[Tom Huckaby]

JKM:

See my response re USGA course rating distances used.  Actually the numbers did change, I believe 2 years ago... just a bit.

And yes we have had this discussion many times.  In the end I think it's pretty understood that the distances are too short for the scratch, but again the consequences of changing them too much are very high (think what changing par would mean).... John V.  can comment far better than I can.  I just see it as relative also - as I say, the idea isn't to predict a score, but to just use a consistent standard.  In this manner it really doesn't matter what the distances are.

TH

[George Pazin]

Personally, I CARRY my driver (4 year old technology, 12* effective loft) on average 247 (that's based on many sessions on the TrackMan over the years with the same club, and it's always about the same). Overall is right around 270. 5-iron carry distance is right on 190. At 5'8", 132 pounds, I get everything I can out of my scrawny frame!!! I am maxed out. And the guy I play with more than anyone will hit it 80 yards by me at least once a round.

Just out of curiosity, why would you believe a machine over the real thing?

And I would add that I think many or most overesimate, almost regardless of handicap. The reason most aren't on this thread is because Jeff called them on it right out of the box.

Again, I contend that averages for most golfers are meaningless, and the multiple tee theory only works well in theory.

Huck -

My recollection is that JohnV said the new #s are 250 and 200, but I think that corresponds with what Ed said, he just broke up the carry and total. But I would only bet your]/i] life on that, not mine.

[Guy Nicholson]

Would anyone agree that the amount by which a person may overestimate their distances is directly related to how high their handicap is? Is it a straight line correlation? The better a player is, the more likely they know how far they will carry it.

The higher your handicap, the wider the gap between your best shots and your worst shots.

Pros hit nearly every ball more or less solidly. They can measure every drive and get a relatively narrow band from which to draw an average.

Some mid-handicappers will hit nearly every drive between 210 and 230, but a lot of us will stub one off the toe, then stripe the next 265 down the middle. So we end up writing off a lot of mis-hits, which may more accurately represent our abilities but misrepresents our actual tendencies.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Remember I do 5-6 of these per year - I know what the numbers are and we don't need John V for that!   Ed listed them correctly:  

usga course rating guidelines consider a 'scratch' golfer to, on average, carry the ball 230 yards on the tee ball, with a 20 yard roll.  the 'bogey' golfer will, on average, carry the ball 180 yards with a 20 yard roll.  those are averages, with several factors influencing the actual distances, e.g. topography, firmness of fairways, etc.

What I don't recall is when we CHANGED to those numbers.  It was either last year or the year before (for sure less than 10 years, as JKM asserted).  The old distances were a little less for each.

TH

[Doug Sobieski]

Personally, I CARRY my driver (4 year old technology, 12* effective loft) on average 247 (that's based on many sessions on the TrackMan over the years with the same club, and it's always about the same). Overall is right around 270. 5-iron carry distance is right on 190. At 5'8", 132 pounds, I get everything I can out of my scrawny frame!!! I am maxed out. And the guy I play with more than anyone will hit it 80 yards by me at least once a round.

Just out of curiosity, why would you believe a machine over the real thing?

George:

It simply reinforces the results I see on the golf course. For example, I would have NEVER believed that I could carry my 5-iron that distance consistently 5 years ago. The computer stats proved me wrong, and now I can stand there with confidence knowing that a decent shot will carry my stock distance (which is longer than I would have said if you asked me). It's helped me stop overclubbing as much as I used to. I tend to hit a very high percentage of shots pin high. The guys I play with most will tell you that distance control is the strongest part of my game, and it's improved since the stats became available to me.

Would anyone agree that the amount by which a person may overestimate their distances is directly related to how high their handicap is? Is it a straight line correlation? The better a player is, the more likely they know how far they will carry it.

The higher your handicap, the wider the gap between your best shots and your worst shots.

Pros hit nearly every ball more or less solidly. They can measure every drive and get a relatively narrow band from which to draw an average.

Some mid-handicappers will hit nearly every drive between 210 and 230, but a lot of us will stub one off the toe, then stripe the next 265 down the middle. So we end up writing off a lot of mis-hits, which may more accurately represent our abilities but misrepresents our actual tendencies.

Guy:

Exactly right. I learned to play golf by reading books, and one was Jack Nicklaus' Playing Lessons. In that book he said "improving in golf isn't making your best shots better, it's making your worst shots better." And I've said exactly the same thing to countless people that I've taught over the years. The better the player you are, the narrower the dispersion, and the more accurately you can predict how far a particular shot will travel.

[Grant Saunders]

I would say I average about 270 metres(300 yards) off the tee when im playing frequently.

The times I have had my swing speed measured, it is around the 118 -120 mph mark. I am 6 foot 1 and weigh around 240 pounds. I do spend a fair bit of time lifting weights.

I tend to hit the ball quite high and being a left hander, I have always had trouble finding low lofted clubs to suit my swing. Currently, I play a 9.5 degree titleist 905S as that was the lowest loft I could get in that club at the time. Ideally, I would like to be playing with around 8 degrees.

I did qualify for the New Zealand long drive finals this year with a qualifying drive of 315 metres (345 yards). It was the only drive I hit straight enough though. At the final, the winner was a guy who stands around 5 foot 10 and weighs 185 pounds. One competitor was 6 foot 7 and weighs 300 pounds.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4703937a26352.html

At the end of the day, it isnt about size its about how fast you can move the clubhead. Some people simply have more fast-twitch muscle fiber than others.

[Ken Moum]

as a course rater, i've read this thread with some interest.

usga course rating guidelines consider a 'scratch' golfer to, on average, carry the ball 230 yards on the tee ball, with a 20 yard roll.  the 'bogey' golfer will, on average, carry the ball 180 yards with a 20 yard roll.  those are averages, with several factors influencing the actual distances, e.g. topography, firmness of fairways, etc.

judging from the distances mentioned throughout this thread, i'm wondering if the usga guidelines need to be changed, or is this further evidence that we tend to overestimate how far we hit the ball?

ed

Yes.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

Ken (my former foil in such things):

I assume it's yes to both?

Just remember what the result of using these distances is (just a standard used to give a rating that all use, and really has no other meaning); and the consequences if such were changed too much (standard distances for par would have to change, scorecards be re-written, par 72 go the way of the dinosaur).

In the end I think it's wise to leave as is.

I expect you to disagree.  Just wanted to get our terms straight.

 

[Kalen Braley]

But Tom,

This is a good thing.  When par is dropped to say 70 from 72, I can still shoot 19 over on my round and claim I broke 90.   

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

It's actually an interesting question.  My first thought is just about the pain in the ass it would mean for courses to change all scorecards, and re-do hole signs, etc.  But scorecards do go through printings... and signs to get changed... so perhaps this is a non-issue.

So say we changed scratch expected distance to 260 + 25 roll, 285 total off the tee... and a max of 240 + 15 roll, 255 off the deck.  That would mean then that all holes under 535 would then necessarily become par fours.

Make those numbers lower, it matters not... that's how one has to think of it.

What effect would this have on golfers and golf courses?

TH

[Ken Moum]

Ken (my former foil in such things):

I assume it's yes to both?

Just remember the what the result of using these distances is (just a standard used to give a rating that all use, and really has no other meaning); and the consequences if such were changed too much (standard distances for par would have to change, scorecards be re-written, par 72 go the way of the dinosaur).

In the end I think it's wise to leave as is.

I expect you to disagree.  Just wanted to get our terms straight.

 

Actually, I mostly agree with you. I was mostly be a smartA..

I do think that it's irrational to continue to claim that the guys on here who hit it 280+ are playing par fives when they have a n eight iron in their hand for the second shot.

But it doesn't really affect me much, the only 8 irons I hit anymore are for third shots.

Did you know that in 2001, there were 37 players on Tour who finished the season under par on the par fours, and that in 2008 there was only one--John Huston?  (Tiger didn't have enough rounds to count, or it would have been two.)

FWIW, the number was eight in 1999, the ProV1 was introduced on Tour some time in 2000, and it went up to 27, then 37, followed by a steady decline to one in 2008.

In 2000, Tiger (Using a Nike three-piece ball) was -71 on the fours. This year Huston was -4.

Has all the fairway narrowing and rough growing had an effect?

[Tom Huckaby]

Pros play such a different game, and never play NET, so I rather discount their relevance to course rating methodology.

 

But the rest is good stuff, and all in good spirit.

Just do consider the effect, as I just tried to describe to Kalen.  If we make the two-shot course rating standard 525 - which doesn't seem unrealistic, say 275 + 250 - that means my beloved home course just became a par 68 or 69.  Would people adjust?  Would it matter at all?

I wonder.....

[Ken Moum]

What effect would this have on golfers and golf courses?

TH

It would seriously get into the heads of all the better players who are used to making birdies on those "short" par fives.

And if you used alternate par so that 475 was a five-par from the whites and four-par from blues, it wouldn't affect me at all.

It's pretty common in Scotland for the Gents tees and Ladies Tees to be close together except with different par.

Think of all the shortish courses where instead of trying to find another 50 yards to  extend a 465-yard par five, you could simply put the whites and blues together and change ONE number on the card.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

Ken - that's a hell of a good thought.

But would people over here accept different pars from different tees?  It's pretty uncommon.  Oh, there are often different LADIES pars... but would people accept a white tee par 5 and blue tee par 4 at the same distance?

That would make for confusing scorecards also....

In the end it's a GREAT way to do this.  I just wonder how it would go over with the golf consumers... and course proprietors.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I think its interesting and no doubt it plays into ones pysche.  There is a par 70 course in Spokane that used to eat my lunch and I could never figure out why it was tough to break 90.  Well 4 long ball buster par 4's was the answer, not that it would matter if they were 5's.

I guess #'s need to stay in the 70's because when par is less than that, people start to think its a "short course" or something of that nature and have no clue that it went from 4 par 5's to just 1.  

However I don't see why courses just can't have a different par rating for different set of tees.  Par 70 from the tips, 72 from the whites.  I see this every now and then for womens tees, why not differentiate between the average joe hacker and a low single digit capper....their games are just as far apart as a typical womans is to a man.

Edit:  Looks like kmourn beat me to the punch on this!

[Jason Topp]

I charted my drives through a computer program for a few years and my average drive was very consistently at 250 yards although individual well struck drives could vary from 200 to 300 yards.

[Ken Moum]

I just wonder how it would go over with the golf consumers... and course proprietors.

TH

Golfers are a pretty resilient lot, so I'd guess they'd get over it. Remember, we had par sixes for a long time, and no one misses them much.

The changes you suggest to the actual rating criteria wouldn't be popular with the crowd that want's their course to be "hard," but all the handicap bandits I know would welcome the extra strokes they'd get from lowering the rating.

I think the biggest thing "wrong" with the current system is that Slope range from course to course doesn't adequately account for the difference in difficulty for bogey golfers.

If you're a 15 index who plays a course that has a slope under 120 and have to compete on a neutral site against a 15 index from a course that has a 150 slope, you will get KILLED.

The slope chart isn't steep enough, IMHO.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

Ken - we've discussed your concern about slope before, and it is valid.  I have every belief that will be tweaked over time.  The system is anything but static.

As for the rest, it is good food for thought.  I would have a great concern about handicap bandits.... and there are also a lot who want their course to be seen as hard.  I shudder to think what they'd to to get to the new magic standard:  over-70 par.

TH

[David_Madison]

I fly it 250-270, with clubhead speed in the 108-114 range. The variance is due almost entirely to quality of contact, which is all over the place, rather than clubhead speed variance. It's amazing to see when on tv they show a pro carrying the ball more than 280 with 110 mph clubhead speed. Really proves that quality of contact (including launch angle and spin rate) can have more of an effect than crazy high clubhead speeds.

[Sean_A]

I think a flat out rip with a good trajectory will carry 250 for me, but won't roll so much.  In reality, anything 220 or more on my ideal line of carry (assuming normal conditions) gives me a bit of food for thought.  I am happy with 230 in the fairway.  

I know many guys way overs estimate their length and don't really understand how far 275 yards is.  Just watch where guys start to look for balls in the rough.  Loads look 20-25 yards further up then where their ball is.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Just watch where guys start to look for balls in the rough.  Loads look 20-25 yards further up then where their ball is.

Ciao

That is VERY true.  I am quite adept at finding missing golf balls... I start 25 yards back from where the hitter is looking.

 

[George Pazin]

Just watch where guys start to look for balls in the rough.  Loads look 20-25 yards further up then where their ball is.

Ciao

That is VERY true.  I am quite adept at finding missing golf balls... I start 25 yards back from where the hitter is looking.

 

They take their cut from the pros... doesn't it seem like both the men and women are awful generous in determining when balls enter lateral hazards?

Can't speak for anyone else, but the last couple years, playing single digit rounds in each, I've had several times where I gave up, only to later find my tee shot 30+ yards ahead of where I was looking.

Huck is just waaaaaaaay too much of a cynic. I expect it from Sean.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

LOL
Love it, George.

I guess I am a cynic in this respect.  I also do find a lot of golf balls.  But you should not be surprised to know that I really did mis-state that before.  I tend to START way up where the hitter is looking (out of respect for feelings) and then move backward.  In my mind I don't expect to find the ball until I go back 25 yards at least.

So the cynicsm is internal.

 

[Sean_A]

Just watch where guys start to look for balls in the rough.  Loads look 20-25 yards further up then where their ball is.

Ciao

That is VERY true.  I am quite adept at finding missing golf balls... I start 25 yards back from where the hitter is looking.

 

Huck is just waaaaaaaay too much of a cynic. I expect it from Sean.

 

Why thank you, thank you very much.

Ciao

[Jeff Fortson]

At the height of my days as a playing professional I went to Hot Stix in Phoenix, AZ and got on their launch monitor which is quite accurate.

I swung the driver on average 114mph and carried the ball 278 yards on average with 10-12 average yards of roll.  These numbers were in "dome-like" conditions (i.e. calm, flat, and normal ground conditions).  That means my average drive with a ProV1x golf ball averaged @ 290 yards.  I played in Q-School twice and made it to 2nd Stage once.  At both stages I was average length.

There are some guys out there that carry the ball un-Godly distances.  Some mini-tour guys like Jeremy Tucker and Brian Miller (both from the San Diego area) absolutely crush the ball.  We're talking Bubba Watson/J.B. Holmes type of length.  They carry it 300-310 in the air, easily.


Jeff F.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()