250

[jeffwarne]

No, that's not the number of yards Jason day hit his uphill 3 iron to the rain softened elevated 18th green at Bortrosol.
That was 258.
After teeing off with a 3 iron......on a par 5

and we thought Jack was good for doing it with a one iron from 237--child's play





No-- 250 was the winning score for a 72 hole event on the Web.com Tour this week, including a 58.
an AVERAGE of 62.5 per round on a 7188 yard course rated at 74 plus and slope of 141.


Nothing to see here.
I look forward to more "advances" further expanding the size and demands of playing fields.


Anecdotally, the distance the ball travels made substantial gains this year.
No matter what BS stats get dredged up


Grow the course
New USGA motto

[RJ_Daley]

Maybe we should get a "250" bumper sticker up like Dismal River had the '201' sticker.  At least we will all know the significance... 

[Ronald Montesano]

That wins the B flight in club championships...for three rounds.
One bogey all week. One eagle. A flotilla of birdies.
Jaegermeister.

[Mike Bowen]

On top of the distance gains I think golf is becoming ridiculous easy for these guys.  Perhaps some skill is being removed from the game.  At the very least we are seeing ridiculous performances with the current equipment.  If you were to transport Jason Day back even ten years he would win every tournament he played in.

[BCrosby]

For the umpteenth time, a 7200 yard course today, on an apples to apple historical basis, is very short.

For a course to play today as a 6900 course did in 1930 (a not unusual length for championship play at the time), the modern course needs to be about 8200 yards. That should be shocking.

Bob

[Thomas Dai]

250! Jeez.

Have a look at these - - 'Almostgolf' ball - lightweight, limited distance, and less impact damage on a head-hit - http://www.almostgolf.com


I've tried them. They're okay, bit dfferent obviously, but still the basic same stick-n-ball game folks have been playing for centuries. The future maybe?

Atb

[Andrew Buck]

Jeff,

I think we can all agree that the technology has gone too far (although I wouldn't really care if they didn't alter courses to keep up with it).  I heard you on the radio today opining that the ball is continuing to go further than a decade ago, even though the governing bodies say it has been limited. 

Then, 5 minutes later someone called asking for a secret to more distance, and you instructed him on speed training in his practice session, in a manner that we likely wouldn't have been instructed to do 30 years ago.  Isn't it possible the the ball really did plateau 10 - 12 years ago, however, the instruction on how to maximize the benefit of the technology, primarily by those "coming of age" in this period has really stretched things further? 

[Tim Gavrich]

This again...


The fact continues to be that the ball has plateaued. The longest players are not getting longer (DJ is leading the tour in Driving Distance at about 314 yds, which is about where that number has been for a decade), there are just more goons thriving in the pro game than there used to be. Using Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson's et al's outlier physical abilities to support the "We need 8,000 yard courses" Stuart Little routine is misleading at best. Equipment is just part of the story here.


The biggest factor is that golf is now regarded as a sport for "athletes" - Tiger Woods is to thank (or to blame, for the anti-tech crowd, I guess). His presence a) made it easier to sell golf as a legitimate focus sport for a bigger, stronger kid, and b) the increased purses he helped foster have turned golf into a sport in which youngsters (and their parents, who want to live vicariously through them) can legitimately strive toward a lucrative future. It seems that were it not for Tiger, a guy like Tony Finau would have gone the football route of his cousins, rather than golf. Multiply that by thousands for up-and-coming players. The widening of the gulf between amateur and pro golf ability is a good thing. Trying to stifle it by neutering the ball, which is not really getting any better than it is now, is a bad idea.


The selection and setup of professional tournament venues is as much to blame as anything, IMO. The average Tour course doesn't really reward the players with elite short games or the straight driver of the ball very much anymore. Guys can just wail away with relative impunity more than ever, and if they keep it on the planet, being in the rough 40 yards ahead of their competitor who has hit the fairway is an outsized advantage. That's because the Tour and other bodies involved in setup don't have the guts to let greens get firm or visit more courses with more undulated greens, and they maintain bunkers to an absurd standard of ease-of-escape.


Finally, the anti-tech crowd is almost completely unable/unwilling to provide a specific maximum distance the golf ball should go, probably because they know a specific number is ultimately indefensible, because it's utterly arbitrary.

[David Stamm]

On top of the distance gains I think golf is becoming ridiculous easy for these guys.  Perhaps some skill is being removed from the game.  At the very least we are seeing ridiculous performances with the current equipment.  If you were to transport Jason Day back even ten years he would win every tournament he played in.

If you transported Day back to the 1950's, I bet he wouldn't.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I think we can all agree that the technology has gone too far (although I wouldn't really care if they didn't alter courses to keep up with it).  I heard you on the radio today opining that the ball is continuing to go further than a decade ago, even though the governing bodies say it has been limited. 

Then, 5 minutes later someone called asking for a secret to more distance, and you instructed him on speed training in his practice session, in a manner that we likely wouldn't have been instructed to do 30 years ago.  Isn't it possible the the ball really did plateau 10 - 12 years ago, however, the instruction on how to maximize the benefit of the technology, primarily by those "coming of age" in this period has really stretched things further?

It's possible...but my teaching is not that good
Thanks for listening!
Ironically, I got that instructional tip from Jack Grout about 30 years ago! (should have given him credit)


The heel on my driver has the nearly same smash factor as the center of my driver from 4 years ago, so mishits go far as well.


and yes conditioning, better athletes playing, and better instruction has had an impact.

[Pat Burke]

Balls. Pinnacles with spin
Clubheads  larger with ever changing design parameters to find ideal launch. Far less spin


Shafts. Better, lighter/longer, with much tighter tolerances


Fitness.  As in every sport. Ever evolving and improving


Players. Bigger and more fit....please note, not saying better per se


Courses. Fairways that are tight and consistent, rolling as well as some grees in the fifties


Trakman has allowed me to optimize and extra 8 to ten in my driver the last year and a half, and I'm an old fart.


So many things lead to incredible distances


Usain bolt wasn't supposed to happen 4 years ago, was too tall for a sprinter according to experts. Evolution is part of the distance equation..


Dint have a reasonable fix, just my thoughts

[Joe Sponcia]

"The press information hand-out provided by the PGA include a hole by hole description of the No. 2 course.  Consider the clubs commonly used for approach shots into the greens; three or four-iron into No. 1;  three-wood to one-iron on No. 2;  three-wood to one iron on No. 6;  five to seven-iron on No. 9; two to three-iron on No. 11; three to five-iron on No.12; three to five-iron on No. 14;  three-wood to two-iron on No. 15; two to four-iron on No. 17.  three to five-iron on No. 18".  - From the 1951 Ryder Cup guide (the course was 7,007 yards then).

From Lee Pace's excellent, The golden age of Pinehurst


For fun let's apply these yardages today with the 'average' PGA tour player according to Trackman:http://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/, assuming a paltry 290 yard drive.


Hole 1 - Par 4 - Currently 402 yards.  Would have to be stretched to 502 yards today.
Hole 2 - Par 4 - Currently 507 yards.  Would need to be 533 yards.
Hole 6  - Par 3 - Currently 242 yards.  On target today for carry.
Hole 9 - Par 3 - Currently 191 yards.  Add 5 yards to 196 yards.
Hole 11 - Par 4 - Currently 483 yards.  Needs to be 502 yards.
Hole 12 - Par 4 - Currently 484 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards.
Hole 14 - Par 4 - Currently 473 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards.
Hole 15 - Par 3 - Currently 203 yards.  Needs to be 243(!) yards.
Hole 17 - Par 3 - Currently 205 yards.  Needs to be 212 yards.
Hole 18 - Par 4 - Currently 451 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards. 


That's an added 265 yards on 10 holes.  The current championship tees play to 7588.  Again, leaving out 8 holes, the new total yardage would need to be 7,853 yards.  So really...8,000 yards is probably about right or is it 7,992 yards?


Now, when you watch the telecasts on TV, do you routinely see pip-squeaks roll out to the low 300's?  Do you also see the ridiculous 5 irons going some 240-250 yards? 


Either some of you are terrible at math or your head is completely in the sand over this.  Bob Crosby is right.  Courses today for the PGA tour probably need to START around 8,000 yards to equate to the non-athletic Hogan's, Snead's, Nicklaus's, Palmer's, and Nelson's of old.


Viva la' distance!

[James Brown]

"The press information hand-out provided by the PGA include a hole by hole description of the No. 2 course.  Consider the clubs commonly used for approach shots into the greens; three or four-iron into No. 1;  three-wood to one-iron on No. 2;  three-wood to one iron on No. 6;  five to seven-iron on No. 9; two to three-iron on No. 11; three to five-iron on No.12; three to five-iron on No. 14;  three-wood to two-iron on No. 15; two to four-iron on No. 17.  three to five-iron on No. 18".  - From the 1951 Ryder Cup guide (the course was 7,007 yards then).

From Lee Pace's excellent, The golden age of Pinehurst


For fun let's apply these yardages today with the 'average' PGA tour player according to Trackman:http://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/, assuming a paltry 290 yard drive.


Hole 1 - Par 4 - Currently 402 yards.  Would have to be stretched to 502 yards today.
Hole 2 - Par 4 - Currently 507 yards.  Would need to be 533 yards.
Hole 6  - Par 3 - Currently 242 yards.  On target today for carry.
Hole 9 - Par 3 - Currently 191 yards.  Add 5 yards to 196 yards.
Hole 11 - Par 4 - Currently 483 yards.  Needs to be 502 yards.
Hole 12 - Par 4 - Currently 484 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards.
Hole 14 - Par 4 - Currently 473 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards.
Hole 15 - Par 3 - Currently 203 yards.  Needs to be 243(!) yards.
Hole 17 - Par 3 - Currently 205 yards.  Needs to be 212 yards.
Hole 18 - Par 4 - Currently 451 yards.  Needs to be 493 yards. 


That's an added 265 yards on 10 holes.  The current championship tees play to 7588.  Again, leaving out 8 holes, the new total yardage would need to be 7,853 yards.  So really...8,000 yards is probably about right or is it 7,992 yards?


Now, when you watch the telecasts on TV, do you routinely see pip-squeaks roll out to the low 300's?  Do you also see the ridiculous 5 irons going some 240-250 yards? 


Either some of you are terrible at math or your head is completely in the sand over this.  Bob Crosby is right.  Courses today for the PGA tour probably need to START around 8,000 yards to equate to the non-athletic Hogan's, Snead's, Nicklaus's, Palmer's, and Nelson's of old.


Viva la' distance!

(I hate to whine about distance since I always want more!)


One thing I wonder is how much difference in difficulty is there between hitting a 5 iron 180 and 210?  Or 240?  In other words, would Hogan be more accurate with a 5 iron today than today's longest pro's?    Somehow I doubt it, as much as I revere Hogan. 

[Joe Sponcia]

I can only give you a quick fact and anecdotal evidence: 


The MacGregor 5 iron in the 1950's was 32 degrees, 37 inches long.  Back then a wedge was 52 degrees and then all of the irons were gapped at 4 degrees.  Funny, the manufacturer's still use the 4 degree gapping until they hit the 6 iron.  Some 3 and 4 irons are only 2.5 degrees difference.  Most wedges now start at 45 degrees for the better player iron.  Some as low as 42 degrees.


The Modern 5 iron is an inch longer and depending on the model, 25-27 degrees in loft.


I have a 1980's Apex set and an old Wilson Gooseneck set...the 8 iron on both models fly the same height as my 4 iron today - I'm a 3.3 handicap.  The clubheads are not much bigger than the ball.  Unless Ben Hogan started doing Crossfit, quit smoking, and changed his diet, he probably wouldn't even be on tour today  .

[Andrew Buck]

"The press information hand-out provided by the PGA include a hole by hole description of the No. 2 course.  Consider the clubs commonly used for approach shots into the greens; three or four-iron into No. 1;  three-wood to one-iron on No. 2;  three-wood to one iron on No. 6;  five to seven-iron on No. 9; two to three-iron on No. 11; three to five-iron on No.12; three to five-iron on No. 14;  three-wood to two-iron on No. 15; two to four-iron on No. 17.  three to five-iron on No. 18".  - From the 1951 Ryder Cup guide (the course was 7,007 yards then).

From Lee Pace's excellent, The golden age of Pinehurst

The thought of needing to hit recurring long irons into those greens at Pinehurst is scary.

[JMEvensky]

Yes,the equipment has altered the game for elite players--and not in a good way.


But shooting 250 for 72 holes requires a lot more than hitting it a long way,no matter what equipment he was playing with.

[Tim Gavrich]

"The press information hand-out provided by the PGA include a hole by hole description of the No. 2 course.  Consider the clubs commonly used for approach shots into the greens; three or four-iron into No. 1;  three-wood to one-iron on No. 2;  three-wood to one iron on No. 6;  five to seven-iron on No. 9; two to three-iron on No. 11; three to five-iron on No.12; three to five-iron on No. 14;  three-wood to two-iron on No. 15; two to four-iron on No. 17.  three to five-iron on No. 18".  - From the 1951 Ryder Cup guide (the course was 7,007 yards then).

From Lee Pace's excellent, The golden age of Pinehurst

The thought of needing to hit recurring long irons into those greens at Pinehurst is scary.

But as Joe and others have demonstrated, the long irons of yesteryear were basically the mid-irons of today, weren't they?


And the balls they used then returned to Earth at a steeper (i.e. softer) angle than those we use today, didn't they?


And the greens were slower, meaning less roll-out after the ball landed, right?


Also, why is it beyond argument that the pros of the 50s having to hit long-iron after long-iron was somehow superior setup to today's, or sometime in between? #MakeGolfGreatAgain 


Don't look now, but the Tour is playing a course this week that is a couple hundred yards shorter than No. 2 was in 1951. The leaderboard will be diverse, no one will shoot -30, but I'm sure the braying will continue unabated [size=78%].[/size]

[BCowan]

8,000 yard courses will be great for golf.  More Erin Hills will get built and less private clubs will get selected.  It will be major golf course construction bubble that wont burst, presuming they don't put out a bumpy green product of a track!

Then golden age courses will cost less to join for not hosting major in 40 years.  Some may even restore their routings and regain their width.  It's truly a win win!  The viewer like to see the long ball, don't take it away from him. 

[Jon Wiggett]

The biggest difference in distance in the last 25 years has definitely been the ball. There is only 5 to 10 yards difference between my old steel shafted, persimmon headed driver of the mid 80's and my current driver. What is very noticeable with the modern driver is how little it matters whether you nail it or mishit it. A big part of the game gone and certainly lessens the achievement of the modern day players.


Jon

[Mike Bowen]

At the end of the day I wouldn't be surprised if the ball is never rolled back from the current state.  I would however like the option to purchase a ball that travels a shorter distance.  I live in a relatively remote City in Northern Alberta.  There are not very many options for golf without traveling 4+ hours.  There are many nine hole courses in the area but they are so short they are a bit depressing to play.  Many are solid courses if you were required to play proper golf shots.


Bridgestone was recently testing limited flight balls and I would be willing to pay ProV1 prices for these balls even though I haven't purchased a ball in five years.

[Ian Mackenzie]

YOu still have to "roll the rock" and hole putts to go that low.


Has anyone/body done any studies on putting?
Is it better today with all these technology-laden, weight-balanced, pieces of carbon fiber tungsten things that hardly fit in a golf bag?


Take an 8802 and a Bulls Eye and compare that with one of those unsightly Taylor Made Spider things that Jason Day uses. Tell me it's easier to knock in putts inside 8' with these!!


Plus, the Super Stroke grips!!


Who has putting stat comparisons for past 20 years?

[jeffwarne]

YOu still have to "roll the rock" and hole putts to go that low.


Has anyone/body done any studies on putting?
Is it better today with all these technology-laden, weight-balanced, pieces of carbon fiber tungsten things that hardly fit in a golf bag?


Take an 8802 and a Bulls Eye and compare that with one of those unsightly Taylor Made Spider things that Jason Day uses. Tell me it's easier to knock in putts inside 8' with these!!


Plus, the Super Stroke grips!!


Who has putting stat comparisons for past 20 years?

Greens are definitely smoother and faster and far less grainy, and in many/most cases the slopes are less.
Additionally slopey pin placements aren't used because they can't so yes improved putting is hugely better

[Thomas Dai]

Folks spend money everyday on clubs, balls, lessons, fitness etc etc in the hope of hitting the ball further. Then more money is spent on lengthening courses and maintaining larger areas of property. I suspect Mr Spock would say "illogical". Just roll the bloody ball back, the more so for the better player.


Atb

[Ulrich Mayring]

I saw a bit of Stephan Jaeger's 58 and his other rounds. He wasn't the longest in the field, but he hit almost all the fairways and greens. The course struck me as fiery, which would explain that an accurate hitter with "only" decent length could get a huge rollout (314 yards average for Jaeger). However, the course also appears to be wildly undulated with close shaved runoffs at the very firm greens, so on TV it looked almost like a major setup.

On the other hand there were a number of guys shooting 61, 62 and a 60 as well. So while Jaeger's 250 is certainly an anomaly (he himself said he got lucky, no bad breaks, only good bounces), there must have been something that made this very tough looking course a lot easier to play.

What I found most fascinating is that he backed up his 58 with a 65, 64 and 63 on Sunday. No letup whatsoever - can't remember anything like that ever happened. And it actually could have been a close tournament, because the 2nd place guy shot -6 on the first 6 holes on Sunday and would have reduced the 7 shot lead of Jaeger to just 1, if Jaeger himself had just hovered around par (which would be understandable in his situation).

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

obviously Jaegar played great and won the tournament in fine fashion.


When Geiberger shot 59 (13 under), he won the event as well and shot 3 other 72's (even par)
for a total of 275.
The second lowest round of the tournament was a 66-
Now that's an incredible 59.
He shot it on grainy bermuda greens in the summer and was hitting 3 woods into the par 5's(the ones he could reach)