[Philip Caccamise]

Not to get all factual or anything like that, but the average carry distance for a 6 iron on Tour is 169 yds. 

I have no doubt that there are players that are hitting 6 irons 200 yds, and I have no doubt that there a LOT of players who COULD hit a 6 iron 200 yds if they wanted to.  But the word AVERAGE is a pretty powerful word, I think. 

As others have said, try not to get hung up on the number on the bottom of an iron today vs. 10 years ago or more.  Even comparing degrees of loft isn't perfect, though it's better.  And beyond that, try not to be deceived by what you see the leaders doing on Saturday or Sunday afternoon; as with their putting, their distances are deceptive, even for that one player.

It doesn't seem at all complex to me that distance has leveled off.  There are limitations to what the human body can do, and equipment is now pretty effectively capped.  The gains now are for individual players getting the correct equipment for them and reaching their limits.  Just like nobody has figured out how to hit a baseball 600' or throw it 125 mph, or pole vault 30', or run 100 meters in 7 seconds, nobody is going to figure out how to hit a golf ball 400 yds, either.  In every sport, there comes a point where the improvements are very, very, VERY slight and often serendipitous (eg, Bob Beamon).  Golf is no different.

But keep those conspiracy theories coming!  It's entertaining for the rest of us!

AG-
Good post but I have to discredit your 169 yard 6 iron carry number. MY average carry with a 6 iron, on trackman and in practice, is 167 yards with a swing speed of 82 MPH, and I am the opposite of a long hitter. The average player on the PGA Tour has a swing speed of 92-93 MPH with their 6 iron- which is closer to an average carry of 185 yards+.


Watch a tour event and track what clubs they're hitting on par 3's. It's almost shocking how far they hit their irons.

[Philip Caccamise]

It's hilarious to read these guys who apparently think Bubba Watson and Dustin Johnson only hit drivers once or twice a year and thus skew the statistics dramatically with all their 7-iron layups on the measured holes.

Jason,
 
Anything worth exaggerating is worth doing it all the way I guess.. 
 
Your post is obviously absurd, but the plain facts are...no one was hitting 200 yard 6 irons just 15 years ago in normal conditions...not even Tiger.  And now you probably have half the PGA tour field hitting these.
 
P.S.  To boot...if you put this current crop of player on the courses at the same length they were playing them 15-20 years ago, they would be destroying all the scoring records and hitting 3w, wedge into every par 4....

Kind of like what they did to KPGCC this weekend.


6900 yards, soft, light winds and 36 players shot -10 or better. There was a 61, 62, 3 63's, 5 64's, 7 65's, 27 66's, 33 67's, and 33 68's- out of 306 rounds completed by 76.5 players. 6900 yards was considered LONG on tour 20 years ago!

[Jim Nugent]

Philip, I'd like to see some numbers, because my recollection is that 6900 yards was not long in 1995.  Heck, in 1965 they played the US Open at Bellerive, and it was just under 7200 yards.  Now that was long then, especially for a par 70. 

I'd really like to know how often tour players hit driver on the holes that get measured for the driving stats, and if that has changed over the past few decades. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip/Jim,

I was designing Wild Wing (Avocet, you know, the one that still exists out of that former 72 hole complex) with Larry Nelson in 1992-3, and it opened in 1994, about your time frame.  We made it 7250 yards, on his suggestion, as he said that is what it took then to challenge pros on tour.  I had been making back tees at over 7100 for a few years at that time, up from 7000 a few years earlier.  The memory of being "corrected" by Larry in front of clients stuck with me........so I believe there may have been some long time courses on tour that were still 6900, but they were by no means "long" at that time.

As to the main point, I recall Tom Doak also saying (correctly) that there is a big difference as to how far any Tour Player hits in when "on" and weeks when the swing isn't truly grooved, which may account for the average being much lower than the drives we see.  It makes sense, because we only see the leaders who are leading because they are really striping it, but a few weeks later, maybe without enough practice, they might be 20-30 yards shorter.

As stated, the word "average" is powerful, and still puts the PGA tour drive at about 291.  Even if Dustin Johnson pulls 3 wood on a measured drive hole, my presumption is the average PGA tour player hits driver because he needs to it keep up.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to design for the top 10-20 driver distance guys in the world.

[A.G._Crockett]

Not to get all factual or anything like that, but the average carry distance for a 6 iron on Tour is 169 yds. 

I have no doubt that there are players that are hitting 6 irons 200 yds, and I have no doubt that there a LOT of players who COULD hit a 6 iron 200 yds if they wanted to.  But the word AVERAGE is a pretty powerful word, I think. 

As others have said, try not to get hung up on the number on the bottom of an iron today vs. 10 years ago or more.  Even comparing degrees of loft isn't perfect, though it's better.  And beyond that, try not to be deceived by what you see the leaders doing on Saturday or Sunday afternoon; as with their putting, their distances are deceptive, even for that one player.

It doesn't seem at all complex to me that distance has leveled off.  There are limitations to what the human body can do, and equipment is now pretty effectively capped.  The gains now are for individual players getting the correct equipment for them and reaching their limits.  Just like nobody has figured out how to hit a baseball 600' or throw it 125 mph, or pole vault 30', or run 100 meters in 7 seconds, nobody is going to figure out how to hit a golf ball 400 yds, either.  In every sport, there comes a point where the improvements are very, very, VERY slight and often serendipitous (eg, Bob Beamon).  Golf is no different.

But keep those conspiracy theories coming!  It's entertaining for the rest of us!

AG-
Good post but I have to discredit your 169 yard 6 iron carry number. MY average carry with a 6 iron, on trackman and in practice, is 167 yards with a swing speed of 82 MPH, and I am the opposite of a long hitter. The average player on the PGA Tour has a swing speed of 92-93 MPH with their 6 iron- which is closer to an average carry of 185 yards+.


Watch a tour event and track what clubs they're hitting on par 3's. It's almost shocking how far they hit their irons.

It's not "my" number.  I posted a link to the source for that number.  And I added in a later post that I have no problem with a number like 185 for a 6 iron, either.  In either case, it's a far cry from the 200 yd. AVERAGE that was floated earlier in this thread.

And, with all due respect, you are hardly "the opposite of a long hitter" if your average carry with a 6 iron is 167.  The opposite of a long hitter is a short hitter, and short hitter don't hit their 6 irons anywhere close to 167 unless they skull it on an airport runway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Relating to six irons, for some reason I also recall the Bethpage Open, and one of the par 3's was a 200 yard par 3, downhill, but many players were using 6 irons.  However, the announcers added that it was mostly because the ball was on a tee, which added about ten yards from hitting it off the fairway, so there is that to consider when considering "average".

[Tim Gavrich]

There also needs to be some accounting for the fact that iron lofts have decreased in recent years. Of course, that has been more true of irons for higher handicappers, but it's reasonable to expect that a couple degrees have been bumped off the lofts of 6-irons for many Tour pros, as well. That's about 10 yards of carry, right there.

Here are the winners and the winning scores from the Travelers Championship the last handful of years, on a course that plays less than 6,900 yards, par 70, and still has plenty of holes where players hit driver off the tee.

2003/Peter Jacobsen/-14
2004/Woody Austin/-10
2005/Brad Faxon/-14
2006/J.J. Henry/-14
2007/Hunter Mahan/-15
2008/Stewart Cink/-18
2009/Kenny Perry/-22
2010/Bubba Watson/-14 (in a playoff over Corey Pavin and Scott Verplank)
2011/Fredrik Jacobson/-20
2012/Marc Leishman/-14
2013/Ken Duke/-12
2014/Kevin Streelman/-15
2015/Bubba Watson/-16

As you can see, in the period of supposed runaway/unacceptable growth in the distances Tour players hit the ball, the winning scores at one of the Tour's shortest courses - which has been worked on hardly at all in this century - have remained relatively consistent and, I'd say, in a sensible range for a non-major event typically held the week after the U.S. Open, lately.

Not only that, the winners have been players of all sorts.

It's the architecture, not the ball. Well-designed courses like TPC River Highlands and Harbour Town will always challenge the best golfers in the world. They don't need to be 7,500 yards. Sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Kalen Braley]

no one was hitting 200 yard 6 irons just 15 years ago in normal conditions...not even Tiger.  And now you probably have half the PGA tour field hitting these.

The 6 iron that Tiger hit out of the bunker on 18 at Glen Abbey in 2000 was 216 yards and went over the green.

Damn it Wayne, I hate it when you completely destroy my arguments like that.   
 
OK fine, other than Tiger, no one, and I mean no one was hitting 6 iron 200 yards 15 years ago!! 

[Aaron Marks]

Thanks for putting that together!

Thanks for sharing.  I'd be interested in seeing the difference in the 75th percentile driving distance and 25th percentile driving distance, if you can!

Since the number of players included in the list varies from year to year it is too tedious to figure out the 25th and 75th percentiles.  For whatever it's worth I approximated it by using the 40th and 120th ranked players each year.  Statistically that's close enough. 

Surprisingly to me, the delta in distance was only around 9 yards (range 6 to 10 yards over the years) and has seen no appreciable variation from 1980 to the present.  The middle of the field appears to be tightly bunched and their relative distances seem to have been impacted not at all by the modern ball and club technology.  Even more surprising is that 3 of the years in which the 40th and 120th ranked players had the least difference in yardage (about 6 yards) were 2000 to 2002 during the time of the transition to the Pro V1 and its ilk.  No idea what that means.

[Jason Thurman]

There also needs to be some accounting for the fact that iron lofts have decreased in recent years. Of course, that has been more true of irons for higher handicappers, but it's reasonable to expect that a couple degrees have been bumped off the lofts of 6-irons for many Tour pros, as well. That's about 10 yards of carry, right there.

Just to go a little further with this, Brian Colbert has posted here before about his experience playing in the US Amateur a few years ago. If I remember correctly, he mentioned that a lot of players in those ranks had bent their irons even stronger, whether they were looking for the confidence that comes from keeping up with their competitors or just seeking more distance for whatever reason. It's hard to compare two players' 6 irons.

[Andrew Buck]

Working with the University of Illinois golf team (multiple times Big 10 Champ and NCAA runner up a few years ago, and constant contender, they have (had a year ago anyway) 2 out of 10 average over 300, one maybe 310 and the other just barely 300.  The K State golf team ten years ago didn't have a single 300 yard driver.  The NCAA sets up courses at about 7250 most years, to protect the bottom of the field from a very bad day.

Just curious, did you do work on the new outdoor practice facility?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, that was it.......

[Bryan Izatt]

For those who want another perspective on PGA Tour distance here is a plot of Trackman radar data for swing speed and ball speed from 2007 to 2015. Although some may see a trend up in the ball speed, the variations are quite small, about 1.5% between the lowest and highest.  The most likely explanation of 2015 vs 2009 is that the lowest speed players are largely gone and higher speed players have joined the tour.


From lowest (2009) to highest year (2015), the swing speed difference is about 1.7 mph.  This translates to a difference of 2.6 mph in ball speed.  Differences in ball speed/distance would seem to be largely attributable to slightly higher swing speeds.  The smash factor is the same between the low year and the high year, suggesting that neither the ball nor the club is more lively, but rather it is more players with higher swing speeds who are still able to effect efficient contact between the club and the ball.







 

[Jon Wiggett]

For those who want another perspective on PGA Tour distance here is a plot of Trackman radar data for swing speed and ball speed from 2007 to 2015. Although some may see a trend up in the ball speed, the variations are quite small, about 1.5% between the lowest and highest.  The most likely explanation of 2015 vs 2009 is that the lowest speed players are largely gone and higher speed players have joined the tour.


From lowest (2009) to highest year (2015), the swing speed difference is about 1.7 mph.  This translates to a difference of 2.6 mph in ball speed.  Differences in ball speed/distance would seem to be largely attributable to slightly higher swing speeds.  The smash factor is the same between the low year and the high year, suggesting that neither the ball nor the club is more lively, but rather it is more players with higher swing speeds who are still able to effect efficient contact between the club and the ball.







 

Brian,

more players than we think on tour have equipment that they really like and so resist changing until absolutely necessary. When there is a leap forward in any major piece of golf equipment technology those reluctant to change will skewwhiff the stats to a certain extent. I am not saying this is entirely responsible but it will be partly.

Jon

[A.G._Crockett]

The big advancements in equipment over the last few years have not been in the equipment itself but rather in matching the player to the equipment best for him/her, AND in swing tweaks to take advantage of equipment.

So a particular player makes a slight adjustment in their angle of attack with the driver, and fiddles with shafts and clubheads until they get the exact launch angle and spin rates to optimize their driver distance.  The resulting gain for the player is "only" a few yards, and may not involve any extra swing speed or ball speed.  My guess (and it is only that) is that there are virtually NO players on Tour now that are NOT doing this.

I think this accounts for the flattening of distance gains at the top, since those players were likely already "optimized" in order to get the distances they were getting, and also accounts for the closing of the gap at least slightly between the bottom and the top.

[MCirba]

On the plus side, I hit my Jack Nicklaus Golden Bear circa 1973 3-iron my dad bought me for Christmas for the first time in 40 years the other day on the 183 yard 5th hole at Musselburgh Old Links to the right fringe and holed a lengthy putt for a two. 

Nice to see it still works!   

[Sean_A]

There has been a load of hand ringing over this topic for many, many years...without success.  Why focus so much on how far pros hit the ball?  Why not put your efforts into finding ways to preserve courses for the rest of the world...the ones that pay the bills?  I can't see the joy in constantly banging one's head against a wall that isn't going to crumble. Pros hit it a ton.  Even if a magical roll back were to occur, pros would hit it a ton.  Surely it is wiser to convince the powers that be in clubs that what the pros do is not connected in anyway to the remainder of golfers so all the stats relating to pros is meaningless data unless it is used to assess how pros play and that really shouldn't be the focus of conversation. The ultimate goal of course is to preserve courses for the everyday golfer rather than trying to alter courses to suit the "never gonna turn up" pros. 


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Right on!  If this group was around when they took Prestwick out of the Open rotation a century ago, it would be up in arms.  The future of the majors is at the Chambers Bays, Erin Hills, etc. Rolling back equipment in the name of preserving perhaps 5-6 dozen old courses (worldwide) for top level championship play is what is at stake.  That is actually a pretty low percentage of "winners" to really argue for.  Especially when the championships will be just as important and exciting at the new venues, at least for 99.9% of the watchers.

OT, Geoff Shack posted a blog this morning.  The powers that be (Finchem) take my position, saying its really only a few dozen top athletes hitting it over 300, and the average hasn't gone up.  If the top 100 golfers were all bombing it 320 consistently, they say they might change their mind.

There will always be that top 0.0001%, but we can't design for them.

[Sean_A]

Jeff


Make no mistake, I do think the ball goes too far and not to the advantage of anybody in terms of architecture. But, I think it is abundantly clear that to harp on about the ball is a waste of good energy and resources.  We need to stop measuring the game in terms of the pros. If not pointless, it is certainly fruitless.  I think the only real way to stop using pro stats to guide how we preserve (or not!) our game is to officially bifurcate.  Golfers can't be counted on not to take responsibility for buying equipment which in turn makes them feel like their courses are too easy.  Nor can golfers be counted on not to leap to knee jerk reactions based on the pro game. Given that the long ball, even if rolled back, is here to stay, bifurcation seems the only way forward for preserving architecture and creating sensible courses for the future. 


Ciao

[Niall C]

Personally I think the constant focus on length is a bit of a red herring. I think what has more of an impact on architecture is the ball flight and spin created by modern equipment.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Personally I think the constant focus on length is a bit of a red herring. I think what has more of an impact on architecture is the ball flight and spin created by modern equipment.
Niall

This is a very valid point although I'd like to suggest that it's also the sheer distance players hit the ball with the longer clubs that permits them to be in positions to use higher lofted scoring clubs more frequently, even more so now that 'wedges' are available off the shop shelf with circa 46* of loft and the special spinny groves that they come with allows all sorts of shots to be hit into pins that players of yesteryear probably would not have given a thought of going for from such distances and angles, plus the interface with lush, soft, pudding-greens syndrome and fairways maintained and cut in ways more helpful to such shot making.


Atb

[Paul_Turner]

Bryan

I posted something similar last year, yards gained for the deciles, see below. 

There is a a fairly constant 20 yard gap between top and bottom 10%.

Since the absolute gains shown below are almost identical, the weaker 10% have gained proportionally more but it's only a small effect (12% vs 11% gain).  I think it's probably due to the COR dropping with increased swing speed (well established phenomenon) which obviously affects the longest players the most.

Alternatively you could argue that the longest 10% could be laying up slightly more than in 1992 and it has cost them on average 1% or 2.5-3 yards, but without data to prove it I'm skeptical.

The 2003-2014 data in the chart doesn't show any obvious pattern that would suggest a point at which the tech is still improving but the longest 10% are laying up coincidentally to keep their stats nearly flat.   I can't see that the weakest 10% would be throttling back too, so wouldn't they reap the benefit if there was a tech improvement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff


Make no mistake, I do think the ball goes too far and not to the advantage of anybody in terms of architecture. But, I think it is abundantly clear that to harp on about the ball is a waste of good energy and resources.  We need to stop measuring the game in terms of the pros. If not pointless, it is certainly fruitless.  I think the only real way to stop using pro stats to guide how we preserve (or not!) our game is to officially bifurcate.  Golfers can't be counted on not to take responsibility for buying equipment which in turn makes them feel like their courses are too easy.  Nor can golfers be counted on not to leap to knee jerk reactions based on the pro game. Given that the long ball, even if rolled back, is here to stay, bifurcation seems the only way forward for preserving architecture and creating sensible courses for the future. 


Ciao

Sean,

The USGA is not into the "Bi" thing, but apparently, relaxing rules is okay in some cases.  Our only difference is that you might think the ball goes too far for pros, and advocate two balls to reduce pro tour course yardage.  I simply advocate keeping 5-6 dozen, maybe 100 US courses at 7400 plus for the tournaments and keeping the ball and most other courses the same.

For that matter, if there were designated Tour courses, maybe 90% of the other 14,900 courses in the US could remove back tees, taking them back to 6800 yards max, which would be fine for 99.9% of all golfers.  Don't bifurcate the ball, just bifurcate the courses rather than have them all waste so much resources on back tees that are never used.

[James Brown]

Has anyone ever published a study on what percentage of golfers play from what set of tees or distances?  Would love to see this compared to handicaps. 

[Sean_A]

Jeff


Make no mistake, I do think the ball goes too far and not to the advantage of anybody in terms of architecture. But, I think it is abundantly clear that to harp on about the ball is a waste of good energy and resources.  We need to stop measuring the game in terms of the pros. If not pointless, it is certainly fruitless.  I think the only real way to stop using pro stats to guide how we preserve (or not!) our game is to officially bifurcate.  Golfers can't be counted on not to take responsibility for buying equipment which in turn makes them feel like their courses are too easy.  Nor can golfers be counted on not to leap to knee jerk reactions based on the pro game. Given that the long ball, even if rolled back, is here to stay, bifurcation seems the only way forward for preserving architecture and creating sensible courses for the future. 


Ciao

Sean,

The USGA is not into the "Bi" thing, but apparently, relaxing rules is okay in some cases.  Our only difference is that you might think the ball goes too far for pros, and advocate two balls to reduce pro tour course yardage.  I simply advocate keeping 5-6 dozen, maybe 100 US courses at 7400 plus for the tournaments and keeping the ball and most other courses the same.

For that matter, if there were designated Tour courses, maybe 90% of the other 14,900 courses in the US could remove back tees, taking them back to 6800 yards max, which would be fine for 99.9% of all golfers.  Don't bifurcate the ball, just bifurcate the courses rather than have them all waste so much resources on back tees that are never used.

If golfers can't be counted on to stop buying equipment which then makes them feel their courses are inadequate nor to stop using pro stats to determine the future of their courses, why would you assume golfers can pass up on chances not to hold prestigious events which require their courses to be altered? 




Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()