Is the damage from increased driving distance done?

[Jason Topp]

I believe that the changes in rules implemented by the USGA have effectively stopped implement based increases in driving distances.  By any measure, driving distances have remained essentially level since 2002.

These efforts have had some interesting impacts:

1.  Equipment prices are falling. 

I think that falling prices are not due to the economy (remember the economy was in the tank in 2002-2003 and prices were very high).  Instead, I believe falling prices are due to the inability of manufacturers to develop equipment that gives players a performance edge similar to what occured with titanium drivers and ProV1 golf balls.  My driver is 5 years old.  Nearly every year, I have gotten on launch monitors to determine whether a new driver will give me any added benefit in terms of distance and or accuracy and the answer is consistently no.  You can buy my driver for less than $100 used.  Similarly - differences in performance between golf balls has shrinked significantly - allowing for competition to be based on price and marketing rather than quality.

2.  The damage to golf courses is largely done:

I think it has taken a while for golf courses to add sufficient length to account for driving distances but I believe that those changes have largely been implemented and we will see fewer of them in the future.  In fact, in the case of Augusta, you are seeing some hints of changes being reversed a bit.


Is it time to stop worrying about increased driving distances and simply adapt?

Is there any chance that the USGA efforts will be sufficient to prevent big jumps in the future, thereby eliminating the need to leave room for additional lengthening of courses when designing new ones?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jason,

It was time to stop worrying and adapt a while ago.  It's too bad that Titleist is still trumpeting that the new Pro V1x will go further or that Phil is saying that he's getting an extra ten yards out of whatever.  It's also too bad that many people still believe the marketing hype.  In reality for the last couple of years the focus has been on MOI and accuracy and forgiveness, not distance.

Can the USGA prevent a future jump in distance?  Hard to say.  You'd think with the COR, length, head size, initial velocity, etc rules that it'd be pretty hard to get another jump, but never say never.  If there is a breakthrough it'd have to be higher COR ball materials (although the velocity test should catch that) or more likely in materials or dimpling that reduces the drag on the ball, so more distance for the same initial ball velocity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Don't forget shaft technology and the coating of the ball, two areas where increased distance could surface.

[Rob Rigg]

I think manufacturers will focus on maximizing MOI in a more aesthetically traditional format because club technology has been pushed so far.

They also seem to be more focused on the sound of the clubface than ever before because that technology is maxed out.

I would agree with Patrick - there is still more to be done on shaft technology.

I also think that "custom club fitting" has not been fully utilized by the golfing public although some manufacturers may be hesitant to pound the table too much on that one because it is a money loser for them and they will only want to have it in high volume retail stores/clubs.

The right face/shaft/loft/flex/etc. combination can really help increased distance and accuracy.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Sure, maybe there'll be a new cover layer or treatment that will reduce drag, but I think that the dimpling will have a more profound effect.  As to shafts, I don't think that there is distance gains to be achieved there.  Perhaps featherweight shafts with carbon nanotubes might get a mile or two per hour out of a swing, but I doubt that that would cause a jump comparable to what was seen in 2000.

Rob,

Custom club fitting has already been optimized for the pro's and those ams who wanted to pay for it.  Customization for the masses isn't worth worrying about in Jason's context.  TM's R9 is another attempt by a manufacturer to allow the masses to self optimize some of the factors.  Given that most people who buy them would have no clue how to optimize the club for themselves, I doubt they will make much difference.

[Rob Rigg]

Are we talking about pros or the masses?

You look at Holmes driving it 70 yards past Dimarco and you have to wonder where the long driving standard will stop.

If you are talking about average joe, then I think he/she will be able to squeak out a few more yards with improvements in technology (ie - swing speed specific golf balls) and custom fitting - but at the end of the day, the average golfers handicap hasnt moved in many many years.

Distance is a factor in scoring, but the ability to be consistent and hit the fairway is paramount. That is where most golfers come up short, whether a course is 6500 yards or 7000 yards.