[Thomas Dai]

A 300 yd or thereabouts average carry with a Driver seems to be at the top end of the stats for the men on the PGA Tour.


If such players are playing on courses of around 7,500 yds then should amateurs be playing the following length of courses to be playing the effective equivalent challenge?


275 yd driver carry - 6,875 yds
250 yd driver carry - 6,250 yds
200 yd driver carry - 5,000 yds
150 yd driver carry - 3,750 yds


Thoughts?


Atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

This assumes that all golfers should face a second shot of similar difficulty and distance from the green.


Why so?


We have a handicap system to level the playing field. Low handicappers will generally be longer and more accurate off the tee than high handicappers and so will face an easier, shorter approach shot.


I can see the argument for weaker or older players moving up a tee, particularly if forced carries are involved. There is little fun in an average golfer playing a 7500 yard course.


I reject however, the idea that everyone's drives should be landing in the same place!

[Adam Lawrence]

The flaw with the idea of using different tees to put everyone in the same landing zone is that the second shot is still wildly different according to strength of player. With a 180 yard approach Rory is probably hitting eight or nine iron, I'm hitting 7 wood and a senior lady needs two damned good shots to get home.


The differentials are so huge these days that any ideas about equalising the game cannot work. This is why St Andrews, which offers innumerable different routes to the holes, is a more important model now than it has ever been.

[JESII]

Thomas isn't getting tee shots to the same place. He's giving proportional total yardages for the whole course based on driver carry.


My opinion is that people play the game for different reasons and most don't necessarily care if they hit the same clubs as others. They just want to find ways to win...

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas isn't getting tee shots to the same place. He's giving proportional total yardages for the whole course based on driver carry.

Spot-on Jim.
Pro-rata all the way through the bag.
Nothing recommended just a simple analysis of the sort of yardages that would give Joe Amateur the distance equivalent challenge.
Re-affirms that if Joe Amateur is playing a course longer his realistic length he is effectively playing a harder, more challenging course than the guys we watch on TV are.
atb

[James Brown]

I think these distances are right on.  I hit about the same clubs into the greens from 6400 yards as the pros do from 7500. 

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me you are doing the math backwards.  If you're say the game is more interesting for amateurs hitting a variety of clubs to the green, you should start with that length and extrapolate upwards.  But then you wind up with the conclusion that pros today should be playing from 8500 or 9000 yards!

[Thomas Dai]

Yip, the opposite equivalent would mean the blokes we see on TV playing circa 9,000 yds. Heaven forbid. Imagine how many hours 18-holes would take them!
atb

[James Brown]

Yeah, but I don't care what courses the pros play anymore.  They play a different game now and have been for some time.   Pro golf has lost almost all its interest for me.  20 years ago, I watched every week.  Now, I am interested in the Open Championship and the Masters and maybe the other two if they play somewhere with some character.  I spend more time exploring places I might plan to visit. 

[Blake Conant]

Claude Harmon III put persimmons in the hands of Rickie Fowler and Brooks Koepka and gauged the data using Trackman (I think it's been discussed here before)


Rickie carried it 274.  (2016 carry avg. was 301.5)
Brooks carried it 283.  (2016 carry avg. was 302.5)

[Thomas Dai]

Claude Harmon III put persimmons in the hands of Rickie Fowler and Brooks Koepka and gauged the data using Trackman (I think it's been discussed here before)
Rickie carried it 274.  (2016 carry avg. was 301.5)
Brooks carried it 283.  (2016 carry avg. was 302.5)

Thanks for these figures Blake.
Taking RF's & BK's figures combined they carry it 92% as far with persimmon.
I would be interested in the max height of flight/arc figures if you have them - or a link to CH-III's data - as in my experience, and I play both modern titanium/grapahite and on occasions my old persimmon, modern titaniums/graphites fly much higher and thus carry over hazards/trees etc easier.
atb

[Blake Conant]

Claude Harmon III put persimmons in the hands of Rickie Fowler and Brooks Koepka and gauged the data using Trackman (I think it's been discussed here before)
Rickie carried it 274.  (2016 carry avg. was 301.5)
Brooks carried it 283.  (2016 carry avg. was 302.5)

Thanks for these figures Blake.
Taking RF's & BK's figures combined they carry it 92% as far with persimmon.
I would be interested in the max height of flight/arc figures if you have them - or a link to CH-III's data - as in my experience, and I play both modern titanium/grapahite and on occasions my old persimmon, modern titaniums/graphites fly much higher and thus carry over hazards/trees etc easier.
atb

Here's the link for ya.  Maybe there's more info like this out there on the interweb?


http://golf.swingbyswing.com/article/rickie-fowler-brooks-koepka-persimmon-driver/

[James Brown]

Claude Harmon III put persimmons in the hands of Rickie Fowler and Brooks Koepka and gauged the data using Trackman (I think it's been discussed here before)
Rickie carried it 274.  (2016 carry avg. was 301.5)
Brooks carried it 283.  (2016 carry avg. was 302.5)

Thanks for these figures Blake.
Taking RF's & BK's figures combined they carry it 92% as far with persimmon.
I would be interested in the max height of flight/arc figures if you have them - or a link to CH-III's data - as in my experience, and I play both modern titanium/grapahite and on occasions my old persimmon, modern titaniums/graphites fly much higher and thus carry over hazards/trees etc easier.
atb

And I would imagine that if you reverse engineer this information you could pretty easily calculate Jack Nicklaus equivalent driving stats using today's equipment.  Jack has said his standard Driver swing carried the ball 260 and he could carry it 280 yards when needed.  And that is with an old ball.  I would guess a 1970 JN would be slightly longer than these guys - and probably more accurate. 

[John Kavanaugh]

If I was sponsored by Snickers you wouldn't see me loving me a PayDay on camera. This was hardly a scientific study. Please, these guys have modern swings that fit modern equipment. This is all about selling new $500 drivers.

[Peter Pallotta]

The 'variables' are almost endless. I saw Rickie with a persimmon wood drive it a *total* of 298 yards, ie carry + roll. (Maybe it was part of the same 'study'). He generates a lot of club head speed. Match up/dial in the persimmon's loft and shaft flex and length and get a ball with say, a bit lower compression and higher spin off the driver, and then have Rickie mess around for a week with ball position and launch angles and he'd be driving it, what, 310? He could play any course in the world from the tips, and win. And I'll never believe that JN was generating *less* club head speed in his mid 20s.

[Pete Lavallee]

Yes but did they use modern 3 piece balls or aged ballatas? Granted the club is part of the equation but one might infer that the BALL is the real problem. I bet those numbers would drop with a ball engineered to mimick the 1990's version!

[Garland Bayley]

No, it means that the pros should be playing 8400 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I can see the argument for weaker or older players moving up a tee, particularly if forced carries are involved. There is little fun in an average golfer playing a 7500 yard course.
...

Last time I played a course over 7500 yards I had a blast. John Kirk even commented on how much I was obviously enjoying it.

And, I am an average golfer.
And, I play with other average golfers that would enjoy playing over 7500 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

...They just want to find ways to win...

My kind of guy.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me you are doing the math backwards.  If you're say the game is more interesting for amateurs hitting a variety of clubs to the green, you should start with that length and extrapolate upwards.  But then you wind up with the conclusion that pros today should be playing from 8500 or 9000 yards!

My hero!

[Niall C]

The flaw with the idea of using different tees to put everyone in the same landing zone is that the second shot is still wildly different according to strength of player. With a 180 yard approach Rory is probably hitting eight or nine iron, I'm hitting 7 wood and a senior lady needs two damned good shots to get home.


The differentials are so huge these days that any ideas about equalising the game cannot work. This is why St Andrews, which offers innumerable different routes to the holes, is a more important model now than it has ever been.

Very well articulated that man. I totally concur.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

...
I can see the argument for weaker or older players moving up a tee, particularly if forced carries are involved. There is little fun in an average golfer playing a 7500 yard course.
...

Last time I played a course over 7500 yards I had a blast. John Kirk even commented on how much I was obviously enjoying it.

And, I am an average golfer.
And, I play with other average golfers that would enjoy playing over 7500 yards.

Garland,


I don't doubt you enjoy it, but I don't see any fun in playing a course where most par 4s are par 5, and the 5's as 6s....


But I do think it gives one more appreciation for what the ladies face when the forward tees are at 6000...

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


I don't doubt you enjoy it, but I don't see any fun in playing a course where most par 4s are par 5, and the 5's as 6s....


But I do think it gives one more appreciation for what the ladies face when the forward tees are at 6000...

What's wrong with par 6's? Don't you like golf? When I was young I dreamed about the opportunity to play par 6's.
And don't tell me you like par 4s because they let you set up your approach shot with your drive. I've seen you play. You simply take what you get after your drive, because you are not in control or your drive. As I recall, you even depended on pedestrians on the walking path to find a drive or two. Don't tell me you were setting up the next shot by hitting it essentially off the course! 

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,


I got audible yuks from that, it was both true and funny! 


My only viewpoint on these things is, while I like hitting my 3w, I also like variety.  So pretty much any hole over 420-430 for me means its going to be a 3w approach.

[Thomas Dai]

Played a much admired, very high ranking Northern Ireland course a few times a couple of years ago. Not that much wind and play for all was from the whites (it was a competition) at circa 6,700 yds. I hit my 3-wood 11 times in the first round and I played pretty well. With so many holes needing long second/third shots I'm afraid that things got rather boring after a couple of rounds but fortunately the architecture was worth admiring.
Played the clubs much shorter little sister course while there as well. More fun and yet still challenging. But it's length, very tight in many places too, was more akin to the appropriate comparison yardage that I mentioned in the opening post.
One course is very expensive but ultimately boring to play despite it's architecture etc. The other is considerably cheaper but much more fun. I know which I'll be playing for choice should I return.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()