8,000 Yards

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Vegis,

I can related to your comments. 150 yards used to be a 9 iron for me as well. Now I struggle hitting an 8 iron that far.

Clearly, the length of my short irons have been effected by aging far than the driver or fairway woods.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug - of course you are quite right that there are non-pros with clubhead speeds over 100mph.  I don't have the stats but I bet it's just a few percent of non-pro players - something you don't base a golf course design on.  Do you know that of the 27 million US golfers only 1 in 10 can break 90?  JC

Saying there are 27 million US golfers is kind of ridiculous -- how many of them play 3-4 times a year in corporate outings and on the 4th of July with family?  I don't know that there are any accurate stats for golfers who play more than say 20 times a year but I'm sure the number is far lower, which is why when I said 5-10% I deliberately said "avid golfers".   The people who are hitting the ball too far probably play 5-10% of all rounds played because they are generally avid golfers.  Architects don't design courses for the 3-4 times a year set anyway, other than perhaps making sure the cartpaths don't have curves that are too sharp lest those "golfers" spill their beer

For all of you who are hitting it so far these days, get your lasers out and check the yardage of the hole.  I was telling our head course rater how I hit an 8-iron into a par 5 the other day and he told me that he actual yardage of the hole I was playing was about 35 yards less than what it said on the card.  Turns out a lot of clubs are measuring from the back of the tee to the back of the green in the search for scorecard yardage.

That may be true in some cases, but on this hole the tees were only a few yards from the as far back as they'll go (they probably didn't measure from the men's room behind the tee)   This is far from the only example, just a recent one.  I can notice it as well on holes that haven't changed in 20 years, and I hit clubs to them nowadays I didn't even dream about as a wildly overswinging teenager.  There's no way I have more clubhead speed now than I did then, the equipment is just giving me more for less effort these days.

And anyway, even if you could prove all the courses I play are inaccurately measured, there are plenty of others in GCA and elsewhere seeing the same thing.  Are you suggesting it is all a collective delusion caused by a conspiracy of scorecard printers, Bushnell and Titleist and this is really only an issue for the pros?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Doug - the 27 million is a stat from the National Golf Foundation.  To be considered a "golfer" in their stat you have to have played X times in a year (I honestly don't remember the number - it may be as few as 4-5 times).  Of those 27 million, I seem to remember 11 million defined as "avid" golfers - playing 25 or more times a year.  The stats can be found through their website although some you have to get through subscriptions.  JC

[Jim_H]

When steel shafts came in, the consensus was that they would wreck the old hickory game.  And I assume the same was true when the featherie ball was replaced with a hard ball.  But golf has survived--and prospered.
I think that a large part of the claims of more distance are hype--longer shafts equal more distance, not necessarily a better shot; stronger lofts on irons makes the player feel better, but it is bogus; Ernie Els with a driver one inch longer than before, and playing on fast courses those two weeks, is said to have found 40 yards, but now his average is back to normal; etc.
But even conceeding that there has been a major change in distance due to technology, I'm not sure I find that to be so terrible.  But are the number of rounds played in serious competition--pro and amateur--compared to those played in recreational play?  I'm sure quite small.  And the technology does not seem to have changed the recreational game that much--at least not for the worse.  And certainly not as much as steel and hard balls did many years ago.
I hate to see us turn the game upside down (and I would consider a tournament ball to be such) because a few better conditioned athletes, playing on better conditioned courses, with better instruction, and, yes, with somewhat better equipment, are hitting the ball farther--and scoring a smidge lower--in the few competitive rounds played in this country.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I would love to find out what the overall average club handicap (men, women and kids all averaged together) for, say, Merion was for the past 60 years.  My sense and guess is that the year-to-year handicap has not changed.

JC

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

I can't answer your question in the way you mentioned, but if memory serves me -- I believe the average man's handicap (I"m referencing "core" golfers who play 25+ rounds per year) is 18 and the woman's is about 32.

In the last 25-30 years or so I also believe the average handicap level has improved less than two strokes in that time. Clearly, despite all the "high tech" gains the benefits have accrued to those at the highest level who can maximize what the equipment provides through their consistent ball striking prowess.

[Doug Siebert]

Do the distance gains have to result in lower scores for them to matter to people?  Why does this matter?  If we tossed out the ODS limit on golf balls, let's say we could gain 30% distance across the board.  How much do think this would lower the average handicap?  I'd submit it would not change it at all, or even increase!  Better players (single digit and below) could take some advantage of 400 yard drives and 220 yard 8 irons, but they are only hitting 30-35 full shots a round, most of their strokes aren't helped by greater distance.  Maybe you'd see an improvement of a couple strokes a round in this group.

Then you add in the vast majority of 10+ handicap, and especially the 20+ handicap, where 30% more distance would translate into 30% bigger slices.  Just one extra stroke and distance penalty a round from these guys more than makes up for the single digit guys improving by a couple strokes.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Great then!  Architects need not strive for longer courses because the current lengthed courses provide adequate resistance to scoring for all but the very few.  JC

[Ron Kern]

Repeating myself from another thread:

Talking this week with a teaching pro that works with several tour players - he related the fact that club fitting has become more  than just a simple technical science.  The combination of shaft, head, swingweight, etc. and sophisticated swing analysis and the subsequent swing adjustments thereby gaining the optimum launch angle in combination with the new balls (esp Titleist) is providing tremendous gains in distance.  One of his "students" has gained nearly 30 yards the last two years.  Each manufacturer understands exactly what the combination is for the player to maximize the potential of their products and work very hard for their players to gain that advantage.

This is not going to change.

As professional golfers continue to widen the gap between the game that they play and the game that we play, I wonder how that will affect the "health of the game" from a purely business point of view (because it really doesn't affect me at all as I can count on two hand the number of annual professional tournaments that interest me anymore - e.g. The Open, US Open, Masters, Harbour Town, Pebble Beach Pro Am, LA Open, Doral, PGA, the women's US Open and that's about it).

[Mike_Cirba]

Could the fact that the "average handicap" has not changed much over the past 20 years be partially due to the fact that the game has grown quite a bit, particularly during the last 10-15 years, and the subsequent number of "new" players in the game?

Could the fact that the "average handicap" has not changed much over the past 20 years be partially due to the fact that those golfers who aren't "new" are now 20 years older?

When looking at the results of statistical comparisons, its important that at least one variable remains "static" before drawing conclusions.  In this example, there is no such "control group" to make for valid comparisons and resulting conclusions.  

[Jerry Kluger]

Here is the wager: Is anyone willing to taken the other side of this bet.   I will take a touring pro and give him a current model  Taylormade  or Titleist driver, with a quality graphite shaft and a Titleist Pro V1 ball have him hit 20 drives and take the average of those drives, and then you have him hit 20 drives with a persimmon driver with a steel shaft and a Titleist wound ball and take the average of those drives.  Does anyone seriously believe that this is an even playing field and that there is any chance that the second group will come anywhere near the first group?  Come on guys let's get real, there is not chance a that the second group will come within 25 yards of the first and I would not be surprised if the difference was more than 40 yards.  Of course the difference would not be nearly as great for an amateur with a slower clubhead speed but there still would be a difference.  I think golf would be far more enjoyable to watch if there was a greater resistance to scoring and the easiest way to do this is to change the equipment and the ball.    

[Jim_H]

Jerry K--
It might be more fun to watch--but would it be more fun to play?  Isn't that the real question?
And while you're at it, why don't you have another group with hickory shafts and the gutta percha ball?  

[Jerry Kluger]

The issue which I am addressing is whether the great golf courses are going to become obsolete as venues for professional golf tournaments due to the advances in equipment.  I think that the equipment advances clearly make the game more enjoyable for the non-professional but that does not address the concerns of those of us who feel that the classical courses make great venues.  Tour players have increased their distances by 10% or more within the last few years which dramatically effects their ability to post lower scores.  

The other point is that some people were claiming that the distance increases were due to the ability of the players rather than the equipment including the drivers and the balls, and I say that is hogwash.  There is no one out there who would be willing to take my proposed wager and that is because despite all of their claims the fact remains that the same golfers are hitting the ball alot farther.  Now I agree that Tiger is a better conditioned athlete than anyone before him except for perhaps Gary Player, but look at the difference in yardages that Ernie Els has picked up within the last few years, and the pros themselves would not hesitate to admit that they are hitting it alot farther.  Mark Calcaveccia and Fred Couples were always known as long hitters but the distances they were hitting it a couple of weeks ago were substantially farther than they were hitting it five years ago.  

How many of the great courses could host a professional tournament and see a reasonable winning score of say 10 under par; I would say not many.  Even a course which is 7300 yards can be easy pickings when a 460 par 4 is a driver and an 8 or a 9 iron or even a pitching wedge.  I played Somerset Hills this past weekend and it is a wonderful course but Vijay came in the first time he played it he shot 61; is that what we want to see'; I think not.  Let's see what happens when they go back to Shinnecock and see what the scores are if they play it at 6900 yards.  Your comment only verifies my point: Today's equipment clearly allows the professional to hit the ball longer.