A proposal on the discussion of distance

[TEPaul]

I've seen a number of alarmed remarks on this website that so and so hit a drive 358 yds or 376 yds or 406 yds. Everyone was shocked when Els consistently hit drives in the mid 300 range at Kapalua.

But Els was getting tons of roll, maybe 50-60-70 yards of it--we all saw it on TV.

Bobby Jones was certainly known to hit drives well over 300 yds--but how much roll was he getting? Mickelson said the other day Hank Keuhne could CARRY his drives 345 yds! I doubt Bobby Jones could have ever got within 100 yds of carrying a drive that far!

I propose that we not discuss so much total distance some of these people are hitting balls today. I propose all we should discuss is how far they're CARRYING their drives in the air compared to how far anyone used to carry the ball in the air at any particular time.

That's all that should really matter in a distance comparision. Comparing carry distance is really apples to apples. Comparing total distances can be apples to oranges.

EX; I saw a bunch of pros hitting 8 and 9 irons into Riviera's #18 this year and just a few years ago the Australian pro who won at Riviera hit one helluva a 3 wood into #18 in a playoff to birdie and win the tournament.

We should only concern ourselves with carry distance comparisions and not consider as much what happens distance-wise when the ball lands and bounces and rolls.

At least when the ball lands, bounces and rolls it's at the complete mercy of the course and its architecture!!

[John_Conley]

Tom:

Agreed.  Matt Ward and I seem to look at sea-level carry distances as a ceteris paribus way to compare apples.

TV commentators love to tell you that someone can or did hit one a long way, but conditions lead to the longest drives.

CAN hit it a long way and DOES or WILL hit it a long way are sometimes different.

[TEPaul]

John:

Ceteris paribus??

What's that some kind of Socratic method of comparing driving distances or to what degree the manufacturers are destroying golf?

[Matt_Ward]

Praise Jesus -- they are beginning to see the light!

The whole concept of distance is akin to the fish stories I heard from my dad (God Bless him!). Each time you heard the story the fish got larger!

There are players today who are logn because of the marriage between what they fly the ball and what they get through roll after it hits the ground. The Ernie Els situation that Tom Paul illuminated in Hawaii is a greate example. TV commentators are the first people who consistently talk of their butt about how far pro "X" is hitting the ball. They rarely, if ever, mention the amount that was carried IN THE AIR!

In my mind -- as well as others -- real distance is what you can carry a ball in the air. I chuckled when I read in GD that Phil Mickelson claimed he carries the driver 305 yards IN THE AIR. I don't doubt that Phil is long, but does he carry EACH AND EVERY DRIVE 305 --  O-N  C-O-M-M-A-N-D! I don't think so.

Regarding Hank Kuehne there was discussion on what he hit into the 1st at Castle Pines during last year's International -- a 600+ yard par-5. Again, the announcers failed to mention the hole has a tremendous drop-off away from the tee -- no doubt, it's still a herculean feat and for ANYONE to have a 9-iron second shot is still impressive. Let's not forget the winner of the Atlanta tour stop nailed a perfect tee shot on the final round and the announcers gushes abouit his near 360 yard tee shot. They also didn't add the fact that the ground was quite firm and the ball rolled and rolled and rolled all the way past the cross point for the gallery.

If memory serves plenty of the "new" bunkers at ANGC were at the 300 yard mark. I don't recall too many, if any, of the players challenging them by flying directly over -- particularly the new ones at the 5th. In some cases the leading players reached only the first bunker!

Distance has got to be placed in some sort of context and perspective. Take players at sea level and bring them to a driving range or practice area and see how many actually can carry on a fairly consistent basis the 280 yard mark. Yes, there are those who can and do -- but remember CARRY is the ultimate barometer and far too often it's missed in the real discussion of true power.

[Bruceski]

And...for all of Kuehne's distance, how many events has he won or will he win?

It should be instructive that Tiger Woods' driving distance (which is mostly carry, BTW) as it rates vs. the rest of the Tour has worsened as he's become more dominant. Tiger woke up and realized that there's more to life on a golf course than a 300 yd carry off the tee. We might label Mike Weir as "exhibit B".

[John_Conley]

And...for all of Kuehne's distance, how many events has he won or will he win?

It should be instructive that Tiger Woods' driving distance (which is mostly carry, BTW) as it rates vs. the rest of the Tour has worsened as he's become more dominant. Tiger woke up and realized that there's more to life on a golf course than a 300 yd carry off the tee. We might label Mike Weir as "exhibit B".

Great point about Tiger getting away from his distance advantage.  So true.  He hit WEDGE in 1997 to 15 - all four days I think.

As for Kuehne, he won the U.S. Amateur.

[DMoriarty]

I agree that carry is the much more important statistic to examine.  In fact, I'd take it one step further and say that I'd like to see the USGA focus on carry if they ever choose to reconsider the distance limitation.  

However, carry is a difficult thing to reasonably discuss, because there isn't much data readily available on how far these guys are carrying it. A discussion on carry might turn out to be even more anecdotal that the discussion on total distance.  

That being said, if we could accurately track carry, I think we would find that gap between carry and distance today is much smaller than the gap between carry and distance in past eras.  (To put it another way, yesterday's golfers relied more on roll for their distance.)  That is my understanding of how this new equipment is supposed to work.

Tom, I also agree that the distance of single long drives (376, 408, 358 ) is meaningless.  But, what is meaningful is that these guys are putting it on parts of the golf course that have never been reached before.  For example, the measures of Ernies drives on 15 at Kapalua don't impress me, but the fact that he hit it far enough to take advantage of the roll down the hill certainly does.  Those who have played the course might agree that this hardly seemed possible.

Matt, I've never been to Augusta, but I always thought 5 played uphill.  Also, I think it is 315 yards to carry the bunkers on 5.  I don't know that anyone carried them, but I think some golfers flew into them, including Phil.  Uphill, I assume this must be around a 300 yrd carry.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David, You are correct about #5.

[John_Conley]

That being said, if we could accurately track carry, I think we would find that gap between carry and distance today is much smaller than the gap between carry and distance in past eras.  (To put it another way, yesterday's golfers relied more on roll for their distance.)  That is my understanding of how this new equipment is supposed to work.

Definitely.  The biggest story today is that the lengths, which  estimate to be 280 as the norm for a Tour pro hitting Driver, are almost entirely carry.

With the higher ball flight, the ball will roll less even on a fairway of equal hardness.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

There's plenty of macho talk about how far people hit it but like I said throw the "carry" situation into plain view and you see the substance on how far the ball is really being hit.

I don't recall seeing anyone fly the bunkers on #5 at ANGC. To be fair -- that doesn't mean it can't be done by the likes of Phil and a few others but the bunkers were put that far out to prevent all but a very small grouping of players from EVEN thinking about it.

Total yardage off the tee is a meaningless statistic. I would say that it's better to argue what "effective" yardage is and the definition of that term would mean the amount of carry you achieve when you hit the driver.

I've played with my fair share of long hitters and very few of them carry the ball on a consistent basis 300+ yards. The "roll equation" is many times underplayed by those who tout that everyone is hitting it miles and miles beyond what they ever have.

[TEPaul]

Carry again would seem to me to be the optimum factor to track in distance considerations, both architecturally and in the context of B&I rules and regs considerations. It's not really up to us to try to track carry in golf--but it should be up to the rules making regulatory bodies. They can certainly do that accurately given technological advances in testing using various swing speeds.

Once that's determined by the regulatory bodies accurately architects can use that data more accurately in architecture. As for the roll-out of the golf ball once the carry is over that again is an architectural consideration so much more than one that should be factored into B&I rules and regs and can certainly be a major consideration of maintenance of any golf course too.

But just because some player hits a drive 376 yds with carry and a lot of roll way out in the fairway it shouldn't be unnecessarily alarming to us. It is probably just as likely that that ball could end up in trees, in rough, in God knows what.

Smart players are certainly aware of the dangers of maximum length on any golf hole and as stated above isn't it indicative that two of the longest knocker of modern times, Davis Love and Tiger Woods dedicatedly toned down their distance in a course management sense and became far more successful on tour for that very reason? While a few others such as John Daley, Hank Kuehne etc seems unwilling to do that and have consequently probably paid the price in consistency and success.

It sort of fascinates me to see Wood's take a 2 iron off a tee on a 450 yd hole but then one has to remember even if he leaves himself over 200+ yds out he still won't have much more than a 5-7 iron!

And we also shouldn't forget that irons don't have any spring-like effect so something very odd is going on with these modern golf balls!

[DMoriarty]

Matt, I agree with most of what you are saying.  I was just pointing out the carrying the bunkers on Augusta's 5 is much more daunting than you indicated.  


I don't agree that the distance measure is entirely irrelevant.  Until we start keeping track of carry, it gives us a way (albeit imperfect) to compare golfers with each other and others of different eras.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I don't doubt the carry at #5 at ANGC is difficult -- hell, it should be -- for too long the game's best had an easy play there with a fairway bunker that was nothing less than a scneic wonder like the one that exists in the middle of the 10th fairway.

Carrying 270 yards used to be a big deal -- it isn't anymore for the top 25-30 players. Without the realignment of bunkers to be at minimum 300 yards carries you'll see the kind of aggressive play that yields the rounds routinely shot on Tour.

I don't see any reason why carry distance could not be factored into the two holes that the Tour routinely uses to measure driving distance for their weekly statistics. In many cases the Tour uses holes that are relatively flat and go in different directions to offset any gain by the prevailing wind. I can certainly attest to the fact that years ago when I attended the Tour stop in Phoenix it wasn't uncommon to see the big hitters getting at least 50 plus yards after the ball hit the ground.

[Jeff Fortson]

I agree with the idea, I just see one little problem.....

Carry distance has variables too.  Wind, humidity, uphill, downhill, trajectory, shaft kickpoints, club loft, etc.  

I think there are ways to work around the things I just brought up but any such test of carry distance needs to be carefully monitored.

Jeff F.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I understand your proposal to emphasize "carry distance" in discussions about distance, but agree with Dave Moriarty that lack of data makes this difficult.

Beyond that I'm inclined to think that in the real world of playing golf "carry and roll" is every bit as important as "carry" and maybe more so.

For me, playing a golf shot is like playing a chess move. I plan my shot - what club I play and what direction I aim - based on where I want the ball to come to rest. After all, that's where I'm going to play my next shot.

Of course, there are many situations where "carry" matters a lot, especially when clearing a hazard is critical. But, the chess game of golf is more complicated than just where the ball lands. It is as likely to find trouble AFTER it lands, especially when playing in certain conditions, e.g., firm and fast.

Tom, I don't think of the ball being at the "mercy" of the course and its architecture. To the contrary, I believe I'm supposed to know something about the golf course - how my ball is likely to react when it lands - and play my shots accordingly. Of course, there will be plenty of bad breaks along the way, but it is still my job to manage them. That means taking into account both "carry" and "carry and roll".