged golfer who drives it 200 or slightly more yards and who has lost around 20 yards over the last 20 years (the Pro-v1 era). I don't need longer golf courses; I need shorter courses. According to the USGA I should be playing 5000 yard courses to have the best playing experience. At most courses that means playing the forward tees (from whence the ego gets in the way). If the ball were rolled back (or perhaps reset would be a better term) I'll need tees that are shorter still to enjoy the game.
I don't really care if the ball is reset or not. I'm not invested in whether tour players win at par or at -20 or -30. I'm also not invested in whether classic courses are so silly as to lengthen their courses to challenge the elite few. If score relative to par is a problem, just do away with par 5's altogether. Change them all to par 4'5 for elite competitions. If you want to see some long second shots keep the former par 5's at 550 or 575 yards.
The report does provide some interesting insights through a survey into what the various stakeholder groups think about the distance issue. Only 17% think it's a major issue with slightly less than 50% thinking it is a major or minor issue. The other slightly more than 50% think distance is not an issue or don't know. This is an interesting dilemma for the USGA - the stakeholders are more or less evenly split, so which way do they go?
Following are two excerpts from the report.
"6.4.1 “Is distance a problem, a threat, or an opportunity?”
When asked by SMS about broad topics of importance across the game of golf, many stakeholders were more likely to identify areas aside from distance as threats to the game. Pace of play, availability of short format venues, and inclusivity / diversity were mentioned at a higher rate than distance. Most respondents when prompted, however, did have feelings about the topic of distance. Figure 67 reflects respective stakeholder groups’ feelings on whether distance is “a problem” in golf.
Across all stakeholder groups, for those respondents who believe that distance is a major or minor problem, tee shots with the driver were most noted. Many stakeholders did not specify distance as “a problem” at the present time, but thought that, if unchecked, it would likely become a significant problem over the next ten years. Those respondents who believe that distance is “a problem” are most likely to think it is a problem for the elite / professional game as shown in Figure 68. It is notable that distance was depicted as “a problem” both for shots that “go too far” OR shots that do not “go far enough” as each respondent was left to interpret “distance” through their own criteria without the benefit of qualifiers or additional definition of terms."
"Golf course construction experts are generally very aware of the issue of distance in golf and – by
and large – have a negative opinion of how increasing distance is affecting the game. Many in this
group share sentiment that opposes the prospect of golf courses increasing in length, unless it is
specifically to accommodate championship events.
Opinions on whether distance should be looked upon as a threat or an opportunity were almost
equally divided as shown in Figure 69. The variation between stakeholder groups is notable.
Equipment manufacturers, as an example, were most likely to see distance (presumably, increased
distance) as an opportunity, while golf course architects were most likely to see distance (again,
presumably, increased distance) as a threat. "
-
It seems to me that one solution to this distance debate would be to dramatically increase the firmness of tour courses, especially the greens. Royal Melbourne showed that the pros have to deal with strategic issueat a certain level of great GCA and firmness. Firm is more fun for all.
-
I found the report R20 "Effect of Equipment on Distance - Golf Balls" interesting. It has a lot of information that would have informed many of the debates we've had over the years about the ball and distance.
One analysis that's provided looks at the various ways of reducing the distance a ball travels - weight, size, spin, dimples, drag coefficient, and lift coefficient. As I expected, weight and size are reasonably straightforward methods. Spin looks real complicated.
Some interesting (to me) tidbits.
When they looked at the different ways of reducing distance - weight, size, spin etc - they also tried to see the impact on LPGA players and amateur men in a couple of handicap groups. They reduced the tour average by about 30 yards from 293 to about 263 (about a 10% reduction).
The impact on the 11-20 handicap group was a reduction of around 15 yards from an average of 211 yards to 196 yards - about a 7% reduction. So, for those that see a 10% rollback at the top end not affecting them ....... looks like you'll be affected too.
One other tidbit I thought was interesting was that they did a test where they tumbled balls for a few hours to simulate the effect of wear on ball performance. Seems that the ball goes higher and shorter when it's worn. No wonder the PGA guys change their balls frequently.
They also tested some wound balls against current balls. Surprisingly the launch speeds were pretty close, but the wound balls spun 500 to 1100 rpm's more. Their aerodynamic performance was different too. The two wound balls were from different manufacturers and performed and spun quite differently. Too bad that Moriarty isn't still around, he could claim victory about the slope of the swing speed vs distance line is flatter with the wound balls vs the modern ball.
-
“You said something false; I pointed it out. That's it. Maybe it's not happened to you,”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
-
Royal Melbourne worked incredibly well at the Presidents Cup because it was match play. If it had been a 4 round stroke event played to a par of 71 or 72 it would have been a slaughter. It simply isn't long enough for modern equipment. Golf today is one dimensional, it is power (and data Erik) above all else. To say the problem it's simply pro golf is nonsense. Go follow a good amateur event and they all smash it and more than a few as far or further than guys on Tour. Champ is an outlier today and will be the norm tomorrow.
Erik,
If the distance today is all or even mostly technique and athleticism then let's go back to persimmon and Tour Balatas because they'll all still bomb it like they do with a SIM driver and a ProV1x. Happy to have a few bottles of good red that we'd see driving distance back to where it was 20 years ago pretty quickly. It might even make pro golf interesting to watch again. Oh and if they do, I'm putting a lot of money on Tiger breaking Jack's record.
-
Champ is an outlier today and will be the norm tomorrow.
I'm on record as doubting it.
If the distance today is all or even mostly technique and athleticism
I've specifically said I don't think it's "all or even mostly technique and athleticism." It's a combination of a lot of things.
then let's go back to persimmon and Tour Balatas
Good luck with that.
because they'll all still bomb it like they do with a SIM driver and a ProV1x. Happy to have a few bottles of good red that we'd see driving distance back to where it was 20 years ago pretty quickly.
FWIW that's only the year 2000. Maybe that's what you meant, maybe you meant about 1990…?
-
Update from global golf post including comments from the PGA tour:
http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/global_golf_post/20200210/nugent_col.html (http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/global_golf_post/20200210/nugent_col.html)
-
From the mouth of babes, as they say -- or in this case, from one of the very best golfers in the world, who also happens to be a smart & thoughtful young fellow: Rory McIlroy
“The people that are giving the architects the money to build these golf courses have this grand ambition of maybe having a Tour event one day,” McIlroy said. “Building these golf courses on these massive pieces of land means having to use so much water, so much fertilizer, pesticides, all the stuff that we really shouldn’t be doing nowadays, especially in the climate we live in and everything that’s happening in our world.
“You look at what happened in Australia, you look at what happens in this state every August, September, October time with fires and global warming — I think golf has a responsibility to minimize its footprint as much as it possibly can. For me, I think the sustainability aspect of what they’re trying to do is very important and that’s the one thing I would definitely stand behind.”
-
Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb
-
Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb
Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades? Tying this into the Book Club thread on Hunter, he noted that advances in technology were hurting the game in the 1920s. While the distances Nicklaus hit it seem quaint by today's standards, they surely would have been shocking to Hunter. I know and agree with all of the data that the slope of the growth has increased in the last 20 years, but I'm wondering if Nicklaus and company would have been thought of charitably by Hunter and other golden age designers if they had different views on how far the ball should go.
Many people think the best era of the game was from the 1950s until the Pro V1. I know Mike Clayton has expressed this sentiment that it was the era when courses and players were most evenly matched. Before then, courses were too hard and after, courses too easy.
-
One of the best lines in Alister MacKenzie's book is,
It has often been suggested that an uninteresting hole might be improved by lengthening it, but it would be a safe axiom to adopt, "It will only be made worse and take longer to play. Shorten it and get it over."
Sadly, few clubs will even consider the idea of "taking points off the board" and shortening a hole in an attempt to add life to it.
-
One of the best lines in Alister MacKenzie's book is,
It has often been suggested that an uninteresting hole might be improved by lengthening it, but it would be a safe axiom to adopt, "It will only be made worse and take longer to play. Shorten it and get it over."
Sadly, few clubs will even consider the idea of "taking points off the board" and shortening a hole in an attempt to add life to it.
I’ve played numerous holes on occasions from ‘the ladies tees’ over the years that have been much better holes than when played further back. I’m sure you have too.
Indeed, a game I play with some friends on regular away trips to links courses is if there’s a decent strength of wind blowing to play from the white/yellow tees downwind and play off the yellows/reds into the wind.
Atb
-
Joe, I have discussed this issue a number of times over the years. Sports evolve over time. American football invented the forward pass in response to Teddy Roosevelt's threat to outlaw it because of deaths arising out of the flying wedge. Basketball widened the lane and created a rule against goaltending. Baseball livened the ball and outlawed various trick pitches including the spitter. But at some point, games become "mature" and further tampering leads to disadvantages. Baseball's 90 foot distances between bases seems just about right and the continued use of wooden bats appears to have worked. The question is, when is (or was) golf "mature" so that changes in equipment alter the basic challenge of the game. Layered on to this question are the various issues regarding land use, chemical use, water use etc., all of which suggest erring toward equipment that requires less rather than more. But for those suggesting that the game was at its best after heel toe weighting but before the Pro V type of ball construction, perhaps a different way of saying it is to suggest that the game was mature; the balance of challenges seemed about right and that further changes did not improve the game. Surely baseball could have changed balls and bats but at the professional levels, those in control decided that the game "worked" so they resisted further change. Perhaps they were able to do so because manufacturers had less influence or because fewer adults continued to play the game. Other sports continue to tinker in material ways but that may be due to the nature of the games in which they tamper with rules and not equipment such as basketball. A fair argument can be made that advances in tennis rackets have materially altered the game; far less serve and volley today than when I was playing and its because the new rackets permit harder hitting with greater spin on groundstrokes than with wooden rackets or even the early generations of metal or composite ones. So the issue is not whether golf equipment should have evolved. Rather, one should ask is there a time when it makes sense to stop or even roll back the evolution. The answer depends in part whether one thinks the interaction between classic courses and top level players is important.
-
Kalen: https://datagolf.org/importance-of-driving-distance/ (https://datagolf.org/importance-of-driving-distance/)
1. The raw correlation between a golfer’s average driving distance and their total strokes-gained has increased slightly since 1984. Conversely, the raw correlation between driving accuracy and total strokes-gained has steadily declined since 1984; this decline has flattened out since 2004. This is consistent with work done by Jake Nichols (https://www.golf.com/golf-plus/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-tour-anymore). Overall, it's fairly striking how little the raw correlation between distance and performance has changed since 1984.
In other words, the correlation between driving distance has only slightly increased since 1984 (but it has increased, slightly), and they call it "striking" how slight that increase is.
5. So, what is our answer to the question we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration.
In other words, the relative importance of driving distance and driving accuracy is almost the same as it was in 1984. It trended down for awhile, then trended back up, but overall has remained relatively flat.
This does not support the idea that driving distance has grown significantly in its importance since the 80s.
-
The USGA and R&A will always be behind the manufacturers. Distance is only likely to increase from time to time.
The manufacturers make golf balls and equipment to standards set by USGA/R&A who might be former top researchers but are not now in charge of selling anything.
Manufacturers make stuff to sell. USGA and R&A don't make anything.
Manufacturers experiment, fail, experiment, fail, experiment, and succeed.
USGA and R&A get a second cup of coffee at 9 am and talk about how far their teenage son can hit it.
Whatever bar or standard is set, it needs to be periodically adjusted in the case of the sport of golf.
Now seems like a good time.
-
SL_Solow, thanks for that response. Thinking about when different games reached maturity and attempted to maintain that level of maturity is an instructive way to think about it. I'm in agreement that the game seems out of wack at the pro level from a technology and resource perspective. As someone who fell in love with the game right as the Pro V came along, I'm just skeptical of people saying the game was best back when I learned it. In some cases these people are right, but why not go back to your father or grandfather's game? No one ever advocates for that.
For golf, maybe the game had not reached suitable maturity by then. That seems reasonable to me, but I wonder if Hunter would agree. He was lamenting the technology in the 1920s. I imagine millenials have a better opinion of the current ball because they grew up with it. We are all shaped by our adolescence and often hold onto that as the benchmark.
-
Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb
Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?
Nicklaus raised the issue in the early 80's as I recall. He was not alone.
The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?). The game has exploded in popularity over that time.
My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues) can be mitigated through an equipment rollback.
I also think that in thinking about these issues we should assume that if all equipment remains the same, driving distance will increase nearly a yard per year at the professional level due to the pressures of competition.
-
Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb
Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?
The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?). The game has exploded in popularity over that time.
My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues) can be mitigated through an equipment rollback.
I agree with that. If now is the time to stop technology, a reason other than "the game was perfect 30 years ago" needs to be offered because people have been saying that for 120 years. Environmental issues and the things you mentioned seem perfectly reasonable reason to me.
-
Jason,
The evolution of golf balls in the early days made the game better because it made it cheaper so now everybody could play. The Pro V 1 era has only made it an expensive arms race. If you’re competitive, it’s hard not to play with the same $4 ball everyone else is using. Sadly the answer to: How has the Pro V 1 made the game of golf better, is that it has made Titleist a fortune and given them a market share which they are unlikely to abandon without a fight!
-
Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb
Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?
The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?). The game has exploded in popularity over that time.
My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues) can be mitigated through an equipment rollback.
I agree with that. If now is the time to stop technology, a reason other than "the game was perfect 30 years ago" needs to be offered because people have been saying that for 120 years. Environmental issues and the things you mentioned seem perfectly reasonable reason to me.
It's worth noting that when Jack Nicklaus was speaking in 1980 about the distance the ball was going, and good on him for doing so then and still, the population of the world was approx 4.5 billion.
The worlds population is now about 7.7 billion. A lot more mouths to feed and water and house these days, which makes Rory's other comments (see below) even more praiseworthy.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQ_vFtUXUAMa2cH?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Here is the response to the USGA/R&A distance report by the CEO/President of Acushnet, Titleists parent company - https://www.titleist.com/distance-insights-perspective (https://www.titleist.com/distance-insights-perspective)
Given the wording I’m not sure I’ll be reaching into my wallet to buy any of their products in future.
Atb
-
How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...
I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.
-
Jim - you're right, and I understand how you can be stunned by the underlying assumptions.
But:
While I'm not one to usually make any case based on "human nature", here's a possible analogy:
It's our responsibility to drive safely and smartly, taking good care of both ourselves and the others sharing the same roadways by staying at the speed limit and factoring in road/weather conditions.
But "human nature" seems to be that, if the speed limit is 60, but there are no cops around and we're in a bit of a rush (with whatever self-important project we have on the go), we'll push it up to 70; and, if everybody else is going 70, and there's a car in the passing lane travelling at just barely that, we might speed up to 75 or 80 to pass them.
And if someone is young and ego-bound and full of (misplaced) competitive fire, he might gun his fancy new BMW up to 85 -- confident that he can get away with it and confident too that, if he get's pulled over, he can "afford" the ensuing traffic ticket.
In the meantime, he gets to "impress" his date and show off to the poor sap driving an 1985 Honda Accord.
At some point, aren't you glad that there is a 'governing body' and cops and the weight of public opinion so that, at the very least, the official speed limit stays at 60?
Without it -- and though we are all supposed to be 'responsible' for our own actions -- that idiot in the BMW might take it to 90, and a whole bunch of other idiots trying to impress their dates would say 'well, if he is going 90 I can too, and maybe a little more'.
P
-
How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...
I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
"Clubs" don't alter their golf courses so much as a few guys in a position to do so. When those with their own agenda are allowed free reign, bad things frequently happen.
But I agree that none of this would happen if the "good men" spoke up.
-
Jim - you're right, and I understand how you can be stunned by the underlying assumptions.
But:
While I'm not one to usually make any case based on "human nature", here's a possible analogy:
It's our responsibility to drive safely and smartly, taking good care of both ourselves and the others sharing the same roadways by staying at the speed limit and factoring in road/weather conditions.
But "human nature" seems to be that, if the speed limit is 60, but there are no cops around and we're in a bit of a rush (with whatever self-important project we have on the go), we'll push it up to 70; and, if everybody else is going 70, and there's a car in the passing lane travelling at just barely that, we might speed up to 75 or 80 to pass them.
And if someone is young and ego-bound and full of (misplaced) competitive fire, he might gun his fancy new BMW up to 85 -- confident that he can get away with it and confident too that, if he get's pulled over, he can "afford" the ensuing traffic ticket.
In the meantime, he gets to "impress" his date and show off to the poor sap driving an 1985 Honda Accord.
At some point, aren't you glad that there is a 'governing body' and cops and the weight of public opinion so that, at the very least, the official speed limit stays at 60?
Without it -- and though we are all supposed to be 'responsible' for our own actions -- that idiot in the BMW might take it to 90, and a whole bunch of other idiots trying to impress their dates would say 'well, if he is going 90 I can too, and maybe a little more'.
P
[/quote
The idiots still go 90.
The idiot owners/operators of many courses still lengthen courses in response to what they see on television it seems as well. :)
-
How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...
I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.
I guess that courses add this length because they see higher revenue when they do so. A disproportionate number of courses that have closed over the last 10 years have been shorter budget courses. My old club at 6600 yards did not attract top level players in part because they wanted a bigger course to prepare for events. Even par was good enough to make it through US Am qualifying in the post Pro-V1 era.
-
Let’s say they take 10% off across the board...who will be the first to regain that 10%? The Tour guys? Or you and I...
-
So I typed that as I was flying down the highway at 80 something MPH...not being intentionally pithy although it comes natural as Peter likes to point out.
Ha
To me, the roll back will be great. Won't change my interaction with or enjoyment of the game at all. At least I don't see how it could as hitting distance has never really been top of my mind as an attraction.
My concern is that a great deal of time, energy and political capital will have been used to what end. Will this force any clubs to now revert back to their smaller foot print? Will anyone turn off the water now that the ball doesn't go so far? Will a single new potential player pick up the game as a result? No across the board in every instance.
You might say the trend will at least back up some if the top guys are pulled back 10%. Ok. I would agree that's both likely and good...but only if you then agree that it's back to the people operating these courses to decide their benchmark is the people that actually play their course as opposed to those that might come and play it.
Also...Peter, the safety analogy is often used but kind of misses the reality of talking about golf course length, don't you think? As a golf course owner determined to present a good course at it's 1990 length and work hard on it's condition and the playing experience, the guy going 90MPH has nothing to do with me. We're on completely different roads...
-
Jason Topp, I simply believe there are factors much beyond length and challenge to top players dictating the viability of a course/club. There are too many examples of bad courses doing great and good courses suffering.
-
Jason Topp, I simply believe there are factors much beyond length and challenge to top players dictating the viability of a course/club. There are too many examples of bad courses doing great and good courses suffering.
Sorry Jim - I was not monitoring posts. I will try and react to your main points:
1. Who loses the most distance -
I suspect the average player will not lose as much as the good player because much of the reason the average player hits it shorter has nothing to do with equipment, but rather inefficient impact characteristics - (too much spin, poor club path, poor strike). I assume a slower swinger who makes good impact will lose the same 10% as the good player who makes good impact. There are a bunch of variables that could impact that effect a little bit but I think any such effect will be so minor so as to not matter. (I consider myself lightly informed on this topic - so I could be wrong.).
2. Who would regain it -
The best players will be the most effective in extracting additional distance but I do not think it is likely that the advantage a better player enjoys will be affected all that significantly. (I do not really buy the rollback arguments based on "de-skilling" the game. I think skill wins ultimately regardless of equipment rules).
3. Is it worth engaging in the fight given all of the outcry from players, lawsuits from manufacturers, etc?
I think it might be worth the fight. I have listed the benefits I envision (environmental impact, cost, time to play the game, able to play the Open from tees actually located on the Old Course). My guess is that there would be a huge outcry for a period of time and then people would adjust. Remember how much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the flagstick a year ago? I hardly hear anyone talk about it now other than the annoying playing partner that wants the flagstick in or out when the rest of the group wants the opposite.
4. Factors beyond length and challenge:
Without a doubt, factors beyond length impact course survival but I do think length commands a premium price in the marketplace. That is based on intuition rather than any specific study. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that a consultant would advise against a new course being built to 6300 yards, even though that is plenty of length for 85% of players. It will be interesting to see how Doak's course at Sand Valley changes that conversation, if at all.