Merion 1971 vs. Merion 2013

[Wayne_Kozun]

I'd say the quality of the balls and clubs is the biggest single factor in distance gains, but good players are no doubt stronger and have better technique than ever before, and that multiplies the effect of modern equipment.

The other thing is that the matching of swings to clubs to balls is far better than in the past due to technology like Trackman, and we have more options for shafts.  Anybody who wants to spend a few hundred dollars can go to one of these golf labs and buy distance which wasn't available to them a decade or two ago.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Are we certain that these driving distances have the players always hitting driver?

No but that could have been the case with the old data as well as the current data so the error, if there is one, could be in either direction.  I believe that the PGA Tour generally measures drving distance on holes where players are prone to hit drivers - usually on par 5s.

[Brent Hutto]

Wayne's correct. Since the "Driving Distance-All Holes" stats became available in 2003 the 100th-longest stat has been remarkably consistent: 277, 279, 281, 280, 281, 280, 279, 281, 281, 282 for 2003-2012 with 279 so far in 2013. The top spot for longest hitter varies a bit more but still over a small range: 302, 298, 303, 305, 302, 303, 301, 300, 306, 309 and then 296 so far this year.

Hard to see much of a trend at all. On Tour the driving distant has been on a plateau for at least a decade. Extrapolate that forward another decade if you wish...

Are we certain that these driving distances have the players always hitting driver?

We are virtually certain that some of those holes are not driver. They are simply the distances that all players in Tour events hit their tee shots on all non-Par-3 hole with whatever club they choose.

But in a very real meaning of the term, those answer "How far are Tour players driving the ball?" for a particular year. The answer, over the span 2003-2013 seems to be "About the same from year to year". Now maybe in 2013 they're all hitting 4-iron 280 yards while in 2003 they were all hitting drivers but I doubt it...

[Brent Hutto]

Wayne,

I did not use the old-crap-stats-compatible "driving distance" but rather than only-available-since-2003 "driving distance-all drives".

[ChipOat]

Jim Sullivan:

From where Mickelson hit his second shot in the third round (basically, the edge of the quarry and well behind the Hogan plaque), if anyone plays it for all carry as he did, it is slightly uphill to the middle of the green - maybe 10 feet, or so.  Not so much as #'s 7,12,14,15 or 16 - more like #3 from the Open tee box.  Whether it's 5 feet or 10 feet, Phil hit one hell of a fairway metal on that one!  Too good, in fact.

[Jim Nugent]

They are simply the distances that all players in Tour events hit their tee shots on all non-Par-3 hole with whatever club they choose.

Close, but I think not quite right. 

I looked the stat up, and divided number of drives by rounds played.  The leader, Bubba Watson, has played 46 rounds.  They have distances for 493 of his drives.  493 divided by 46 = 10.72. 

Performing the same exercise with other players yields similar results, with some averaging under 10 drives per round, some averaging slightly more.  i.e. they are missing a few drives per round. 

The PGA Tour, in describing this stat, does not say it's measuring all drives.  It says the stat represents, "The average number of yards per drive for all drives where the distance was measured by a laser."

Still, since they are capturing most drives, seems likely the stat gives a pretty accurate measure of driving distance.  Curious to know which drives they don't measure and why. 

One variable the stat does not take into account is course setup.  If the landing areas are more narrow, or the penalties for missing greater, we can't perfectly compare the years.  Don't know if that's the case. 

That may be one reason they still use the old "two drives per round" stat.  They can pick holes that are more open, where the players don't have to hold back on their drives. 

 

[Brent Hutto]

Pretty sure they do not get laser measurements at the Masters or the US Open. Perhaps certain other events. Or it's always possible to miss a hole here or there due to equipment problems, etc.

[DMoriarty]

I understand that the stats from the last ten years are more complete, but it is very misleading to not start charting the distance changes until 2003.   This was after the Pro V1 and Pro V1x.   Go back to the mid 1990's and the numbers for the 100th longest hitter are much different.  For 1995, 1996, and 1997, the numbers are 262, 265.3,  266.9.

I think it funny how all the big jumps in "player fitness" seem to correspond with equipment changes.  Everyone must have all caught the fitness bug just in time for the ProV1 and ProV1x, and they haven't done much exercise since.  Lazy I guess.

[Brent Hutto]

No, of course not. The big, huge, amazing, not to be underestimated change was from lower-performing wound Balata balls to higher-performing multilayer Urethane balls. Nobody is questioning the fact that the current balls are higher performing. It happened almost overnight in historical terms, less than a decade from nobody on Tour using them to everyone on Tour using them. And as a result people on Tour hit the ball farther now than in the 80's and 90's.

By comparison the increase in human ability to swing a golfclub has been slow and gradual. But it's an increase none the less. All I've tried to point out on this thread is the simple fact that players today can and do generate substantially higher clubhead speeds than players 50 years ago.

But the idea to "look at the trend and in so-and-so-years they'll be hitting it 600 yards" is idiotic. You can't extrapolate a near step function increase. If the USGA were to let a ball enter play that's as far beyond the ProV1 as the ProV1 was beyond the Titleist Tour Balata then there will be a concomitant increase in distance. And if they don't allow such a ball into the game, then the effect of the ball on distance will continue to be a relatively constant factor...

...as it has apparently been for the past 10 years or so.

People will keep getting stronger and improving their technique. But that is an incremental change, not a sudden jump of 20, 30, 40 yards in driving distance. If you don't want another sudden jump, don't allow a suddenly better ball to be adopted (should such be invented).

[DMoriarty]

But part of the increase in swing speed is also a byproduct of the equipment.   Lower spin balls, larger club heads, different shaft and club head materials . . . all  increase the margin of error and allow for the golfers to swing with a bit more recklessness.  

And more importantly, the increased skill and speed don't even come close to explaining what has happened with the game.  That is mostly all the equipment.   And fixing the equipment would go a long ways toward fixing the game.

[Brent Hutto]

OK, fine.

But players today produce far more power and clubhead speed than players 50 years ago. Even with a wedge they produce 10, 20, 30, 40mph more clubhead speed than a player of Ben Hogan's day.

If by "fixing the game" you mean "making players play with lower performance, less forgiving, harder to hit clubs and a ball that flies less far and gets lumpy after being hit hard a few times" then yes you could "fix the game" by legislating lower performance, less forgiving, harder to hit clubs and ball that flies less far and gets lumpy after being hit hard a few times".

For any other meaning of "fixing the game" it's an open question. The game would change but it would not change back to the game as playing 30+ years ago nor would it necessarily change into a game exactly as you might envision. Unintended consequences have a way of biting the best-intended legislation in the ass.

[DMoriarty]

By "fixing the game"  I don't mean any of the stuff you mentioned, but nice straw man.

If you acknowledge the big change is the result of equipment then I don't understand why you keep going back to the fitness issue.  The fitness is a small factor in comparison.   People will continue to get stronger and more skilled but the incremental increase doesn't move the meter like technology has.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Then exactly what do you mean by "fixing the game?"

[DMoriarty]

In the past I've set out in detail what I think could be done, and I don't want to further bore people here.    But it could be done in a manner that would have little or no impact on slower swing speed, higher handicap golfers.   And it could be done without bifurcation.  

[Brent Hutto]

David wants the same as USGA. A bunch of piddly changes that through the magic of good intentions will magically produce big changes in how the game is played at the elite level. We see how effective that was with the making everyone buy new wedges.

If distance itself is the main problem, roll the ball back. Or don't. I'm fine either way. But other than the ball, all the other stuff are small potatoes. Like the increase in golfer strength and fitness, effects are minor but over time they add up. The game can not be returned to some wished-for golden age by twiddling around the margins of ball and equipment specs.

[DMoriarty]

David wants the same as USGA. A bunch of piddly changes that through the magic of good intentions will magically produce big changes in how the game is played at the elite level. We see how effective that was with the making everyone buy new wedges.

Brent,  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  

I don't want the same as the USGA.  The USGA has screwed this whole thing up royally and they don't even seem to have a grasp on the real problems with the ball.  The changes have been been an absolute joke.   And I don't want "a bunch of piddly changes . . . "  I want major changes that would drastically impact the way the game is played at the elite level.  I just don't see this necessarily changing too much about the game played by high handicappers.

[Pat Burke]

A while back, I was speaking at a club event.  Part of the talk was going to be
on the distance issue.  I found some world record numbers I was going to use.The numbers are 1970 (or the closest year I could find), and last year in the fall/early winter.  This was far from a scientific research, but just informational.

 Javelin           92.70              104.8
100 meters        9.95                 9.58
100 freestyle   51.94         46.91
500 meter-
Speedskating     38.46                 34.03
High jump          2.29 m         2.45 m
Long jump     8.9 m         8.95 m  (Beamon amazing)

Some other info.
My current Driver, in addition to the enormity of the clubhead,
is 45 1/2 inches.  It has a 60g shaft, and 10.75 degrees loft.  Swingweight is D-6

My driver from 1996 (Warbird) is 43 1/2 inches.  8 degrees loft, 70 gram shaft, D-4
My Driver from 1990 (rookie year) is 43 inches.  About 9 degrees loft (2 degrees OPEN!), D-4 with a Dynamic X Steel shaft

In 1990, I played the Titleist , in 1996 Maxfli HT, and now a ProV1x

I can still hit my MacGregor pretty solid from 1990.  Tough to get the ProV1x very high, but still pretty good. I hit it about 245 (carry)
I hit the warbird about 255.  The current Callaway carries about 268.

Surprisingly, I hit some Maxfli Ht's that I still have, within 5 or 6 yards of the Prov1 with my current Callaway!  Given how old the Maxfli was,
it just confirmed to me, how good that HT was!

[Ville Nurmi]

Javelin is not comparable from 1970 to 2013. They changed the javelin in 1986, because it was flying too far. Also the flight was such that it could jump when it landed. They regulated the javelins to become more top heavy to make the flight more stable and to land more towards the nose.
Still the record has come from 85,74 to 98,48 meters. But since 1996 is has been unchanged. I guess the javelin throwers are lazy and donīt practise anymore.

Best regards from javelin trhrowing Finland!

[Jim Nugent]

As in golf, there's a lot technology behind speed skating records.  The clap skate, body suits, indoor venues and the ice itself all are reasons today's skaters go so much faster than previous ones. 

100 meters track & field: feather-weight shoes and hi-tech tracks help today's sprinters.  Plus probably hi-tech PEDs. 

Also, there's been no improvement in many events for decades.  High jump: record set in 1993.  Long jump:  1991.  Pole vault:  1994.  400 meter hurdles:  1992.  Discus:  1986.  Shot:  1990. 

Ville shares the surname of one of the most famous of all Finnish athletes. 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK, fine.

But players today produce far more power and clubhead speed than players 50 years ago. Even with a wedge they produce 10, 20, 30, 40mph more clubhead speed than a player of Ben Hogan's day.

Brent,

I'm not so sure that that isn't primarily equipment related.
Give Sam Snead today's equipment, as a youth starting out, and I'd venture to say that his swing speeds would be the equal of any.

The other component in that equation is the golf swing itself.
When you anchor your right elbow to your body, you restrict your arc, ergo, your swing speed.
Nicklaus, had the "flying" right elbow.  Today, almost everyone disconnects the elbow from the body in order to increase their arc.

Put another way, let me give today's golfers a 43 inch persimmon driver, D-6 and let's see what swing speeds they can get up to.

Hitting a driver with a tennis racket sized head doesn't take that much skill.
Over the weekend, I saw 8 handicap local golfers driving the ball close to 300 yards.

If by "fixing the game" you mean "making players play with lower performance, less forgiving, harder to hit clubs and a ball that flies less far and gets lumpy after being hit hard a few times" then yes you could "fix the game" by legislating lower performance, less forgiving, harder to hit clubs and ball that flies less far and gets lumpy after being hit hard a few times".

What's wrong with that.
The best players in the world played like that for decades and no one complained.

For any other meaning of "fixing the game" it's an open question. The game would change but it would not change back to the game as playing 30+ years ago nor would it necessarily change into a game exactly as you might envision. Unintended consequences have a way of biting the best-intended legislation in the ass.

Is that why they "unjuiced" the baseball ?
Did that have a harmful effect ?

How about going back to wooden bats ?

The problem that you don't see is:  Where will it end ?  When will high-tech render 600 yard par 4's obsolete ?
500 yard par 4's are already obsolete.

[Ville Nurmi]

Jim,
not a relative.
But it would have been nice if we Finns would have gotten into golf and not athletes.
Ville