[Garland Bayley]

The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."

Really?  Who are you playing with and where?  I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6.  I treasure every one of those yards.


Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once.  I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.


Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences.  I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game". 


As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either.  Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing).  I've never seen an adult play a range ball.  Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.

Lou,

You aren't most people. I am most people. I blame bad shot results on bad swings, and would have difficulty determining that I should blame equipment and not myself.

[Matthew Mollica]

We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate.  But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal.  So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2)  Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.

Jim,


With respect,


1) The USGA and R&A have indicated their reluctance to bifurcate.
2) The TPC courses were exactly that - the Tour's attempt to build their own stadia. They're now ALL too short.
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.


There's a fourth choice, and possibly more.


Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today. The implements had not grown out of proportion with the arena. Nor was the game so sharply fragmented. The R&A and USGA have indicated they find bifurcation unpalatable.


Spin was a governor with the balls we used in the 80s. It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course. Such balls would not adversely detract from driver distances of slower swinging recreational golfers, but would curtail distance to a degree among professionals. There are patents for such balls dating back to the mid 1990s. One such patent is referenced in this very thread.


Matthew

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There were plenty of guys then that could hit a ball as far as Norman with his equipment. They just couldn’t control it like he could. Now they all can. It’s the margin for error on the club face that has expanded, allowing higher swing speeds to be more advantageous.

I think plenty of guys could hit it as well as Greg with Greg's equipment. Give 'em a week to adjust.

3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.

Where's your proof of that?

More people watch the PGA Tour — and it's far more successful and raises more money, etc. etc. etc. — than in the 1980s.

Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today.

Amateurs also played "distance balls" back then, and pros were not as good as they are now.

It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course.

Pinnacles were legal in 1980.

[Garland Bayley]

Totally agree with you. 👊🏻

Don't agree with Erik!

There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.

I'd probably agree they're not significantly better than the single best (or top two or so?) of each of their generations.

[Rob Marshall]

Totally agree with you. 👊🏻

Don't agree with Erik!

There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.

It could just be due to a better understanding of Physics.....

[Garland Bayley]

Totally agree with you. 👊🏻

Don't agree with Erik!

There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.

It could just be due to a better understanding of Physics.....

LOL
 

[Garland Bayley]

3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.

Where's your proof of that?

More people watch the PGA Tour — and it's far more successful and raises more money, etc. etc. etc. — than in the 1980s.

Erik,

Stop being so obtuse. Driver/wedge being boring is an opinion.

And, the Tiger phenomenon hadn't happened before the 1980s.
 

It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course.

Pinnacles were legal in 1980.

Erik,

Stop being obtuse. Pinnacles are irrelevant to Matthew's points.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Oh how I wish "ignore" actually worked here. Garland, congrats on getting down to a 17.9.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.

2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86

Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.

Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.

By your numbers, from 2007 through 2020, the average clubhead speed on tour increased by 0.77mph That's 0.055 mph per year over 14 years, not 13 as you referenced. This would suggest that the average clubhead speed in 2001 would have been ~1.1 mph slower than it is today.


If you plot the average swing speed over the last 14 seasons you get the trend equation (0.145 * x - 178) Which would suggest that the average clubhead speed on the PGA tour in 2001 would have been ~112.15 mph. Greater than a 1 mph difference yes, but either way what would be the ultimate impact? The relative change in carry distance related to a difference in club head speed of 2 mph would be around 5 yards total. As a change over 20 years, that impact is minuscule.


 Fitness is better today and technique is better today. That has helped some slower swingers get into the middle and some middle swingers get into the top, but there is little to suggest that it has had a massive impact on the whole of the worlds best. To believe that on the whole players 30 years ago had poor technique or were terribly conditioned for golf is just naive. Everything has impacted the evolution of the game, but in relationship to areas such as the equipment, fitness and technique has had a much, much lower total impact.


Norman was never the longest in the game during his time, but he was the rare combination of long and accurate. I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course. From 84-94 Greg ranked in the top 10 in driving distance 9 times and in the top 10 in total driving 6 times. In comparison, over the last 11 seasons players who ranked in the top 10 in driving distance have also finished in the top 10 in total driving 7 times, with Rory the lone player to make that list in two different years. Are we really to expect that today's longest would instantaneously gain a large margin of accuracy with the old equipment and preserve their distance?

[Stephen Davis]

The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."

Really?  Who are you playing with and where?  I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6.  I treasure every one of those yards.


Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once.  I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.


Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences.  I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game". 


As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either.  Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing).  I've never seen an adult play a range ball.  Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.

I will even use myself as an example. I am a good player, not great, but good. 5-10 yards on a drive is almost not even noticeable for me. Maybe it just means I don't take the game seriously enough, but I couldn't tell you the difference between a 250 yard shot and a 260 yard shot. Pretty much everyone I play with would be in the same boat.

As for the range ball comment. I will use my dad as an example. In his prime he was a scratch or better golfer and played collegiate. As he got up there in years and his SS decreased, he would play any ball he would find. I would find him playing 20 year old balls, practice balls, ProV1s, everything. He didn't care and neither he nor I could tell a difference in how far any of them went. Feel is a different thing, but the distance was so close as to not be noticeable.

[Stephen Davis]

We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate.  But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal.  So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2)  Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.

Jim,


With respect,


1) The USGA and R&A have indicated their reluctance to bifurcate.
2) The TPC courses were exactly that - the Tour's attempt to build their own stadia. They're now ALL too short.
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.


There's a fourth choice, and possibly more.


Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today. The implements had not grown out of proportion with the arena. Nor was the game so sharply fragmented. The R&A and USGA have indicated they find bifurcation unpalatable.


Spin was a governor with the balls we used in the 80s. It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course. Such balls would not adversely detract from driver distances of slower swinging recreational golfers, but would curtail distance to a degree among professionals. There are patents for such balls dating back to the mid 1990s. One such patent is referenced in this very thread.


Matthew

Yes!!! And the funny thing is most slower swing speed players could use more spin, so they actually may benefit. But again, some simple testing needs to be done and reported.

[jeffwarne]

many factors in play
wood drivers were 43 inches and steel shafted(more weight)
Titanium drivers are 45 inches with graphite shafts( less weight)
Longer = faster
lighter = faster
longer AND lighter = even faster


wood COR of .75
modern limit .83
swinging something faster, that rebounds more ='s a lot more ball speed


Now the ball-multi layered balls allow optimum launch and spin conditions to be fit to a specific player's technique
Pinnacles and Top flites were always long but the lack of spin led most elite players to ignore them (Trevino played a 2 piece Faultless and Jim Ferree played a Pinnacle Gold on the Senior Tour when I worked for him-many players carried a top Flite for long par 3's prior to the one ball local rule)


Add in natural selection of more athletes playing golf, more money,better technique, better and more regular physical conditioning,and the psychology of a swing for the fences mentality...
and you get where you are.


I've never said it was all "the ball"
but that's the easiest governor to employ at the highest level(bifurcation)
Probably all we will ever get due to the morbid fears expressed here about "losing 5 yards"(they are clearly better than me as I would never notice)


but that doesn't address the scale problem of younger 10 handicap players obsoleting driving ranges and creating dangerous situations with long and wrong shots off and on property.

[Thomas Dai]

Someone who likes and plays golf and doesn’t vote Green nor eat lentils and wear sandals mentioned the other day that .....
When the ProV1 was introduced in the year 2000 the population of the world was 6.1 billion people.
That the worlds population is now 7.8 billion.
That the 1.7 billion difference is for example, more than the entire population of China (1.4 billion) or India (1.3 billion) and is the equivalent of 5 times, yes 5 times, the current population of the USA.
As they added, that’s a lot of mouths to feed and water, a lot of bodies to cloth and house, and yet some within golfing circles are happy to use ever more land and water to play a game where you hit a little ball with a stick.
And it was mentioned not by someone who is a big time Green voting environmental-ecology junkie, but by someone who likes and plays golf and wants their children and their children and their children’s children etc to have the opportunity to play the game as well.


Atb

[Lou_Duran]

You can gain distance easily (and free) by moving up a tee.

Bite your tongue.  Why resign to old age when there are better alternatives?

[Kalen Braley]

Of course the players have gotten stronger and learned swings that produce more club head speed.

The dilemma lies in what % can be attributed to an improved ball and equipment vs player improvement.  If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be at least 70% due to equipment.  Look no further than the Senior Tour where players are hitting it far longer at 55 than they were at 35...

For example, Ernie Els.
2000 in his physical prime -  278
2010 at 40 - 288
2020 on the Senior tour - 298

If he had same equipment in 2000 as now, he'd easily be a 305+ hitter.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you plot the average swing speed over the last 14 seasons you get the trend equation (0.145 * x - 178) Which would suggest that the average clubhead speed on the PGA tour in 2001 would have been ~112.15 mph.

Those assume that nothing else changed between 2007 and 2000, and several things changed from 2000 to 2007.

To believe that on the whole players 30 years ago had poor technique or were terribly conditioned for golf is just naive.

Ben, where did I say they were terribly conditioned or had poor technique? I didn't. I simply said that players are better today.

Everything has impacted the evolution of the game, but in relationship to areas such as the equipment, fitness and technique has had a much, much lower total impact.

My point was it's more than equipment. Even just understanding how beneficial it can be to hit it 30 yards farther if you're in the rough only 1.4 times more per round or something changes the way people approach the strategic elements of playing golf.

I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.

I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.

Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.

BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.


So, that's fine Ben, and thank you for answering my question. You likely think I'm over-rating the skill and talent of the game's current crop of players, just as I think you're under-rating them. I appreciate that you answered my question(s).

[Stephen Davis]

Jeff and Thomas,


Great points both of you!


Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.

[Garland Bayley]

...

I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.

I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.

Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.

BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.

...

Once again Erik demonstrates that he does not understand the topic. The data you recite is useless on this topic Erik. Perhaps you should change your major to English Literature.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round)
...

.6810 * 18 = 12.23
.6118 * 18 = 11.01

12.23 - 11.01 = 1.22
which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.

[Peter Flory]

Usually 14 fairways.

[Niall C]

Jeff and Thomas,


Great points both of you!


Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.

Stephen


I agree with what you say. Golf courses are often a valuable green space in urban and built up areas. They provide a haven and habitat for wildlife and they allow a lot of people to get exercise in a very pleasant environment. You don't need to be a tree hugger to know and appreciate that.


Niall 

[Stephen Davis]

Jeff and Thomas,


Great points both of you!


Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.

Stephen


I agree with what you say. Golf courses are often a valuable green space in urban and built up areas. They provide a haven and habitat for wildlife and they allow a lot of people to get exercise in a very pleasant environment. You don't need to be a tree hugger to know and appreciate that.


Niall

I totally agree. Unfortunately, many out there would rather see golf courses shut down in favor of parks. They clearly don't understand the economics of what they are lobbying, but since when did ignorance stop anyone

[Dave Doxey]

I don't understand the call to roll back equipment.  Why do golf courses "need" to be longer?  Have they gotten too easy for the average golfer?  Let the pros shoot whatever they can.  It doesn't matter - low score still wins. 


If a club's membership decides to spend big bucks on making their course longer to "protect par", let them - it's their money.   Otherwise,leave courses alone.

[Matthew Mollica]

When the implements and the arena move further out of proportion, the way the game is played changes. And lots of people don’t like that change.



I suppose Dave that you form your position in the belief that the PGA Tour is the only place the lack of proportion is evident. I would contest that. I think most here would. Certainly the architects...


The issue of balls flying further and raising liability / safety / boundary issues more readily in this day and age is irrefutable. Costs of higher boundary fencing, course revision in the name of safety, escalating insurance premiums etc are other factors cited by those favouring a rollback.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()