Distance the modern player hits the ball - equipment/conditioning

[Thomas Dai]

An old chestnut.

Rory McIlroy looks like a rugby player these days and watching the guys play on TV it is noticeable how so many of them are bulked up and there's always lots of chat about gym work.

Has any analysis been done on how much the increase in distance is down to equipment and how much is down to conditioning?

atb

[Ivan Lipko]

I dont see too many club golfers hitting it any long. I hit longer than probably 80-90 per cent. And I am not any strong or technical.


so, yes, it is conditioning and technique for most part. Has not much to do with the club/ball.

PS: yes, the equipment does help a lot, when you get the first two parts right, ie swing it fast and hit it on center face.

[Ben Hollerbach]

From the early 1960's until the mid 1990's the average driving distance on tour may have increased 10 yards. It was a very slow growth that could be best accounted for by golf course maintenance practices. Between 1995 and 2005 the adaption of graphite shafts, titanium heads, and the Pro-V1 made the tour average shoot up nearly 30 yards. But since 2005 the tour driving average has increased at a rate on par with the time preceding the mid 90's. There has been very little increase in driver distance over the last 10 years. While fitness does aid these players in hitting it a long ways I believe its clear that the majority of the boost is more directly related to equipment.

Looking at distance from a casual players perspective. the R&A conducted a study from 1996 through 2012 looking at the average driving distance of a player. Over their 17 years of study the average driving distance only increased 8 yards, from 200 to 208. Interestingly they concluded the increase in distance is due to the more frequent usage of the driver by the average player when compared to 1996, an increase of 35%.

[Jason Topp]

There is research on this issue and that research has concluded that equipment is the biggest factor.

 As I recall the biggest factors are the ball and the ability to use lighter and longer shafts due to titanium clubheads.  The impact of both of these factors were about equal.  MOI had a slight impact as well.

Physical improvements have caused slight increases over time but that is a pretty steady progression and nothing like the jump that occured in the 1995-2005 time frame.

I do think the USGA has succeeded in holding distance in check since it announced it was going to do so. 

I will look around for references when I get the chance.

[Jon Wiggett]

I would say the ball is the biggest difference. My 1980's David Watkinson persimmon headed, steel shafted 11 degree driver is only 10 to 15 yards behind my space age Taylor Made. Physical conditioning would have a certain effect on distance but probably a bigger effect on stamina (mental & physical)

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

I just finished Just Hit It by Frank Thomas. As the technical director of the USGA he wanted to limit the COR of the drivers, because the rules had stated "no spring like effect" for 100 years. He lost on that as the USGA decided to simply set it at the highest already in play drivers. From his writing he seems to think the spring like effect of the drivers is the biggest factor. The pros that can hit the center where the spring is have a far greater advantage than the hacks like the rest of us that boom one big every once in a while, because we can't hit it on the sweet spot.

He of course also thinks the balls are another culprit, because the pros can crank it up without worry the ball will leave the golf course with side spin. He also developed a test to help limit the ball that the USGA did not adopt. Guess there was not much incentive for him to stay with the USGA after that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

GJ,

Interesting on the sideways spin, although I agree that it is reduced for better players. That said, I wrote Thomas and it was published in Golf Digest, about that very issue, and his response was something like "If I were a golf course architect, I wouldn't reduce the width of my condo canyons".  So, even accuracy is improved more for higher swing speeds and better contact.

I was going to answer as Jason Topp did.  I just don't recall where I read that study, and may have even seen on attributing a bit more to conditioning.  If nothing else, I bet the average male height is more than 30 years ago, and longer swing arc would help distance.

[mike_beene]

My impression is that there are a lot more players using a fall off knuckle fade with the new equipment. When I learned golf it was necessary to draw the ball and get some run. Our curves were bigger and I think even fairly long tour players did not carry the ball more than 240 yards.Now much of the distance is low spin carry and should be more accurate and longer. The 3 wood carry distance is mind boggling to me.

[Phil Benedict]

Modern training methods probably optimize the potential of superior athletes like Rory or Dustin Johnson, who use strength training to max speed, which they come by naturally, while remaining stable throughout the swing.  Rory's balance is amazing for someone who swings so fast.

[Pat Burke]

I am a whisker taller than 5'5"
In 1997, I had a couple of health scares, and career malaise going on.
I hired an amazing personal trainer in March of that year.  I was fat, and pretty lost.
I started a pretty basic conditioning program that consisted of a lot of cardio, and some base building
weight training.  In the ensuing months, we started real athletic training, with plyometrics/speed/etc training.

By August, with the exact same equipment, I had picked up a full club in iron distance, and 8+ yards carry with my driver.

After a 2+ year injury sabbatical 1998-99, I came back to play a bit in 2000.  In one day, I took my old 1997 era driver/ball to callaway, to get fit for the new generation, and picked up 10+yards carry by optimizing my launch and spin much higher.

Personally, my belief is it is about the whole package.  Kids are training smarter and harder in every sport, golf included.  The equipment is more forgiving and we learn something every day about fitting/optimizing better.
I hit my old MacGregors pretty damned close to my Callaway...when hit solidly.  It's an inch shorter, and launches way too low, but I am surprised how far it goes TBH.
The genie is out of the bottle, and the genie's tentacles cover equipment, fitness, agronomy, and aggressiveness created by all of it.

[Josh Tarble]

I am a whisker taller than 5'5"
In 1997, I had a couple of health scares, and career malaise going on.
I hired an amazing personal trainer in March of that year.  I was fat, and pretty lost.
I started a pretty basic conditioning program that consisted of a lot of cardio, and some base building
weight training.  In the ensuing months, we started real athletic training, with plyometrics/speed/etc training.

By August, with the exact same equipment, I had picked up a full club in iron distance, and 8+ yards carry with my driver.

After a 2+ year injury sabbatical 1998-99, I came back to play a bit in 2000.  In one day, I took my old 1997 era driver/ball to callaway, to get fit for the new generation, and picked up 10+yards carry by optimizing my launch and spin much higher.

Personally, my belief is it is about the whole package.  Kids are training smarter and harder in every sport, golf included.  The equipment is more forgiving and we learn something every day about fitting/optimizing better.
I hit my old MacGregors pretty damned close to my Callaway...when hit solidly.  It's an inch shorter, and launches way too low, but I am surprised how far it goes TBH.
The genie is out of the bottle, and the genie's tentacles cover equipment, fitness, agronomy, and aggressiveness created by all of it.

I think you're exactly right Pat.  It takes the combination of everything we've seen to get these huge bumps.   What I don't think a lot of people understand is how difficult it is to make a 120 mph swing with any thought of where the ball goes....and these guys do it consistently.

I will also say that I believe new equipment has made it possible to swing faster at it by being lighter and more forgiving.

[Jim Sherma]

The willingness to swing hard as mentioned by Pat and Josh is a very important element in all of this. The gains from a perfectly struck ball are one thing, but it is how much better the outcome from shots that are off the sweet spot that really changed the game. When I break out some persimmon it always takes me a handful of swings to tone it down and really start concentrating on finding the middle of the face again.

The significantly improved dispersion pattern on slight misses is what is driving a lot of the benefits from the aggression that is being discussed. The increased swing speeds that working out and lighter shafts allow for would be much less usable and rewarding given the shot dispersion of slight misses from persimmon and balata.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

#1 THE BALL..WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL THE BIGGEST CULPRIT.
#2 More forgiving drivers with which to pound the ball
#3 Fitness, power,but above all a better biomechanical understanding of the golf swing and how the power comes from the ground up and not as most of us where taught in rotation alone.
Force plate usage shows how much more the modern swing uses power from the ground up to create increased force disrtiburion to the ball at impact, creating more clubhead speed in its wake.

[BCrosby]

Gradual increases in distance over long periods can be attributed to a basket of things.

Leaps in distance over short periods can not be. As the economists say, only "exogenous" events can explain significant changes over short time frames.

Driving distances at the US Open at Pinehurst in '05 jumped past distances in '99. In '05 the field was hitting it about 20 yards farther than it was just six years earlier. It was more like 30 yards for Tiger and others with higher swing speeds. (My source is the official USGA/IBM stats for those years.)

What happened that was unusual between '99 and '05? The introduction of the Pro-V1 and similar solid core balls.

So yes, all sorts of things contribute to pros getting longer. But some things contribute more than others.

Bob

     

[Garland Bayley]

...
What happened that was unusual between '99 and '05? The introduction of the Pro-V1 and similar solid core balls.
...
     

That's why I'm a little skeptical about Frank Thomas assigning so much credit (blame) to the high COR drivers. They were already in use before then.

[Anthony Fowler]

I do applied econometrics for a living, and I have analyzed this particular question for PGA tour players in the past. When I have time, I will post a more complete analysis and explanation.

According to the analysis that I did a few years ago, about one-third of the distance gains on tour since 1990 appear attributable to equipment (the same players hitting it further), and about two-thirds are attributable to new, bigger, stronger players joining the tour and shorter players retiring or losing their status. I also accounted for potential age effects and this didn't make a difference. Technological advances over the past 15 years appear to account for about 7 additional yards, whereas the addition of Dustin Johnsons and the retirement of Corey Pavins led the average distances on tour to increase by about 15 yards. Furthermore, the technological advances appeared almost entirely (if memory serves) in 2001 and 2004 which line up pretty closely with major changes in ball technology (basically the widespread adoption of the ProV1 and ProV1x, respectively). Other than those two jumps, you see very little evidence that technology led to greater distances. This leads me to think that the big-headed titanium drivers (and other technological advances in clubs) has made little difference for elite players.

[Marc Haring]

I do applied econometrics for a living, and I have analyzed this particular question for PGA tour players in the past. When I have time, I will post a more complete analysis and explanation.

According to the analysis that I did a few years ago, about one-third of the distance gains on tour since 1990 appear attributable to equipment (the same players hitting it further), and about two-thirds are attributable to new, bigger, stronger players joining the tour and shorter players retiring or losing their status. I also accounted for potential age effects and this didn't make a difference. Technological advances over the past 15 years appear to account for about 7 additional yards, whereas the addition of Dustin Johnsons and the retirement of Corey Pavins led the average distances on tour to increase by about 15 yards. Furthermore, the technological advances appeared almost entirely (if memory serves) in 2001 and 2004 which line up pretty closely with major changes in ball technology (basically the widespread adoption of the ProV1 and ProV1x, respectively). Other than those two jumps, you see very little evidence that technology led to greater distances. This leads me to think that the big-headed titanium drivers (and other technological advances in clubs) has made little difference for elite players.

I suppose based on the above, new bigger stronger players have become succesful simply because all tour courses are much longer. If you don't bomb it you'll starve to death and therefore not be on the tour. I wonder what would happen to the average distance if all tour courses were 6500 yards instead of the 7500 yards they are pretty much at present. Would, given those conditions the average distance reduce simply because the bombers didn't have such an advantage.

It's a chicken and egg situation?

[JESII]

Marc,

Yes it would and I've been saying something similar for years.

Small, gnarly courses with weird curves and humps will put the balata (or a similarly soft ball) back in the bag.

This goes hand-in-hand with my suggestion to simply ignore the Tour guys and build the small, gnarly, weird courses for the rest of us because they're the most fun.

[Anthony Fowler]

I have extended this analysis through the 2014 season, and the following graph gives the main results.

As you see from the black line, average driving distance on tour has increased by 27 yards since 1990. However, if we look at within-player increases in distance (estimated through a regression with player fixed effects), this increase is only about 13 yards. In other words, about half of the overall increase in distance has come from player replacement rather than the same players hitting the ball further due to technological advances.

For the within-player gains, you'll also notice that the biggest gains came between 2000 and 2001 (a 6 yard jump) and 2002 and 2003 (a 7 yard jump). As I said before, this coincides with changes in ball technology. This suggests that going from wound balls to modern tour balls accounts for about 13 yards -- most of the within-player gains since 1990. Since 2003, PGA tour players have, on average, not gotten longer (although the average distance has still climbed due to player replacement).

We also see gradual within-player gains in the mid 90's which could be attributable to titanium drivers. However, these gains are not as significant as the apparent benefits of the new ball.

While the potential impact of titanium drivers and the modern ball are detectable and significant, they are still smaller than the replacement effect. New players are longer than the old players they replace, and we probably would have seen distances increase by 14 yards or so since 1990 even with no technological advances.

[Garland Bayley]

I have extended this analysis through the 2014 season, and the following graph gives the main results.

As you see from the black line, average driving distance on tour has increased by 27 yards since 1990. However, if we look at within-player increases in distance (estimated through a regression with player fixed effects), this increase is only about 13 yards. In other words, about half of the overall increase in distance has come from player replacement rather than the same players hitting the ball further due to technological advances.

For the within-player gains, you'll also notice that the biggest gains came between 2000 and 2001 (a 6 yard jump) and 2002 and 2003 (a 7 yard jump). As I said before, this coincides with changes in ball technology. This suggests that going from wound balls to modern tour balls accounts for about 13 yards -- most of the within-player gains since 1990. Since 2003, PGA tour players have, on average, not gotten longer (although the average distance has still climbed due to player replacement).

We also see gradual within-player gains in the mid 90's which could be attributable to titanium drivers. However, these gains are not as significant as the apparent benefits of the new ball.

While the potential impact of titanium drivers and the modern ball are detectable and significant, they are still smaller than the replacement effect. New players are longer than the old players they replace, and we probably would have seen distances increase by 14 yards or so since 1990 even with no technological advances.

Then you reject the equipment companies' claims that they can increase the driving distance 20 yards with a couple of sessions of optimization?
The player doesn't gain physical ability across those sessions, he gains better equipment optimization.

[DMoriarty]

Anthony,  Interesting analysis.  Thanks for posting.  You concluded . . .

New players are longer than the old players they replace, and we probably would have seen distances increase by 14 yards or so since 1990 even with no technological advances.

It makes sense to me that over the past few decades new tour players are hitting it longer than the old players they replace.  What I don't understand is your contention that we would have seen an increase in 14 yards over the same time period with balata balls and persimmon clubs with steel shafts.   What makes you think that the same type of player would have been successful on tour without the technological advances?

In other words, Isn't it possible that the technology has not benefited all types of golfers equally, and that, as a result, the tour is gradually being repopulated with the subgroup of golfers who have benefited the most from the new technology?   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

Part of this USGA report (pg.9) says "Associated with the more aggressive launch conditions is an expected increase in overall distance. It is interesting to note that the distance increase due to optimization at the 125 mph (7.5 yards) is less than half the optimization increase at 90 mph (19 yards)."
So perhaps the equipment companies aren't making unrealistic claims.

Cached page - no auto download
http://tinyurl.com/pw8fdoy

This links to an auto download of the report
https://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=10682

[Marc Haring]

It's interesting checking out the tours distance off the tee stats, last year..http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2014.html
Compared to 1980...http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.1980.html


None of the top ten drivers for distance in 1980 were in the top ten for money won, where as last year there are a few (especially if you assume Dustin Johnson would have been top ten money earners if he had not taken his ahem...sabbatical), but in 1980 none of the driving bombers were in the top ten in the money list.

Jim Furyk messes up the theory but he's an outlier.

But then we all know what they say about statistics.

[Sean_A]

I do applied econometrics for a living, and I have analyzed this particular question for PGA tour players in the past. When I have time, I will post a more complete analysis and explanation.

According to the analysis that I did a few years ago, about one-third of the distance gains on tour since 1990 appear attributable to equipment (the same players hitting it further), and about two-thirds are attributable to new, bigger, stronger players joining the tour and shorter players retiring or losing their status. I also accounted for potential age effects and this didn't make a difference. Technological advances over the past 15 years appear to account for about 7 additional yards, whereas the addition of Dustin Johnsons and the retirement of Corey Pavins led the average distances on tour to increase by about 15 yards. Furthermore, the technological advances appeared almost entirely (if memory serves) in 2001 and 2004 which line up pretty closely with major changes in ball technology (basically the widespread adoption of the ProV1 and ProV1x, respectively). Other than those two jumps, you see very little evidence that technology led to greater distances. This leads me to think that the big-headed titanium drivers (and other technological advances in clubs) has made little difference for elite players.

I suppose based on the above, new bigger stronger players have become succesful simply because all tour courses are much longer. If you don't bomb it you'll starve to death and therefore not be on the tour. I wonder what would happen to the average distance if all tour courses were 6500 yards instead of the 7500 yards they are pretty much at present. Would, given those conditions the average distance reduce simply because the bombers didn't have such an advantage.

It's a chicken and egg situation?

Jim

I too have long believed that longer courses perpetuates longer shots.  A strong belief exists which more or less posits that because guys can blast the ball a mile, that course design should allow tjis style of play.  In fact, we should alter old courses to enable the long ball.  It never made any sense to me, but then I never thought we should be building/altering courses based on elite players.  Is also long been my belief that if clubs, owners and designers resist the urge to balloon yardage, people will properly begin to see how ridiculous it is that pros don't hit drivers or maybe even woods but a few times in a round.  Most disagree with me, but there is little doubt in my mind that rank and file golfers and fans actually control this situation, but they have chosen not to...instead relying on the ruling bodies and complaining about inept ruling bodies to regulate technology...how has that worked out?  Bottom line, nearly all of us are all guilty for the current situation, but its much easier to blame suits than it is to look in the mirror. 

Ciao

[Anthony Fowler]

Then you reject the equipment companies' claims that they can increase the driving distance 20 yards with a couple of sessions of optimization?
The player doesn't gain physical ability across those sessions, he gains better equipment optimization.

GJ, I don't know if you're being serious, but I have seen little evidence that the equipment companies can increase driving distance by 20 yards with a few optimization sessions. Maybe I could believe this for high handicappers who were really playing the wrong equipment but certainly not for a tour player (the kinds of players in my analysis and the primary subject of this thread).

I do agree with Jim and others who point out that the recent technological advances are most likely greater for high handicappers and weekend golfers than for tour players. Once the COR is limited, there's only so much you can do to help the tour players hit it longer, but additional forgiveness and stability will always help the average golfer. Of course, we don't really know how big those gains are for high handicappers, and we can't believe what the equipment companies say. There's enough variability in individual driving distances that the equipment companies will be able to show you seemingly compelling before-and-after videos, but we don't know how much they cherry picked the individuals they're showing us and the specific drives within each player.
 

It makes sense to me that over the past few decades new tour players are hitting it longer than the old players they replace.  What I don't understand is your contention that we would have seen an increase in 14 yards over the same time period with balata balls and persimmon clubs with steel shafts.   What makes you think that the same type of player would have been successful on tour without the technological advances?

In other words, Isn't it possible that the technology has not benefited all types of golfers equally, and that, as a result, the tour is gradually being repopulated with the subgroup of golfers who have benefited the most from the new technology?   

Good point David. I agree that I was too cavalier with my previous claim. If the effects of technological change are comparable for all tour players, then my statement would likely stand, but there must be some variability in these effects across players. If that's the case, we would probably expect that the new players benefit more from the changes and the retiring players benefit less (because of selection). If our goal is to estimate the average effect of technological changes for tour-level players, then the direction of bias is not obvious. The players who get little benefit are more likely to leave the sample, biasing that estimate downward. Players who get large benefits are more likely to enter the sample to begin with, biasing that estimate upward. In any case, we can't say with confidence how much distances would have increased since 1990 in the absence of technological changes.


I also agree with Marc and others who have pointed out that golf architecture plays a role in increased distances. The increasing lengths of new players joining the tour is a sign that there are clear returns to driving distance, because the tour is increasingly selecting for longer players. I'm sure higher capitalization rates have something to do with this as well (more people are trying to play professional golf so the newer players, on average, are better across the board). Can we think of particular courses, features, etc. that would mitigate the returns to longer distances? I'd like to think that shorter, more strategic courses would help, but the long-ball hitters did pretty well at Merion in 2013. I suppose we could just try to make the greens and green surrounds more challenging so that we select for great chippers and putters instead of long hitters. This might be more interesting for us to watch, but I don't know that it would make the tour more successful.