[jeffwarne]

In 1965 Jack (-17) won by 9 shots, with a total of 9 players finishing under par.
In 1976 Ray Floyd (-17) won by 8 shots, with a total of 7 players finishing under par.
In 1997 Tiger (-18) won by 12 shots, with a total of 15 players finishing under par.
In 2015 Jordan (-18) won by 4 shots, with a total of 31 players finishing under par.

Finally, a GCA poster after my own heart -- someone who brings data into the debate, instead of dismissive arguments about the course set-up or drivel about whether any GCAers could score well there. Who cares -- it's a golf architecture site!

Does Spieth's record-tying score and large numbers of under-par scores (relative to past years with impressively low scores by the winner) foretell more architectural changes for America's most famous course? One wonders if the committee thinks this year's version maintained the "integrity and shot values of the golf course as envisioned by Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie?"

http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/history/integrity-course-kept-johnson-says

Trot out all the data you want.
Seems like a similar comparison to how "easy" running the mile became 50 years ago.
Of course more shot under par-more are capable.
If you think the depth in professional golf in 1965 or 1976 is even 50% of today, you're not real well informed

[Brent Hutto]

Phil,

There can't be any moreso than the USGA. They dictate precisely how far the golf ball can fly, tested under whatever conditions they specify. There's no "moreso" possible when it comes to controlling the distance golfers hit the golf ball. They have 100% complete and total control.

The only constraint on USGA's power to make golfers hit the ball less far is their perception that at some point people would tell them to bugger off, thereby ending the USGA's ability to regulate the game. If the USGA can't put through a golf ball rollback then obviously some tournament committee isn't going to do it by making Tour players use a shorter ball one week a year.

Either the USGA is totally wrong in its reading of public attitudes or else the fact is the overwhelming majority of golfers are happy to see the ball being hit as far as it flies today. I strongly suspect the latter. People like seeing someone hit a golf ball 320 yards and straight as a string.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm understanding less and less of what gets posted here. 

Maybe its form and function in some downward dialectical spiral of unholy proportions.

The chickens, as they say, have come home to roost. 

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

I'm understanding less and less of what gets posted here. 

Finally...progress!

I've always been proud of you, Peter, but this is a special moment.

[JMEvensky]

I guess I keep raising Augusta National's role in all of this because I believe it was the one organization -- perhaps even moreso than the USGA and R&A -- that could've done something about the technology improvements in equipment and altered (perhaps detoured) where we are headed, which is inexorably toward lengthening/tightening/altering classic-era courses that host majors in order to protect a given course's "integrity," or "par," or "resistance to scoring," or some other phrase that's important to those running the game these days.

Why did Hootie/ANGC stand down after raising the possibility of a tournament ball? Pressure from the USGA or PGAT? Cost?

Or was it just a bluff all along?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I share your disappointment.

I too had hoped that ANGC would, like the OGA, adopt a tournament ball, that in turn would have been adopted by the USGA and every Regional and State Golf Association.

And it's not just the Pros.

I play with a 60+ golfer who routinely drives it between 280 and 320.

At Streamsong I played with a fellow in his 50's who was long.
An 8 handicap.

How long was he ?

On # 16 Blue, at 221, I hit a choked down driver.

He hit.................. A 6-iron

And, he came close to driving # 1.

And, he hadn't played in some time.

The USGA still needs to address I & B

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

There can't be any moreso than the USGA. They dictate precisely how far the golf ball can fly, tested under whatever conditions they specify. There's no "moreso" possible when it comes to controlling the distance golfers hit the golf ball. They have 100% complete and total control.

The only constraint on USGA's power to make golfers hit the ball less far is their perception that at some point people would tell them to bugger off, thereby ending the USGA's ability to regulate the game. If the USGA can't put through a golf ball rollback then obviously some tournament committee isn't going to do it by making Tour players use a shorter ball one week a year.

Either the USGA is totally wrong in its reading of public attitudes or else the fact is the overwhelming majority of golfers are happy to see the ball being hit as far as it flies today. I strongly suspect the latter. People like seeing someone hit a golf ball 320 yards and straight as a string.

Brent:

Federal legislation to adjust tax rates must originate in the House of Representatives: http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ That doesn't mean others -- senators, presidents, interest groups and such -- can't or don't have influence on federal tax policy. You suggest the USGA alone has the means to regulate golf technology; I think Augusta National and its April tournament have greater sway in how the public perceives golf, and is the one organization that could lead the way in advocating for changes in golf technology.

I know this has been belabored in other threads, but why is golf -- seemingly alone among major sports -- resistance to changes in technology, as opposed to the continual pursuit of bigger, faster, longer? Hockey limits the curvature and length of sticks, baseball the composition of bats, basketball the height of the basket, football the air density of footballs (well, save for a certain New England team ). Aren't there other golfing values at stake here other than people's desire to see golf balls travel 320 yards straight and true? When that desire conflicts with other values, why does technology always seem to win out in golf?

[Brent Hutto]

Phil,

There's no "why" about it. People like what they like. Seeing somebody hit the ball long and straight is more appealing than seeing someone hit the ball shorter and/or crooked. Just as seeing someone make putts is more appealing than seeing someone miss putts.

Honestly, what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

The golf you watch on TV would be much more interesting if the players did not hit the ball nearly as far.

One in 10? One in 20?

And now what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

Playing golf would be more fun if you you and everyone else could not hit the ball as far as you currently hit it.

One or two in 100? My guess is even less than that. Hitting it long is more fun than hitting it short.

Same applies to the frequent suggestions on this forum that putting greens should be slower and bunkers should not be raked. Not 1% of golfers or TV-golf viewers would prefer to see that.

Golf is fundamentally about hitting the ball from Point A into a tiny little hole at Point B with the two points a long ways apart. It is natural and almost universal that golfers prefer hitting it as far as possible and making as many putts as possible. Likewise when they watch golf on TV.

Having interesting or intimidating obstacles to overcome is one thing (water hazards, wind, rough, hills, contoured greens). But simply hitting the ball shorter and therefore more times to get from A to B? Not something 99.9% of golfers are interested in doing or seeing.

[Phil McDade]

Brent:

The Bridges of Madison County has sold 50 million copies; it doesn't make it great literature.

[Carson Pilcher]

Honestly, what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

The golf you watch on TV would be much more interesting if the players did not hit the ball nearly as far.

One in 10? One in 20?

And now what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

Playing golf would be more fun if you you and everyone else could not hit the ball as far as you currently hit it.

One or two in 100? My guess is even less than that. Hitting it long is more fun than hitting it short.

The distance the ball travels on TV is of no consequence whatsoever.  I cannot see how far it goes other than the announcer saying how far it goes.  They zoom in on the ball in the air, then pan out as it lands, then zoom back in on it sitting in the grass (or sand).

Maybe I am the minority, but I like watching approach shots.  I also could care less if they are hitting a 9-iron from 190 yards.  I want to see of they get it close and can convert the putt.

I'll paraphrase, but there was a post-round interview with Ben Hogan once, and a reporter asked him what club he it into a specific green.  Hogan told the reporter that the club hit did not matter.  He should ask him how far he had in because he could hit anything from a 5 iron to a wedge into the green depending on the shot.

On your second question, I urge everyone to play with hickories once.  You can play from about 5200 yards and the game is amazingly creative and just as much fun to play.  It's just the number.  You are still trying to fly that fairway bunker...just from 220 yards instead of 280.

[Brent Hutto]

Carson,

I have hit a steel shaft modern club within a few feet of the hole from 150 yards on occasion. For me that would usually be a 6-iron or maybe a 5-iron.

If I played with a hickory shafted club from that same 150 yard distance I'm guessing I'd hit it a few feet from the hole maybe 1/10 as often as I do with my modern clubs. In fact, that 150 yards would probably be pretty close to the max distance I could even hit a shot with a hickory club, much less accurately (my max from the fairway with modern clubs is about 190 with a fairway wood).

To have the same chance of hitting it close with a hickory club I could move up to, say, just 120 yards from the hole. And that's what you're proposing. You (and all the other hickory/reduced ball proponents) seem it find it just as fun, just as impressive to knock one close from 120 with low-performance clubs as from 150 with modern clubs.

I do not share that sentiment. For me hitting it close to the hole from 120 is an accomplishment. Hitting it close to the hole from 150 is better still. Seeing someone hit it close from 190 impresses the heck out of me. I give no bonus points for it being done with an antique club and it doesn't lessen the experience if it's done with a 9-iron.

For me the game is distance, obstacles, the situation and a hole. The clubs and ball are just the implements for playing the game. Hitting a long shot is fun. Not hitting it as far is still fun but less so. I'm extra-special-impressed by a shot that overcomes a strong wind, flies over a deep bunker and holds on a firm green. I'm more impressed by a shot that ends up close to the hole than one which doesn't.

But I'm not in the slightest impressed by an otherwise lesser shot because it's played with a wooden-shafted club or if it were played with a whiffle ball. Trying to deliberately limit the results of whatever swing I can manage to make would for me be a waste of one of the precious afternoons on which I can play golf. And being a spectator to watch the best players in the world hit shorter or crookeder shots with a "tournament ball" likewise would seem like a waste of time.

[jeffwarne]

Honestly, what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

The golf you watch on TV would be much more interesting if the players did not hit the ball nearly as far.

One in 10? One in 20?

And now what percentage of people do you think would agree with the following statement?

Playing golf would be more fun if you you and everyone else could not hit the ball as far as you currently hit it.

One or two in 100? My guess is even less than that. Hitting it long is more fun than hitting it short.

Same applies to the frequent suggestions on this forum that putting greens should be slower and bunkers should not be raked. Not 1% of of golfers would prefer that

Brent,
Is it more fun for you when announcers lie, exaggerate, or miscalculate how far a shot is hit?
because on TV, there's no way to tell how far a ball goes unless someone tells you and sometimes they give accurate information
and I can tell you having watched and done it for years, that watching(and playing) a controlled curving shot is WAY more fun to watch (and do), something seen much more seldom with the modern ball-so I'm certainly going to say seeing a ball hit long and straight is less fun than seeing a ball hit long and properly curved and flighted.

And live, do you really think you. or anyone else would know the difference between a 270 yard drive and a 300 yard drive?
I can't and I"v watched the gradual evolution of players and myself hitting it 10% farther.
And once this fact was demonstrated to the supposed 99% (a figure I would dispute) do you think some of them might see the logic in limiting the distance a ball travels?


Would you enjoy watching more if PING sends me a Turbulator driver that allows me and my fellow competitors to hit it 350-400-500?
and where's the limit of when it's no longer more fun to see it go farther? When players play over par 5's and pitch backwards?
Would basketball be better with shoes where players could hover in the air?
Would baseball be better if every fly ball was a home run?


and if you're hitting a 5 iron from 150 yards, you'd see NO reduction in distance with a thoughtful, properly executed rollback ,especially if you simply played a Pinnacle type ball.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think any driver would let you fly the ball 400 yards, Jeff. But if there could in fact be a "plain in form" clubhead on the end of a stick that lets you swing that fast then sure it's fine by me.

I know what a 400-yard hole looks like, plays like, I play them all the time. When someone hits a tee shot then an approach shot and sticks it to three feet I know exactly what he has accomplished by doing that over a 400-yard distance. If a club and ball was in play that made doing that slightly easier, I would still be impressed to about the same extent. If he decided to use a hickory-shafted club and a wound balata ball to do the same thing, I'd be impressed to about the same extent.

Can't really put it any plainer than that. Regardless of what-ifs, it is the accuracy over distance that I find attractive about playing the game and it's the accuracy over distance that I enjoy watching.

If I'm watching TV and they tell me someone drove it 30 yards farther than he really did I'm not sure that matters a whole lot. If I'm watching on TV and someone tells me a hole is playing 450 yards when it's really 400...well, I guess I've just been lied to.

But there's no number, whether actual or made-up, that makes me think "Hmmmm, I'd like to see him go back and play that hole with a ball that flies 50 yards shorter". To me that's like saying you'd like to see Tour players wear blindfolds or putt while one-handed while holding their left foot with their right hand. What's the appeal in seeing someone do less than he's capable of just to prove a point?

[Bill Gayne]

Greg Norman has been outspoken on the need to roll back the ball. I'm hoping that he will use the platform provided to him by Fox as the lead analyst for the US Open to continue to make his point.

Norman was a great driver of the golf ball and he could really work the ball off the driver.

[Steve Lang]

Greg Norman has been outspoken on the need to roll back the ball. I'm hoping that he will use the platform provided to him by Fox as the lead analyst for the US Open to continue to make his point.

Norman was a great driver of the golf ball and he could really work the ball off the driver.

and he teed it up very low...  what's his style of persuasion these days?

[jeffwarne]

To me that's like saying you'd like to see Tour players wear blindfolds or putt while one-handed while holding their left foot with their right hand. What's the appeal in seeing someone do less than he's capable of just to prove a point?

Brent,
What's the appeal in seeing someone doing MORE than he's previously been capable JUST because his scientist is smarter (or braver) than the experts playing catchup (badly) at the governing bodies?

"Plain in form"
Which driver fits that description?
I seriously don't understand why you don't think a driver will be produced that will allow players to fly the ball 400 yards eventually. a yard a year for a century-about the pace we've been on for the last century.say 1905-2005
240 was a large carry by an athletic pro in 1985, now we see many carry it 300 and some more.
Even I thirty + years later can carry it 260+ when 240 was pushing it for me in my actual physical prime.
Some say that's due to athleticism and strength training but in my case unless Budweiser and typing are strength producing, I'm thinking it's pure equipment
Just like the USGA saying that the 3 yards per year gains of 15 years ago weren't statistically significant-for 10 years straight which equals 30 yards-which we can agree is quite significant.

I guess the real crux is do you enjoy watching Jack Nicklaus playing 5 at ANGC driver 5 iron or a current pro playing the longer version 3 wood 9 iron?
I simply prefer a smaller scale game, and don't see the need for ever increasing(technologically gained) length to derive enjoyment as a player or a spectator, and I could enjoy Jack crushing it 300 when 260 was the norm more than Rory hitting it 330 now that 290 is the norm or worse, Henrick Stenson hitting a 3 wood 300 because he doesn't even need to pull/risk his inconsistent driver as most courses aren't proportionately lengthened/widened as much as the ball goes farther.

[Brent Hutto]

I seriously don't understand why you don't think a driver will be produced that will allow players to fly the ball 400 yards eventually. a yard a year for a century-about the pace we've been on for the last century.say 1905-2005

I thought you asked about what if *you* could hit it 400 yards.

I'm virtually certain that elite players will be hitting 400-yard shots at least occasionally within my lifetime. Realistically we're talking, what, something like 15% more clubhead speed plus maybe a tiny bit of improvement in the club and/or ball. Someone will be generating 15% more speed in a generation or two, absolutely.

I realize you would prefer to see the game scaled down. I don't really have that desire and that's all this discussion ever comes down to. If you want to see people playing similar shots to Nicklaus on courses the same dimensions as Nicklaus played then naturally you're going to have to see a ball rollback for that to happen. Which means in all likelihood you're going to be SOL for that particular wish.

[jeffwarne]

Agreed Brent, that's what it comes down to.
Where we disagree is that I think the number looking for a scaled down ball is far greater than 1%.
Amazing that in a world where sustainability (to say nothing of cost) has become the buzzword that anyone could think otherwise, but you're right in that evidently many do (or are too afraid or in bed with the manufacturers)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill & Steve,

Norman didn't have much movement with his driver and he didn't tee the ball very low.

He was an exceptional driver of the golf ball.

[Niall C]

I seriously don't understand why you don't think a driver will be produced that will allow players to fly the ball 400 yards eventually. a yard a year for a century-about the pace we've been on for the last century.say 1905-2005

I thought you asked about what if *you* could hit it 400 yards.

I'm virtually certain that elite players will be hitting 400-yard shots at least occasionally within my lifetime. Realistically we're talking, what, something like 15% more clubhead speed plus maybe a tiny bit of improvement in the club and/or ball. Someone will be generating 15% more speed in a generation or two, absolutely.

I realize you would prefer to see the game scaled down. I don't really have that desire and that's all this discussion ever comes down to. If you want to see people playing similar shots to Nicklaus on courses the same dimensions as Nicklaus played then naturally you're going to have to see a ball rollback for that to happen. Which means in all likelihood you're going to be SOL for that particular wish.

Tiger's first Open, or at least one of his first Opens was at Troon. I was standing beside the 6th fairway when his drive came bounding by me. It was measured at 429 yards (from memory). While a lot of that was run, it was still a hell of a hit. If we get gca.com's holy grail of firm and fast conditions as standard, then I'm sure you'd find a lot of these guys are already hitting the 400 yard mark.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

So far this season on the PGA tour there have been 10 measured drives of 400 yards or more.  There have also been 530 drives of 350 yards or more, and over a 1000 drives of 341 yards or more.

And the season is young.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

That's interesting and confirms my thoughts on distance, namely, that driving distance will continue to increase despite claims to the contrary.

[Bryan Izatt]

So far this season on the PGA tour there have been 10 measured drives of 400 yards or more.  There have also been 530 drives of 350 yards or more, and over a 1000 drives of 341 yards or more.

And the season is young.

Actually there have been 12 at 400 yards or more.  Of course, 10 of those 12 were at Kapalua and 7 of those 10 were on the 7th which neatly ramps down 100 feet.  In fact, many of the longest drives were at Kapalua - a long bombers paradise apparently.

As a counter point, the average distance y-t-d is about the same as last year's full year average.

Not to mention Furyk won yesterday while being the 7th shortest driver on tour, on average.

Not to say that driving distances won't increase in the future.  Using the PGA Tour data, they haven't gotten longer in the last 10 years on average, but the nature of humans in sports endeavors is to be faster, stronger and higher.

[Jim Nugent]

This year, the 100th longest driver on tour is averaging 288.4 yards off the tee.  #1, Dustin Johnson, is averaging 315.1. 

In 2005, the 100th longest driver averaged 288.7 yards.  #1, Scott Hend, averaged 318.9. 

Unless conditions (courses, weather, rough, maintenance etc) have changed a lot, the pro's were hitting it as far 10 years ago as today. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I know you guys understand cars.  When you increase horsepower you do not get a linear increase in acceleration.  Given that the world high jump record is now over 8 feet the USGA has done an excellent job reigning in the ball compared to the leap in human conditioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWde8sMxe1w

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()