[Bob_Huntley]

Jeff,

The European Tour does not play there, but Dornoch is on the same degree of latitude as Moscow (Russia that is, not Idaho).

Bob

[JohnV]

Jeff,

The European Tour does not play there, but Dornoch is on the same degree of latitude as Moscow (Russia that is, not Idaho).

Bob

But they do play in Moscow.

[BCrosby]

JVB -

Given your numbers, I have to agree with you. It's not the weather, it's not different playing styles... it's depth of field.

Bob

[Paul_Turner]

But in 2003 there were almost twice as many 300 yard drivers on the Euro tour compared with the PGA!  Same COR rules in 2003 on both tours?

[Brent Hutto]

Bob and JVB,

One possibility we could consider is that the payoff for the "flogging" strategy differs between the US and European tours. It's an interesting thought experiment to explore the following scenario:

Let's say that players with the ability to effectively "flog" originate equally often in the US and Europe.

Let's further say that "flogging" is an advatageous strategy in the US but works no better or worse than "non-flogging" in Europe.

Finally, let's say that there is more prestige, earning potential and desirability to playing on the US rather than Europe.

Under those conditions, I think we'd see higher driving distances in the US because a "non-flogger" in the US might be driven to Europe where he can succeed just as well without "flogging". Likewise, a "flogger" in Europe might leverage his "flogging" talent into a spot in the US.

So here is a set of conditions under which differences in courses, maintenance or weather could produce data consistent with the actual observations that John contributed. By which I mean that the examples cited don't absolutely conflict with the proposition that playing on the US Tour rewards "flogging" to a greater extent than playing on the European Tour.

[Jeff_Brauer]

How is prize money distributed on the Euro tour? In the US its 18, then 9, then 4.5%, I think. If the Euro money was a more "democratic" split, this might encourage a more conservative style of play, since winning wouldn't generate a financial benefit.

Just a theory.

[BCrosby]

Brent/Jeff -

Interesting theories. They both might be right. But bear with me on my own theory.

Flogging is a strategy that only pays off if you are long. The theory behind flogging is that if you are long enough to leave yourself PW or SW approaches, whether you are in the fairway or the rough is irrelevant.

Shorter players, however, are not rough agnostic. Hitting middle iron approaches from the rough won't cut it. Such players place a higher pemium on hitting the fairway.

Which leads to the surprising (and deeply ironic) conclusion that the disparity between distance on the US Tour and the Euro Tour is due to the wider fairways (and/or less penal rough) at Euro Tour venues.

Let me flesh that out a bit.

If approaching from the fairway is a more important factor to shorter players (that is, players not long enough to avail themselves of the advantages of flogging) they will seek to play at venues with more generous fairways. Euro Tour venues have wider fairways. For that reason more shorter players elect to play there. Thus the driving averages on the Euro Tour are shorter. And that's Q.E.D.

(I have no idea if this is right. Or even makes sense. But it sure was fun coming up with it. And anyway, you guys started this. )

Bob

[A.G._Crockett]

Horses for courses...

[Jeff Goldman]

Dave M and folks,

The next big thing is modifying driver club head design to increase inertia and gain another bunch of yards. Coming soon.

Jeff Goldman

[TEPaul]

But in 2003 there were almost twice as many 300 yard drivers on the Euro tour compared with the PGA!  Same COR rules in 2003 on both tours?"

Paul:

I'm serious---I think the weekly TOUR courses over here have really started to try and firm things up "through the green". I haven't heard anything about this per se, it's just that I've noticed some really excessive rollout over here on some tour events compared to the way it used to be over here. Don't you think that could explain some of the reasons behind the remark from you above. What else could it be?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

You said in post #32:

"So when Frank Thomas or anyone else says that the distance increases have been mostly from spring-like effect or even optimization, I have to call B.S.  Sure, these two things make a difference, but lets be honest here:  IT IS THE BALL."

You said in post #14;  

""Pro V, Pro Vx"

I said to you in response to post #14:

"David Moriarty:
In some conversations with Frank Thomas in the last few years he actually broke down what he felt were the contributing factors to the distance increase amongst premier players in the last 10 or so years. In more or less equal portions he attributed that distance increase to;
1. COR (increase in "spring-like" effect)
2. The new age ball (ProV etc)
3. Optimization (the computerized fitting of ideal ball/club/swing"

David:

According to some who've heard Frank Thomas interviewed he's said a number of things as to the reasons behind a distance increase in the last 10 or so years. Frank does seem  to put a lot of stock in the fact that the primary reason was COR but nevertheless he broke it down for me percentage-wise as about co-equal between the three factors.

And additionally, I had another conversation today with the tech center and on the subject of why a guy like Howell or anyone else would actually just pop up in the stats with a driver jump in distance is basically because that player had not theretofore been properly "optimized". Optimization of such as tour players is just basically a computer analysis of what the ideal symbiotic combination of ball, club and his swing is to produce maximum distance.

[Sean_A]

London is about 220 miles north of Montreal.  Berlin and Warsaw are slightly north (in the region of 100 miles, probably a bit less) of London.  Rome is in the neighborhood of 600 miles south of London and nearly spot on the same latitude as Boston.  These are what I have memorized for some reason as my points of reference.  This should help put things in perspective.  

Why do some of you think that flogging doesn't work in Europe?  If flogging doesn't work, then why reduce length?

Ciao

Sean

[JohnV]

But in 2003 there were almost twice as many 300 yard drivers on the Euro tour compared with the PGA!  Same COR rules in 2003 on both tours?

Paul, I don't believe they were the same COR Rules in 2003.  I can't remember exactly when the R&A agreed to go along with the USGA on COR and I don't know exactly when the European Tour did, but I think it was after 2003.

[TEPaul]

"Gee Tom,  a few posts into this conversation and already I long for the days when you didnt want to have anything to do with me.
Have another drink, Tom."

You got it pal. The remainder of your post #41 doesn't deserve a response from me or anyone else, it's so tortured and f....ed up! You and your posts on this website are a complete waste of time, in my opinion, and seemingly in the opinions of most on here. I say you should just take your opinions and your litigious modus and attitude and continue to file it in some bureaucracy in LA!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,  I dont think there was anything wrong with my post.  I think everyone but you would agree, if they didnt want to risk your rath, ala me and Tom MacWood.  Get off my back."

David Moriarty:

All that seems to concern you on this website is agreement and consensus on the one extreme or wrath and criticsim on the other extreme.

Aren't you capable of getting past those extremes and having and intelligent discourse with anyone? It sure doesn't seem so. In a post or two on most every thread you seem to devolve into either blatant argumentation or some hysterical reaction to perceived personal insult.

Tom MacWood and I have gotten into a ton of tussles on here but through all that I feel we both have some respect for where the other is coming from despite the apparent disagreements on here, from time to time.

The same doesn't seem to be true of you. I only wish it were so---someday.

Nobody on here needs to worry about my wrath---as you say--other than those who can't handle questions, criticisms and the opinions of me and others that may not necessarily be the same as theirs.

As I said to you on that scathing IM I sent you---everyone on here has to live and die everyday by the things they say on here. That to me is the essence of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. That's it's essence and dynamic and you're no different than anyone else that way. Either am I.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty & TEPaul,

Enough's enough.

You're both nice fellows who love golf and GCA.com and there isn't any reason for continuing along these lines.

Shake hands, kiss and make up.

[Doug Siebert]

Although some of my good friends disagree with me, and sometimes very vociferously , I just can't imagine why they cannot understand that if anyone is to look at driving distance stats in any comparative way wityh any degree of accuracy they simply have to take into consideration the distorting factor of the rollout of the ball. And there's little question and little logical doubt that rollout at any place and at any particular time can be quite different in overall distance and its statistics.

I think that might be valid over the past few years but not earlier than 2000 or so, because the new equipment changed things so much.  Since 1985 the driving distance of the longer hitters has gone from maybe 280 to 310 yards, a 30 yard increase.  The carry distance for a well hit ball for one of those longer hitters has probably gone from 260 to 310, a much larger increase.  More of today's distance comes in the form of carry, so if you compared carry distances of the past to today (assuming you had accurate stats for either) you'd think the problem is even worse than it really is.

I'm probably being charitable with my 260 yard estimate for carry distance in 1985, I know how far I used to carry it then and I flew it so much further than everyone else I knew it was ridiculous -- but I always had trouble putting too much backspin on my drives I never licked until today's equipment did it for me.

[John Kirk]

I agree with Tom Paul that the ball rolls further on PGA tour course fairways than it did 10 years ago.

This is very similar to the increase in home runs in major league baseball from the early 1990s until now.  This year, run production dropped significantly for the first time in many years, especially in the American League.  Recently, the power surge has been attributed almost solely to illegal performance enhancing substances.  But before that, a variety of reasons were posited:

1.  The ball is livelier (juiced ball).
2.  With 32 major league teams, the pitching talent was diluted.
3.  The new ballparks are smaller.
4.  Modern athletes are larger human beings.
5.  Players train smarter and harder.
6.  Players use performance enhancing substances.  Initial reports of creatine and/or androstendione use were probably a smoke screen for the use of more effective substances, like human growth hormone (HGH) and designer steroids.

The increase in driving distance for pro golfers is very similar:

1.  The ball is livelier.
2.  The fairways are drier and tighter, increasing roll.
3.  The modern players are larger people.  People are getting bigger.
4.  Physical training has dramatically improved.  Weight lifting, stretching, and aerobic work is commonplace now.  10-20 years ago it was not.
5.  The ball/club combination carefully calibrated for each player.  Also, modern swing techniques allow the player to maximize his efficiency.

It is my opinion that Tiger Woods revolutionized the game.  By 2000, he was so much better than the other players that they had to use every advantage available in order to compete, and as a group they have closed the gap.

With respect to performance enhancing substances in golf, it is naive to believe that no such problem exists.  You've got 200 of the most competitive athletes in the world in a sport without mandatory drug testing.  Success is worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for the players and their families.  Why would golf be any different than the other major sports?

[Jim Nugent]

With respect to performance enhancing substances in golf, it is naive to believe that no such problem exists.  You've got 200 of the most competitive athletes in the world in a sport without mandatory drug testing.  Success is worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for the players and their families.  Why would golf be any different than the other major sports?

Interesting point that I have not seen addressed before.  One big question has to be, do drugs really make a golfer better?  

My understanding is that drugs themselves don't improve performance.  They shorten recovery time.  The athlete can train more.  

In other words, drugs themselves won't make you stronger or faster.  They don't improve your eye/hand coordination, your timing, your feel around the greens.  

If so, they won't help most golfers hit the ball longer.  They might help someone get stronger, if he put in lots of extra hours at the gym each week.  Somehow when I look at John Daly I doubt that is taking place though.  

If I'm right about drugs, maybe the most likely candidates are the gym rats?  

[Paul_Turner]

Prov1 to Pro V1x= 5 yard gain...?  Didn't, the far more radical change, from wound to solid ball equal about 7 yards?

It'll be interesting to see if the distance remains relatively flat.  Obviously steady, small gains are proably due to the players, or perhaps maintenance.

I don't think there's much to be gained in the position of the centre of gravity (or more accurately centre of percussion).  That has been optimised. The old solid wood drivers had a COG that was too high for the best launch angle.

[JohnV]

David, the Pro V1 wasn't the first of the super balls out there.  Other companies including Precept led the way with the three-piece solid ball.  When Titleist saw that it could be done they built the Pro V1.  Before that they had decried the notion of anything other than a wound ball being acceptable for players.  They didn't lead the pack, they followed it.  Certainly due to the large number of players under contract, they led the way in driving the distance surge that followed.

As big an influence was the large headed titanium driver that became so popular in that time frame.

Today, about half of the players in the top 25 are using Pro V1s while 60% of all players on the tour use them.

[Paul_Turner]

But in 2003 there were almost twice as many 300 yard drivers on the Euro tour compared with the PGA!  Same COR rules in 2003 on both tours?"

Paul:

I'm serious---I think the weekly TOUR courses over here have really started to try and firm things up "through the green". I haven't heard anything about this per se, it's just that I've noticed some really excessive rollout over here on some tour events compared to the way it used to be over here. Don't you think that could explain some of the reasons behind the remark from you above. What else could it be?

Tom

You might be right, a "firm and fast" analysis of both tours would be interesting.  

You could try and work out the average temperature for the tours, from the data I have, a drop in 20F equals a 3 yard loss for a pro.

[TEPaul]

FYI, the USGA Tech Center uses an actual driving range to test over-all ball distance but in a general sense they consider "roll-out" (how far the ball travels after initially hitting the ground) to be 10% of over-all distance. Or is it 10% of carry distance? I don't know a damn thing about this science. Apparently I can't even remember which it is right after they tell me. Well, anyway, they consider "rollout" in a general sense to be 10% of something.  

But what if Tiger hit a drive that bounced and rolled for 60 yards? Does that mean his over-all drive should be 600 yards?  

See what I mean?

[John Kirk]

My understanding is that drugs themselves don't improve performance.  They shorten recovery time.  The athlete can train more.  

In other words, drugs themselves won't make you stronger or faster.  They don't improve your eye/hand coordination, your timing, your feel around the greens.  

If so, they won't help most golfers hit the ball longer.  They might help someone get stronger, if he put in lots of extra hours at the gym each week.  Somehow when I look at John Daly I doubt that is taking place though.  

If I'm right about drugs, maybe the most likely candidates are the gym rats?  

I believe steroids and associated muscle building drugs will increase muscle mass without additional exercise, though their effect will be much greater with weight lifting and other muscle building exercise.  For example, beef cattle bulk up with steroidal injections.

I think your conclusion is wrong, however.  Given the same timing and coordination, a golfer with stronger muscles should hit the ball farther.  Just like baseball.  Home run production has jumped significantly in the last 20 years.  One of the reasons is performance enhancing substances.

I doubt many pro golfers use steroids.  There may be psychological side effects which reduce a player's effectiveness.    Relaxed concentration is so important.  But there are lots of chemicals out there which might help.  The use of beta blockers has been discussed here before.  If I drink a six pack of beer while playing, there's a 30 minute window in the middle of the round where my driving distance jumps 15-20 yards .  John Daly stays sharp and alert by drinking caffeinated Diet Cokes while he plays.

With respect to drugs, I'm just saying there's fame and riches at stake, and at some point, people will do whatever it takes to be great.

[John Kirk]

John Daly is the modern day Babe Ruth.  I don't think the Bambino worked out much either, unless we expand the definition somewhat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()