Interesting comment by Mickelson

[Paul Richards]

more proof that the pro's are hitting it too far from GolfWorld:

>Tee Shots

Forty players averaged over 300 yards off the tee at the Phoenix Open. Forty. Four-oh. Jay Williamson pumped it out there 303.6 yards. Skip Kendall's measured drives were 301.4. "It seems like everybody is hitting the ball 10 million miles," said John Huston. Indian Wells, one of the courses in this week's Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, measures 6,475 yards. This equates to multiple 59s. The weapons inspectors will start showing up at Pebble.

[Dan Kelly]

the problem, guys, is that you've GOTTA have one set of rules.

I -- an avowed pansy-assed copout compromiser -- have just one question: Why? Why have you GOTTA have one set of rules?

Please answer Rick's questions, while you're at it:

"Would the game truly suffer under this scenario? More than it is suffering now?"

[TEPaul]

There may or may not be anything to this but I thought it was sort of interesting nonetheless.

In the 1993 Rules Book and Decisions Book under the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) App.III(e), the wording is thus;

"A brand of golf ball, when tested on the apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards plus a tolerance of 6%. The 6% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved".

I calculate the average maximum distance at a 4% tolerance to be 291.2 yards.

The wording in the 2002-2003 Rules and Decision books on the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) reads thus:

"The combined carry and roll of the ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the United States Golf Association, shall not exceed the distance specified under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the United States Golf Association."

I'm quite certain there're a number of you tech minded people out there who might wonder why any mention of actual average maximum distance has been removed from the book and who also might be interested in getting a look at the ODS standards that are on file from 1993 to present and seeing exactly how they compare.

I expect to be up at the USGA anyway to do some research on architecture and maybe I'll just pop on over to the test center and see what I can see. But even if they told me the technicalities of ODS from then to know I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

Unfortunately, there's sort of vague question in the back of my mind, though, asking if they understand it completely. There was a contributor on here recently, though, who appears to know what goes on up in Far Hills who mentioned they have some very smart tech minds up there so maybe we should all continue to have faith.

[Steve Lang]

I'd love a look at the usga data.  Can't see any of this long hitting ending, so I say max it out titleist, pinnacle, robin hood!  deoptimization or competition ball harrrrrummmmph!  Get real.  You can't stop innovation any more than capitalism.  And there'll always be those who bomb it over the dogleg traps or trees, if the risk reward equation is right.  

I don't play with the pros or their quality of equipment, i don't work 8 hours a day at golf, i'll rarely play any of their manicured go farther set-up courses.. why should I really care how far they hit it?  Still like to watch them swing on TV, and will do so in person if given a chance.  

I don't hit it very far because of a bad shoulder, but I enjoy the short game.  I also don't buy golf balls,.. find way too many while just walking (love those cart path only days, and hunting for those white five dollar bills if there's time)..

If a golfer in Chicago can hit to a three shotter in two, more power to them or an amatuer destroy an aged icon of usa golf, enjoy it.. the king is dead, long live the king..

MIckelson and his pro buddies have to compete at an extremely high level, with extremely high stakes, and I can't believe there's not some gamesmanship going on out there in any statement made by them.  If they think its going farther and there's some circumstantial evidence to associate with, let them them prove it makes a difference in the $ and win columns.  ernie did it for a couple of weeks, but lost one because of poor driving, course management and putting,.. go figure, humans are still playing the game of golf.

[Paul Richards]

I just read some incredible stats about Phil's performance at Phoenix.

-- On Sunday he hit an 8-iron second shot to the 13th, a 595-yard par 5.

--On the 438-yard 18th, he had 76 yards to the front of the green.

[Paul Richards]

"On a local radio show Andrew Magee lampooned the USGA for its technology tests.  He later recanted, but THE FACT REMAINS EVEN THE LADS ARE WONDERING WHERE THIS IS GOING AND WHEN WILL IT END."

So it's not just us on GCA that are upset with the technology issue, it's the boys on the Tour as well.


-quote from GolfWorld

[Rick Shefchik]

Add Gary Player to the list. Yesterday he was sitting in the booth with the guys covering the Seniors (or "Champions") event in Hawaii, and he said, "The ball's going too far, everyone knows it, and everyone knows something's got to be done about it," or words to that effect.

If you don't mind seeing Tom Kite hit all four par 5s in two shots, then you don't have a problem with the game as it's being played now on the pro tours. I don't think that's golf.

Competition ball, or roll back the ODS. One or the other. Player's right -- something's got to be done, and (almost) everybody knows it.

[Paul Richards]

Rick:

You are right on when you said:

>Competition ball, or roll back the ODS. One or the other.
>Player's right -- something's got to be done, and (almost)
>everybody knows it.


It seems everyone is aware of it and knows about it.  The question is when are the USGA, R & A, and the PGA Tour going to do something about it?

[Paul Richards]

from Jan 31st GolfWorld, in the Tee Shots column, Tim Rosaforte says,

"Still think the driving distance averages were overhyped in Hawaii?  Think wind and roll distorted the figures?  

Apparently it wasn't just an 'island thing.'  Two players averaged more than 300 yards at Kapalua, and eigth at Waialae.

FORTY hit that mark in Scottsdale, with the field averaging 301.3.  

To those who still believe the ball isn't going farther, maybe we can get a more accurate reading when they're driving par 4s this week at Indian Wells."

[Paul Richards]

Dan Pohl, ex-PGA Tour leading-distance driver, even says in another Rosaforte article that these guys are hitting it too far:

"Pohl sees some of the players averaging more than 300 yards - 40 such pro's reached that figure last week - and waves a red flag.  'Something is wrong,' he said, 'if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'

He compared how the par 5s were played at the TPC of Scottsdale this year against his era.  The third hole, for example, was reachable in the '80s and '90s by 'only a handful of guys.'  Last week players were reaching the 554-yard hole en masse.  'There were 15 guys who could reach the par 5s,' Pohl said.  'The Phil Blackmars and the Dan Forsmans were the long drivers.  Jay Haas was not knocking it on the par 5s, but he is today.  Same with a guy like Fred Funk.  They're making the par 5s obsolete."

[Dan King]

Paul Richards quotes Dan Pohl saying:
'Something is wrong if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'

Anybody have such numbers? My understanding is that the pros’ club-head speed is much faster than in years past.

He compared how the par 5s were played at the TPC of Scottsdale this year against his era.

I’ve watched a lot of pro golf in my life, and I can’t think of a single lay up shot that really made me sit up and notice. The most memorable were probably Chip Beck and David Toms. I can think of a number of drives, approaches, tee shots on one-shot holes, pitches, chips, sand shots and putts, but not a single lay up that amazed me. There sure are a lot of people who miss the pros laying up. What is there to miss?

I’m not a fan of par. It’s a silly number for competitions where you are not competing against par. For an imaginary number it has caused countless harm to the game.

But why not change it for the pros? Holes 300 yards and under would be considered par-3s and holes greater than 300 are par-4s. Most courses would be par-68. Wouldn’t that make everyone happy with considerably less expense, including lawyer fees? How many would be bothered to learn than Mike Weir was victorious at the Bob Hope Classic averaging two shots under par per round?

Dan King

"Watching Chip Beck play the last four holes of the Masters, one sensed he was trying to win the tournament's coveted Green Vest."
 --Ray Ratto (San Francisco Examiner columnist, on Beck playing cautiously in the last few holes of the 1993 Masters despite being only a few shots behind eventual winner Bernhard Langer)

[Steve Lang]

Multiple players over 300 yards!  How horrible!  It sounds more like parity coming to the game.  And did I miss something, didn't VJ win there in Phoenix, not MIckelson?   Why should only a few be able to blast that far?  Can we only handle having a few "favorites" in our mindsets?

I never remember Pohl, Blackmar and Forsman dominating any number of golf events.. Blackmar barely won the Shell Houston Open one year, mainly by not chipping it into the water on 17 at the TPC in a treacherous hill side shot from behind the green.  

Do we forget about the dark side of this length?

[DMoriarty]

Dan, whenever I read your recent posts on technology and length, I keep thinking back to your recent positon on walking vs. riding.  

If I recall correctly, when it comes to walking, you are concerned for the greater good of the game, and think that the rampant use of carts is damaging golf architecture.  Yet, when you discuss length and technology, you don't ever seem to consider the threat that ever increasing length poses to past and present architecture.  

Sure, the new technology doesn't ruin any courses for you and me.  In fact, it just might make the game more fun for the two of us.  But, unfortunately, very few architects, developers, and greens committees are building or renovating courses with you or me in mind.  They are building tracks that they hope will be "championship" courses to challenge, in theory, the best of the best.  In short, much like the cartballers, these monster hitters are ruining golf course architecture for the rest of us.  

I wish I was a master of quotes like you, so I could pull up a certain MacKenzie quote from Spirit of St. Andrews.  While discussing how increasing technology and distance were damaging the game, the good Dr. commented that he used to be able to play a match with his friends in a little over two hours.  At the time he wrote the book, the new technology and distance had slowed rounds down so much that he could barely complete a match in 3 hours!  How long do you suppose it will take to walk a round on a course that plays at over 8000 yds?  

[ed_getka]

I am curious how much the conditioning of the fairways the pros play affects the distances they are achieving. When the pros ball lands its bounces like it just landed on a runway, and I don't think it has much to do with their launch angle or trajectory. I know the ball IS going further irregardless of conditioning, but I wonder how much effect the "concrete" the balls are landing on affects all this.

[William Murray]

Eddie
Not a fan of firm conditions?  

[Doug Siebert]

Paul Richards quotes Dan Pohl saying:
'Something is wrong if they're gaining 40 yards without increasing their clubhead speed.'

Anybody have such numbers? My understanding is that the pros’ club-head speed is much faster than in years past.

Whether the average player on tour today has more clubhead speed is irrelevant to Pohl's point that some of the SAME GUYS that couldn't reach that hole in the 80s are doing it today.  Not many people have more clubhead speed in their 40s than they did in their 20s -- and no, some buddy who took lessons and improved his swing isn't the same thing as a tour pro finding a way to generate more clubhead speed without compromising accuracy.  Many of them scale back their clubhead speed after a few years on tour to increase accuracy.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if guys like Haas and Funk do generate a few mph more clubhead speed today than they did back then, but that'd be mainly due to big headed drivers being more forgiving and today's ball taking less spin (both back and side) off the driver than it did back then.  Instead of taking their 85% swing most of the time, maybe they can take their 90% swing now and hit the same number of fairways.

[Dan King]

DMoriarty writes:
If I recall correctly, when it comes to walking, you are concerned for the greater good of the game, and think that the rampant use of carts is damaging golf architecture.  Yet, when you discuss length and technology, you don't ever seem to consider the threat that ever increasing length poses to past and present architecture.

I don't see the connection. I've also never said that their needs to be some sort of Draconian rules change to deal with the cart-ball problem. I think it is in the process of taking care of itself.

One of the things I'd like to see is a more distinct separation between the pro game and all the rest. I keep hearing that it is important we keep one set of rules, but I've never heard a convincing reason why. I hear a lot of wannabe pros who like to compare themselves to their heroes, but other sports have handled the separation fine with no loss of fan interest.

The need for length is fictitious. It is a very small percentage of golfers who have outgrown most courses. From what I've seen it is much less than .01 percent of golfers who are hitting the ball out there more than 280 yards.

If I want to build a recreational baseball park I have no reason to worry about Barry Bonds or Randy Johnson. If either were to ever stop by and play they are going to demolish the park. I can live with that.

There are numerous easier, cheaper methods to fix the pro game. I'm amazed that so many people are obsessed with the ball with no consideration for other fixes.

The people on this group pushing for a reduced-distance ball haven't done any studies or made any attempt to get any information beyond the anecdotal. I challenged people concerned about the ball to go out to any course and count how many people are hitting it past 280 yards. Nobody has made any attempt to gather numbers. Supposedly there is this huge problem with people now so long that courses have lost their challenge, but yet there is no data to back it up.

But, unfortunately, very few architects, developers, and greens committees are building or renovating courses with you or me in mind.  They are building tracks that they hope will be "championship" courses to challenge, in theory, the best of the best.

And with the economy now in the toilet, there is a damn good chance they are going to go under along with the cart-ball courses. It's Darwinism at work. There have been a lot of stupid ideas in golf over the years, luckily the USGA and R&A haven't had knee-jerk rules changes every time someone comes up with a new stupid idea.

I wish I was a master of quotes like you, so I could pull up a certain MacKenzie quote from Spirit of St. Andrews.

See below quote.

While discussing how increasing technology and distance were damaging the game

During Mackenzie's life time there were no ball restrictions. Now there is. Mackenzie's wish came true. Yet we are playing rounds that are taking a heck of a lot longer than three hours.

Doug Siebert writes:
Whether the average player on tour today has more clubhead speed is irrelevant to Pohl's point that some of the SAME GUYS that couldn't reach that hole in the 80s are doing it today.

If there swings changed, why would it be irrelevant? The PGA Tour® has made their course setup much more consistent since the 80s. Players can swing away with little or no fear. They get consistent rough and consistent sand in the hazards. They have wedges that can bail them out of any sort of trouble they might get into. Pros used to lay up to specific distances, now they can swing away and choose from one of their four wedges.

Instead of taking their 85% swing most of the time, maybe they can take their 90% swing now and hit the same number of fairways.

And if they don't hit the fairways and greens, it's no big deal. The rough and hazards are identical every weekend. If the hazards are reduced and they have enough clubs to not have any distance issues, why would any pros now hold back?

If the concern is the pro game: make the course setup more inconsistent; reduce par; reduce the number of clubs they can use; be specific about lofts they are allowed to use. All of these solutions are cheaper and easier to implement than changing the golf ball.

I'm still wondering what would be so terrible about eliminating the concept of par-5s for the pros? Who is going to miss the second-shot lay up?

Dan King

"Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours."
 --Alister MacKenzie

[DMoriarty]

I've also never said that their needs to be some sort of Draconian rules change to deal with the cart-ball problem.

What would be Draconian about tweaking an existing rule that might not be working as it was intended?  

One of the things I'd like to see is a more distinct separation between the pro game and all the rest. . . .

So would I, but this is not going to happen.  I am trying to look at this problem from the perspective of what is actually happening, whether or not it is contrary to what we'd like to see.

There are numerous easier, cheaper methods to fix the pro game. I'm amazed that so many people are obsessed with the ball with no consideration for other fixes.

I don't give a damn about fixing the pro game.  My concern is preserving the courses on which the pros might occasionally play.

The people on this group pushing for a reduced-distance ball haven't done any studies or made any attempt to get any information beyond the anecdotal. I challenged people concerned about the ball to go out to any course and count how many people are hitting it past 280 yards.

This study would be completely beside the point, since the courses are being altered with the Pro game in mind, not the rec game in mind.  

It's Darwinism at work.

Natural selection is a slow and tedious process.  I am afraid your evolutionary cure won't come to pass until after the last of the classic courses have long passed away.  

There have been a lot of stupid ideas in golf over the years, luckily the USGA and R&A haven't had knee-jerk rules changes every time someone comes up with a new stupid idea.

This makes sense only if we first establish that the idea is stupid.  

During Mackenzie's life time there were no ball restrictions. Now there is. Mackenzie's wish came true. Yet we are playing rounds that are taking a heck of a lot longer than three hours.

Quite an oversimplification, dont you think?  I think that MacKenzie might have been "wishing" for a ball restriction that actually limited the distance the ball flew back when a long course was just over 6000 yards.  It isn't quite accurate to say that MacKenzie got his wish, is it?  

[Robert_Walker]

I do not think a good player loses clubhead speed until he is really, really, old.

Does anybody here recall what Sam Snead's clubhead speed was in his prime, and what it was when he was the oldest winner in the TOUR'S history?

Did his distance match up with the younger players?

[Andy]

Regarding the comment on tight, lower cut fairways, I believe that most of the changes in distance from 1956 to early 1990's were due to better fairways, lower cut/tight fairways, generally prepared firmer.  However, golf course conditions probably peaked with regards to "lower cut" in the early/mid 90's, so the last 6-7 years have been pure "ball" in my opinion.  I think it is time for a rollback, at least at the top end of the spectrum, but would be okay with everyone rolling back, as I am not sure the 15 handicapper who can hit is 225 with metal/graphite and a pro v1 is much shorter with old technology due to clubhead speed. I think we REWARD those who DO HAVE more clubhead speed, but just need to make a 300 yard drive a BIG ONE again.

[SLang]

On one of those challenge golf series playing on the golf channel, snead was hitting it 290+ against bob hope... back in the 60's

[TEPaul]

You've got to admit that although these guys today are definitely carrying the ball a good deal further than they used to the overall yardage distances we'e been seeing in the last few weeks on tour (and quoting the actual yardage distances in horror) has had a more than considerable amount of rollout! Don't tell me that's wrong because I've been watching it with great interest and trying to determine the extent of it. Some of those drives have been rolling maybe 40-50-60-70 or more yards. Anyone ever wonder how Bobby Jones (a known long driver) got his drives out there over 300 yards and more occasioanlly?

[TEPaul]

Probably the more applicable horror today is these tour pros now are hitting their irons about 3-4-5 irons longer and a good deal higher than the did in the old days.

The problem with the drives today I call the "one way stretch" and courses that are old can get lucky if they have available tee elasticity. The thing that's impossible, though, is the other end of the hole--approach to green! That's what I would call the "two way stretch" and clearly that isn't elastic at all. Not unless you can somehow move the green farther from the generally designed LZ and we all know that creates a downright architectural tragedy.

This is another good case for the fix being just ball related and not equipment related. Afterall how much of something like COR could a solid iron have?

[JohnV]

Tom,

Graphite Shafts, Longer shafts, Less loft on equivalently numbered irons, perimeter weighting that guarantees more solid contact that allows for players to be less afraid to swing harder.  None of these have anything to do with the ball, but can all produce iron shots that go farther than before.  And lets not even get into the weight room, shall we?  Or better technique.

Andy,
Given the above and all the changes we've seen in drivers how can you say it is just the ball?

By the way, what happened to all the 59s that everyone was predicting for last week.  We couldn't even get a 60 out of these guys.  I thought there were good.

There are so many factors that are causing the extra length that I have a hard time hearing everyone just blame the ball.

By the way shivas, Ernie's 342 yard average was for Sunday.  He was considerably shorter the rest of the week (around 305 I think  And given the amount of roll they were getting at Royal Melbourne, I'm not really that surprised.

[Rick Shefchik]

John V:

It was wet and windy the first two days of the Heineken. That surely cut down on distance -- just as the wind Sunday at the Hope made the scores go up.

I don't think anyone is claiming the ball is the only reason the pros are reducing 7200-yard courses to pitch-and-puts; I think what's being said here is that changing the ball would be the easiest way to get the game back into adjustment.