Driving Distance Stats

« **on:** July 22, 2003, 12:30:21 AM »

With about 1/2 of the Tour golf season completed its always interesting (as much as it hurts) to check the driving stats--

Two are interesting-- One is the longest single drive recorded by each player in a Tour event(measured on two holes at each venue)--

The longest is by Hank Kuehne--385 yards--but of the 522 players "measured" so far, how many do you guess have hit at least one 300 yards plus?(answer below)

(this year Player, Aaron, Palmer, Maltbie and Coody are the bottom 5)

Ten years ago 263 out of 636 measured players achieved the magic figure--

Also, re average drive, approximately 200 players have been listed-- Kuehne is first at 318, however the average/average(# 100 on the list) is Billy Mayfair at 283.6-- Ten years ago the leader was John Daly, at that same figure(283--he is averaging 310 this year) and the average/average in 1983(# 100 on the list) was 258.3--

The answer to the question above-- 385 out of 522 players have hit a 300+ yard drive so far this year in a Tour event--

« **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:35:40 PM »

In case you didn't feel like figuring it out, that's about 25 extra yards in 10 years, most of which occurred in the last 3-4.

I think the leading driver on Tour around 1982 was Dan Pohl at 272 yards. That's at least 36 yards less than today...which means 36 yards less on approach shots on a same length course. Admittedly, courses have been lengthened, but not by 36 a hole.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:59:34 PM »

In 1982, Bill Calfee (?) led the tour with a driving average of 275.3 yards. Dan Pohl was second at 274.6 yards.

In 2003, 275.3 yards ranks #161 (Chris Riley).

In 2002, 275.3 yards ranked #141 (Chris Carter).

In 2001, 275.3 yards ranked #138 (Bill Glasson).

In 2000, 275.3 yards ranked #68 (Joel Edwards).

In 1999, 275.3 yards ranked #64 (Trevor Dodds).

In 1998, 275.3 yards ranked #43 (Sandy Lyle).

In 1997, 275.3 yards ranked #31 (David Berganio, Jr.).

In 1996, 275.3 yards ranked #27 (Tommy Tolles).

In 1995, 275.3 yards ranked #13 (Tom Purtzer).

In 1994, 275.3 yards ranked #10 (Mike Heinen).

In 1993, 275.3 yards ranked #7 (Fred Couples).

====

It looks like something happened between 2000 and 2001 (#68 to #138). I recall that the Pro V1 arrived around that time.

PS Is there a more stealthy PGA Tour professional than Bill Glasson? He has won seven tournaments, including the 1985 Kemper (I was there), the 1989 Doral, the 1994 Phoenix, and the 1997 Las Vegas. In all, he has won $6.1 million.

Scanning the current career money list, the most obscure names ahead of him are #72 Kevin Sutherland, #61 Dan Forsman, #50 David Frost, and #22 Loren Roberts. But I would argue that they are somewhat less obscure than Glasson.

By the way, Jack Nicklaus is #85 on this list, with $5.7 million, just behind Charles Howell 111. And Ben Curtis just moved up from #431 to #278.

And 308 men have earned more than $1 million on Tour; Pat Bates is the latest.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:00:51 PM »

Murf:

Good call on Glasson. That's more wins than Lehman, no? Wayne Levi had 10 or 12. Steve Jones must have 6.

I don't know what the question mark was for, but if you don't know who Bill Calfee is I think he is a Tour official these days.

Another guy named George Boutell had the course record of 64 (-9) at Interlachen in 1964. It was tied by club pro Bob Olds in the 90s. I don't know if it has since been broken. My only point is that they usually don't tell you, "These guys are also good!" when it comes to Tour officials like Calfee, Boutell, and Dillard Pruitt.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:25:18 PM »

Steve Jones has won 8 PGA tournaments, but since one of them was the 1996 US Open, I wouldn't call him obscure, exactly.

Wayne Levi has won 12 PGA tournaments, including four in 1990 (Atlanta, Western Open, Greater Hartford Open, Canadian Open). I guess I don't consider him obscure because he was winning tournaments, and was on TV a lot, when I got hooked on golf.

Tom Lehman has won 5 PGA tournaments, including the 1996 British Open (the oldest and grandest major championship). His other victories have been non-slouches: 1994 Memorial, 1995 Colonial, 1996 Tour Championship, and 2000 Phoenix.

And I believe that Bill Calfee is a good player. It's just that he didn't register with me at all, despite my watching just about every golf tournament on TV in the early 80s.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2003, 03:45:47 PM »

These stats are interesting for the pro players. Where can I find similar stats for the amateur golfing public?

I don't think you will find a similar "ProV1" jump because the typical amateur player has been using "distance" balls for quite a while.

Going further with my assumption, I would guess that the typical golfer (80% of the golfers in the world) hits a drive no longer than 220 yards.

Gary

« **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2003, 04:03:37 PM »

Gary --

You may be right, but my anecdotal experience this year says otherwise. I have never been hit into as often as I have been this year. It has gotten to the point where I never feel safe from having a ball land next to me or roll past me until I am on the green -- and sometimes, not even then.

A few times I have spoken to the culprit, with words to the effect of, "I know it's slow out here, but we're waiting for the group ahead of us, too." Invariably, the answer I get is, "Sorry, I don't usually hit it that far."

This year, at least, they are hitting it that far. Often.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2003, 07:59:03 PM »

Rick,

I'm sticking with my theory that the average golfer hits a drive 220 yards and that golf courses of 6,500 yards are too long for them.

I'm also of the opinion that golfers who hit 350 yard drives are the exception, not the rule. The PGA/USGA/R&A can hold their tournaments on 8,000 yard courses and the spectators can continue to marvel at how long these guys hit the ball.

I go to NBA games to watch tall men jump really high and dunk basketballs... something I can't ever do. I go to PGA events for a similar reason, to watch someone hit a ball significantly further than me.

Golf architecture is for the masses, not the few. I don't worry about the game being outdated by equipment. I hope that more people can buy equipment so their 220 yard drives can increase to 250 yards... maybe to experience a bit of the thrill the "long hitters" feel.

I say: Share the joy

Gary

« **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:30:01 PM »

Gary-- You may be right concerning the modern game of golf, but if true I think golf has lost part of its magic--

When the average touring pro was hitting drives between 230 and 250(which was not that long ago) one of the marvels of the game was that the mid-handicap golfer, using the same equipment, could stand on the same hole on the course that he had seen the greats make a par and duplicate that feat--

Clearly he could not do it for 18 holes, but he could reach the same par 4 as Hogan(or even Trevino) in two (maybe with a longer iron, but still in two)--

That is a mystique no other sport offered--The "average" flag football player can not run down and outs for an NFL quarterback at Jack Murphy Stadium against an NFL nickle defense, the YMCA league player can not make hook shots over Shaq at Staples, the local softball star can not stand on the mound at Yankee Stadium and attempt to blow fast balls past Derek Jeter--

He could, however, play the same holes on a US Open course and hope for the same result on a hole or two as the greats-- With 8000 yard courses you have created a different game-

« **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2003, 10:10:43 AM »

Dennis,

I agree with you that the average golfer has now lost the ability to pull off the same shots as the pro's. However, I don't think that technology is ruining golf course architecture for the majority of players.

Merion is a course that gets talked about as "too short" for PGA/USGA events. I haven't played it but I'll bet it is PLENTY long enough for the average golfer. I would even venture to say that the average golfer would claim that Merion is "too long" when played from the back tees.

Basically, I'm not buying the argument that the balls and equipment have made golf courses too short. It might be true for the very elite players but not so for the rest of us.

Gary

« **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2003, 11:57:53 AM »

Shivas,

Turning your point around, the average "technology aided" golfer hits it 250 yards and is now emulating a pro golfer from the early 80's. To me, that is good for the game. It gets more people to think they are getting better. They can play from the blue tees once in a while if they want to hit 5 wood approaches (I sure don't).

Driver/6 iron shots on 400 yard holes would seem like paradise for the 20 handicappers. They will still hit their fair share of topped shots, shanks and floozles. The times they hit the green with a 6 iron will keep them coming back for more.

Most long ball hitters won't have to find a new place to play because they will be deeper in the woods. It's only the smallest segment of amateur golfers who can hit 300 yards straight and are bored with driver/SW shots.

I'd still like to see some stats that show me the real distance people are hitting. I remember reading somewhere about an annual survey of 10,000 golfers that measured driving distance, etc. I wish I could find it. I seem to remember the driving distance was in the low 200 yard range.

Gary

« **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2003, 12:25:39 PM »

Gary:

Someone said they stood on the 1st tee of a course for a day and only 15% carried their teeshot over 185.

* First hole
* almost no women carry it that far
* almost no seniors (65+)
* poor golfers

Obviously the sample is small, but you are right. The average handicap still hovers around 17, but the very sample starts out skewed in favor of better-than-average players. (Most guys plundering their way to 110 with a mulligan per nine aren't carrying a handicap.)

The improved equipment has made for improvements most pronounced for the best players.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2003, 02:45:41 PM »

John,

I live near the Detroit Golf Club. I've heard thru the local papers that over half the members are low single-digit handicappers. IMO, this doesn't represent the reality of golfers at large.

I think most courses today offer plenty of length and that the elite players will simply find an appropriate place to play.

This thread started out discussing PGA players hitting over 300 yards. I don't think we should be designing golf courses specifically for these players. I believe that making interesting and fun courses for those that hit 185 - 250 yard tee shots is what's important.

Gary

« **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2003, 03:28:12 PM »

John and Gary-- That 185 yard carry and 200 yard overall distance is the "model" bogey golfer which is used by USGA rating teams in fixing the course rating and slope for courses-

And those figures are based on studies of the playing characterists of a golfer who on a 113 slope course will shoot an average of 18 strokes over the course rating(the average score of the "scratch golfer" on that course)--

Continuing studies of the bogey golfer have shown not a great deal of change over the 15 or so years the USGA course rating system has been in effect--

The huge difference is the "scatch golfer", defined as the average player who makes the US Amatuer field-- That "model" scratch has a carry of 225 with a total distance of 250-- That had been a valid stat for serveral years but at the last two ams the studies have shown the "average" US AM player is driving closer to 300 with about a 275 carry--(and that is not just better feed kids playing the last two years btw)--The "model" definition has not changed, but the players are now far exceeding the "model"--

« **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2003, 03:47:53 PM »

Dennis,

We are still only talking about a thousand golfers (+/-) that exceed the "model" for a scratch player. That means 99.9% of the rest of us are worse (to varying degrees).

Accomodations are being made for the elite players by lengthening select courses to 7,500 yards (or more?) for these elite tournaments.

Maybe I'm going off thread here but I still maintain that hot balls and hot drivers are better for golf as a whole. Perhaps more golfers will start to be worried about the cross-bunkering 200 yards off the tee. Maybe the bogey player will be able to stop "dinking it" around the course and start bringing those hazards into play off the tee.

We talk about the pro's flying it over the old fairway bunkers. Wouldn't it it be great for those "short hitters" to hit in/over/around those fairway bunkers once in a while? It makes sense to me from an architecture standpoint.

Gary

« **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2003, 01:53:50 AM »

Gary,

For argument's sake, let's accept your premise that the "average" golfer hits the ball 220. Further, I assume you agree that a very large number of golfers don't hit it nearly that far. Someone suggested 180 yds, so although the number might be high, lets assume that 180 is how far a short high handicapper hits it.

Even if all this is true, I think it is mistaken to dismiss the distance statistics as only representing a tiny percentage of the most talented. Go out to a quality local public course and watch for a while, plenty of golfers hit the ball 260+. Most of them arent even any good. More incredibly, you will find golfers carrying indices anywhere from 2 to 12 who actually do hit it in the vacinity of 300 yds.

So here is my question for you: Even if Architects don't design for the exceptionally talented golfer, how are they supposed to build courses that accomodate the 290 yd drivers and the 180 yd drivers?

If your answer is multiple tees, then please explain what tee should two 10 handicaps play when one sometimes hits driver 280 and one drives it 210?

« **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2003, 03:55:46 AM »

Gary:

From your statements above, it's apparent that you're not terribly concerned about the game's competitive history (i.e., being able to compare today's stars with those of the past), nor with the fact that the strategies and dangers of a well-designed green complex are fundamentally altered when approaching with an eight iron instead of, say, a five. I disagree strongly on both points, but fair enough.

What I'm curious about is: Aren't you bothered by the cost of all this? The game is already WAY too expensive, yet larger courses require higher land acquisition costs initially and higher maintenance and property tax bills into perpetuity -- all of which gets passed onto the consumer right down the line.

And that's not even getting into the cost of having to purchase all of this constantly improving equipment if one wishes to keep up with the Joneses...

On the plus side, however, I see where you've modified 8,000 down to 7,500, so I guess that's progress.

DW

« **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2003, 04:39:26 AM »

Dennis

Your most recent post implies that there has been a 50 yard increase in driving distance (all at the carry end) for elite players (US AM qualifiers) over the past few years! This statement seems to seriously contradict what the USGA and R&A have been saying (publically, at least) and confirm the anecdotal evidence and experience (of substantial leaps in distance) that many have related on this site. What is the truth?

« **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2003, 08:59:16 AM »

Dmoriarty,

I think it's good to give an extra 20 - 30 yards to those who hit it only 180 off the tee.

I think those that hit it 260 - 300 off the tee are delighted to hit Driver/SW... thinking they are a pro.

I don't know how to build a golf course to accomodate both players. However, if two guys with 10 handicaps are playing, their driving distances must be irrelevant because the rest of their games are the equalizer.

Daniel Wexler,
I'm not bothered by the game's competitive history. You can't compare today's NBA -vs- the NBA of the '60s. Jump shots -vs- dunks. It's not the same game. Same thing with the PGA. Golf fans in the '60s had just as much fun as the ones today... watching in awe.

As for hitting an 8-iron into a green designed for a 5-iron, I don't remember anyone I've played with for the past 20 years ever realizing or discussing this issue. The only complaints I've heard are that the green is too small to hit with a long iron. I've never heard anyone say "this green is too large and the contours are too subtle for this wedge-shot approach". Maybe the private course golfer will make this realization because he has played the same venue for 20 years. Us publinx'ers don't.

I don't know much about the land acquisition cost issue except that it is obviously more expensive to buy more land for a bigger course. However, I still think that today's 6500 yard courses are just fine for the masses. The few "huge courses" (ie. 7500 yards, etc) will cost more but will draw a better player with more money to spend. This doesn't tax the entire golfing public, just the ones who want more.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Gary

« **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2003, 11:40:23 AM »

Quote from: Gary_Nelson on July 25, 2003, 08:59:16 AM

I don't know how to build a golf course to accomodate both players. However, if two guys with 10 handicaps are playing, their driving distances must be irrelevant because the rest of their games are the equalizer.

This to me is the key problem with the leaps in distance-- the distance gap is growing to a point that golf courses have trouble even accomodating long recreational hitters and short recreational hitters of approximately the same ability.

Driving distance "irrelevant because the rest of the games are the equalizer?" I dont think the goal of golf architecture is to keep the balance of handicaps-- I think it has more to do with creating interesting golf for a variety of players.

Plus, distance does matter on many of the modern courses, at least from certain of the tees. I hate to see golf reduced to forum shopping where a big hitter can almost guarantee a victory simply by choosing tees which require drives of a certain distance to "accomodate" the big hitter.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2003, 02:02:40 PM »

Won't both the long and short hitters benefit equally from high-tech clubs? If yes,the relative gap between their tee shots will remain equal.

If both guys know the golf course, they can agree on the proper set of tees so the short hitter doesn't have to face 240 yard carries he can't make.

If they both are truly 10 handicaps, the rest of their games should balance out the driving discrepancy.

There are enough golf courses in the metro Detroit area to suit the wide variety of players... both long and short hitters. Maybe the driving distance gap can't be solved on a single golf course but it can be solved by moving to another course when your drives start flying too far. I learned golf on an old 9-holer. I can't play there anymore because I hit the ball too far. I moved on to bigger and better courses but there are still plenty of folks happy to tee it up at my old stomping ground... Hickory Hills

Fond memories for sure.

Gary

« **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2003, 02:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Gary_Nelson on July 25, 2003, 02:02:40 PM

Won't both the long and short hitters benefit equally from high-tech clubs? If yes,the relative gap between their tee shots will remain equal.

No. Both long and short hitters do NOT benefit equally from technology. Much of the new technology is skewed toward benefitting the player with the high swing speed. Take the ProVIx for example. I often play with a gentleman carrying around a 3 index. He has a beautiful swing and is a very consistent ball striker, but doesnt blast the ball. He has tried the Pro VIx and he actually loses yardage with the ball. He just doesnt generate the clubhead speed to get the ball to pop.

Quote

If both guys know the golf course, they can agree on the proper set of tees so the short hitter doesn't have to face 240 yard carries he can't make. If they both are truly 10 handicaps, the rest of their games should balance out the driving discrepancy.

So then they play least common denominator golf. Play the tees where the short guy can make the carry. Now the longer hitter, who loves the thrill of blasting the ball over things, is completely bored. No relevant forced carries . . . no fairway bunkers in play . . . sand wedge after sand wedge after sand wedge . . . maybe no reason to even carry his favorite club, the driver. Hardly an ideal situation, or one which properly utilizes the architecture of the course.

Or take my friend with the 3 index. Lets say he is playing the long hitting 10 index, in a handicapped match. Does it make sense for them to move way up to benefit the short hitting but much better golfer? Play tees where the controlled short hitter will absolutely demolish the long hitter (even adjusting for handicap)? Take away any advantage the long hitter had by hitting it long? Take the long hitter's best club out of his bag? Again, hardly an ideal architectural situation.

Quote

There are enough golf courses in the metro Detroit area to suit the wide variety of players... both long and short hitters. Maybe the driving distance gap can't be solved on a single golf course but it can be solved by moving to another course when your drives start flying too far. I learned golf on an old 9-holer. I can't play there anymore because I hit the ball too far. I moved on to bigger and better courses but there are still plenty of folks happy to tee it up at my old stomping ground... Hickory Hills Fond memories for sure.

So if I care about all of us being properly challenged, I should no longer play at the same course as my long hitting friend who is a 10, even though we could have some great matches. He has to go find new friends and a bigger course for his shoddy game. Plus, I can no longer play with my friend who hits it short with great control and who can wax me every time. He doesnt hit it far enough to get his ball in play off some of the tees so he has to find a shorter course to accomodate his short drives.

Hardly ideal or even acceptable-- golfers sorted by distance, regardless of ability. I guess we could all meet after the rounds for a few drinks . . . assuming we can find three courses close to each other.

Do you really believe this situation anything but bad for golf and golf architecture?

Quote

« **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2003, 03:05:00 PM »

David.

If one player is a 220 hitter and the other a 250 and they are both ten handicappers, they can play the same tee. It's obvious that the shorter man is a better player! The trouble starts when the carry off the tee prevents the shorter man from reaching the fairway.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2003, 03:09:55 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on July 25, 2003, 04:39:26 AM

Dennis

Your most recent post implies that there has been a 50 yard increase in driving distance (all at the carry end) for elite players (US AM qualifiers) over the past few years! This statement seems to seriously contradict what the USGA and R&A have been saying (publically, at least) and confirm the anecdotal evidence and experience (of substantial leaps in distance) that many have related on this site. What is the truth?

Rich-- I am not going to dwell on consiracy theories. I do know up until last year at the annual USGA rating seminars actual stats compiled at the US Am reflect such things as performance vs the then course rating, target frequencey from certain distances and driving distance were presented to show the accuracy of the "model scratch"(and perhaps they would even tweek the prior years charts to adhere to the model)--

The past year we didn't get them, only rumors that the driving distance figures were as I have indicated but that no change would be made in the "model" dispite where the current US Am players were driving it-

I understand on the rating side a discussion is taking place that the "model scratch" will no longer be defined as the average player making the stroke play portion of the US Am, rather he will be mythical "model" who can only drive it 250--But have all the other skills of the US Am qualifier--

« **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2003, 03:31:48 PM »

Thanks, Dennis

I wasn't meaning to imply any sort of conspiracy, just posssibly a situation where the right hand (B&I) didn't know what the left hand (course rating standards) might know. Glad to hear that all is hunky dory.

News:

Dennis_Harwood

Scott_Burroughs

Martin Del Vecchio

John_Conley

Martin Del Vecchio

Gary_Nelson

Rick Shefchik

Gary_Nelson

Dennis_Harwood

Gary_Nelson

Gary_Nelson

John_Conley

Gary_Nelson

Dennis_Harwood

Gary_Nelson

DMoriarty

Daniel_Wexler

ForkaB

Gary_Nelson

DMoriarty

Gary_Nelson

DMoriarty

Bob_Huntley

Dennis_Harwood

ForkaB