Some data regarding driving distance statistics

[Don Jordan]

I back Shaks opinion, just watch the Masters each year - in 2005 Tiger hit Driver 9 iron to 15, Bubba did the same in his win in 2012 however the hole had been lengthened 50 yards in the interim. Something needs to change...

Don--


Re: Bubba's short-iron approach in 2012, it's important to remember that he took kind of an insanely risky line off the tee that day, and it paid off. 90% or more of the field is hitting a long iron into that green, or laying up. Taking an extreme outlier as proof of the problem suggests the vast majority of data points may not be backing up the conclusion you're arguing for.


If a player is going to take on the crazy risk of that sort of shot and he pulls it off, why shouldn't he get a big reward? I've always thought that's part of what makes ANGC #13 such an incredible golf hole.


In every other major sport, fans marvel at the physical feats regularly performed by the best practitioners in the world of said sport. In golfers, those physical feats are seen as evidence of a flaw in the game. Could you imagine how silly it would look if basketball fans saw Stephen Curry make 10 three-pointers in a game and their reaction was to demand that the hoop be made smaller? Or if they saw LeBron James posterize some hapless defender and reacted by demanding the hoop be placed two feet higher?


Just as Shackelford theorizes that golf's governing bodies are conspiring to sell him and other golf minds a bill of goods by misusing data, he does the same thing with regard to the excerpt from Will Gray's article, which observes that there are more players who are averaging ~300 yards off the tee:


“A whopping 27 players cracked the 300-yard average last season on Tour, 15 more than the 2010 season and 18 more than in 2003. Individual drives over 300 yards, which made up just 26.56 percent of tee shots in 2003, accounted for 31.14 percent last season.”

Shackelford wants to lay this entirely at the dimples of the golf ball,...





I was talking about 15 at Augusta. A straight hole 50 yards longer and playing the same club in 7 years later.


Optimisation, lack of side spin on the ball, fitness are all making a difference. You can't regulate track man or fitness but you can do something about the ball or driver size. Much easier than building new courses. You can firm up a course as much as you want but the classics will need to become so crazy that  the open gets called off for wind.

[Peter Pallotta]

7500 yard courses are like all you can eat buffets. Not 1 in 10 can eat that much food, not 1 in 50 can enjoy that much food, and not 1 in a 100 can ever get much value for the money in all that food. The only difference, and it is a puzzling one, is that buffets seem a working class indulgence while 7500 yard courses seem most attractive to the upper-crust golfer/member, and to those who aspire to such heights. We should continue to highlight courses/clubs that are a) the most exclusive and prestigious in the land and ) come in at under 7000, and preferably at 6800 yards. When keeping up with the Jones means better courses instead of longer courses, all the other dominos will fall into place, and all the little soldiers will be marching in lock step to the same tune.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff Warne - do you think the primary problem lies in courses adding length? Or in the reduced challenge today's game appears to presentvto the best players?

The reaction (by championship and wannabe championship courses)Resulting in "bigly" courses to walk-no matter where you play from
The game's no easier for me sadly....

[JESII]

Jeff, we agree. FWIW, I was referring to literally only the guys playing on TV when I asked about the best players. You're probably in the top 1/10 of 1% but nobody changes their course in anticipation of you showing up I don't think.




Peter, I think that's a bad analogy in the first half of your post. I get it, but the better analogy is the courses that let you play all day for a single rate. More importantly though, is that the second half of your post is absolutely spot on...but is it not that way? I don't really pay attention to the rankings and recognition threads (or magazines) but does length trump quality in those outlets in your opinion?

[George Pazin]

Jeff, we agree. FWIW, I was referring to literally only the guys playing on TV when I asked about the best players. You're probably in the top 1/10 of 1% but nobody changes their course in anticipation of you showing up I don't think.

Unfortunately too much change in golf happens by a small number of influential people.


"I was playing here with so and so and he hit a short iron into this par 5!" Neglecting to think about the wind that day, a bizarre shortcut on a dogleg, a simply freakish drive, etc.


The rest of the members think, what would it hurt to have another waaaaaaaaaaaaay back tee that no one is gonna play?


You wake up a few years later and your course is 750 yards longer. More maintenance costs, slower play, etc.


(That's at least partly why "we" should care, Ron M., btw... I sure don't care what Pro XZB hit into any green, but his play seems to trickle down to mine, lke it or not.)

[JESII]

George - I agree, which is why I blame the course/club itself more than the USGA.

[Garland Bayley]

I serve on the green committee at my club. The number one topic is how can we squeeze out more yardage so people will take us seriously and give us a look now that the ball has everyone swinging harder with few bad consequences.
We have clubhouse, parking, small driving range and 18 holes in 91 acres, so you can see why we might have a course length problem.

[JESII]

What does "take us seriously" mean?

[Kyle Harris]

I serve on the green committee at my club. The number one topic is how can we squeeze out more yardage so people will take us seriously and give us a look now that the ball has everyone swinging harder with few bad consequences.
We have clubhouse, parking, small driving range and 18 holes in 91 acres, so you can see why we might have a course length problem.

This seems to be the case of a green committee dictating just what is and what is not a bad consequence.

Or, is your course yielding rounds in the low 60's frequently?

[Bryan Izatt]

I serve on the green committee at my club. The number one topic is how can we squeeze out more yardage so people will take us seriously and give us a look now that the ball has everyone swinging harder with few bad consequences.
We have clubhouse, parking, small driving range and 18 holes in 91 acres, so you can see why we might have a course length problem.

Just curious. How long is your course now?  Was there a point in the past where the course was taken more seriously at its current length?


I seem to recall you suffering bad consequences with some frequency.  I guess not from swinging harder.   

[Garland Bayley]

I serve on the green committee at my club. The number one topic is how can we squeeze out more yardage so people will take us seriously and give us a look now that the ball has everyone swinging harder with few bad consequences.
We have clubhouse, parking, small driving range and 18 holes in 91 acres, so you can see why we might have a course length problem.

This seems to be the case of a green committee dictating just what is and what is not a bad consequence.

Or, is your course yielding rounds in the low 60's frequently?

Take us seriously means actually give us a try and perhaps join. It doesn't matter what people shoot, if they won't even come and play. The chairman of the committee is a board member, young, and unable to get friends and associates to take us seriously with every other course in the area having more yardage and being more like what people expect an 18 hole course.


I forgot to add 5940 from the back tees.

[Garland Bayley]

I serve on the green committee at my club. The number one topic is how can we squeeze out more yardage so people will take us seriously and give us a look now that the ball has everyone swinging harder with few bad consequences.
We have clubhouse, parking, small driving range and 18 holes in 91 acres, so you can see why we might have a course length problem.

Just curious. How long is your course now?  Was there a point in the past where the course was taken more seriously at its current length?


I seem to recall you suffering bad consequences with some frequency.  I guess not from swinging harder.   

Yes, there was a time when significant amateur tournaments were scheduled at the course. Now the only thing the Oregon Golf Association schedules at our course is super senior championships.

5940 from the back tees.

As for you suffering bad consequences with some frequency, I recall a match you were in against Ward and I at St. Enodoc.

[Jim Hoak]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the PGA Tour data was the fact that, while the average yardage of drives had increased very little in recent years, the bell curve to measure yardages had flattened out.  In other words, there are now more players that can average over 300 yards per drive, but the average drive has changed little.  So, not only do people feel threatened by the distances the small number of touring professional golfers that there are can hit it, it isn't even all professional golfers--just a very small number that while increasing in absolute numbers hasn't even affected the average by much.

[Carl Nichols]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the PGA Tour data was the fact that, while the average yardage of drives had increased very little in recent years, the bell curve to measure yardages had flattened out.  In other words, there are now more players that can average over 300 yards per drive, but the average drive has changed little.  So, not only do people feel threatened by the distances the small number of touring professional golfers that there are can hit it, it isn't even all professional golfers--just a very small number that while increasing in absolute numbers hasn't even affected the average by much.

I think it would be interesting to see the curve for the world top 30. 

[Tom Kelly]

Does anybody know if there is any data available to the public of robot testing of a range of equipment over the past 15-20 years?


e.g. an old Titleist 975D hitting a Titleist Professional/1st generation Pro-V1 versus a Taylormade M1 hitting a modern Pro-V1 etc


I'd be more interested to see this sort of data than what the pros are doing.

[Ben Attwood]

Hi Jason,


from what I understand you have compared one player in 2007 against one player in 2017?


If this is the case, the conclusions you make are only about the differences between those two players and not any overall trend that you could pin down on the ball, the fitness of the players or the courses in general.


A better way to exclude outliers would be to removes those half or 1 standard deviation away from the mean and the use the rest to try and make general conclusions.


My best guess is that the increased professionalism of the players and a dash of monotonous course setup is leading towards a more homogenous tour player, with length (not necessarily off the tee) being an important factor.

[Jason Topp]

Hi Jason,


from what I understand you have compared one player in 2007 against one player in 2017?


If this is the case, the conclusions you make are only about the differences between those two players and not any overall trend that you could pin down on the ball, the fitness of the players or the courses in general.


A better way to exclude outliers would be to removes those half or 1 standard deviation away from the mean and the use the rest to try and make general conclusions.


My best guess is that the increased professionalism of the players and a dash of monotonous course setup is leading towards a more homogenous tour player, with length (not necessarily off the tee) being an important factor.

Ben - I looked at the 100th ranked player and the player ranked 10th.  The specific name of the player will change each year.  My idea is to represent an average hitter and a long hitter.

 Driving distance statistics appear to my eye to follow a traditional bell curve.  Thus, even though I am not going to spend the time necessary to calculate standard deviations, I am confident my approach yields results that would be consistent with such an approach.  If you want to do the math, feel free to have at it.

[Ben Attwood]

Yes, I think I was being very grumpy on that day, apologies.


On a more constructive note, I am increasingly a fan of Mike Davis: Dustin Johnson at Myopia Hunt with an 80% ball, yes please.


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future


Interesting that he starts the topic by saying the ball is not going increasingly further but ends it by saying a ball roll back is a good idea and the distance added to courses has done nothing for the game. Politics.

[RussBaribault]

Did I miss the part where the average golfer all of sudden became a 1 handicap hitting 300 yard drives?

[Jason Topp]

Did I miss the part where the average golfer all of sudden became a 1 handicap hitting 300 yard drives?

Nope.  However (1) the ideal golf course design provides an interesting challenge for all levels of golfers and (2) at any club with a large number of young and/or scratch players there will be people with swing speeds close to PGA Tour level. 

I will never forget standing on the tee of a 350 yard par 4 at a local muni in an evening league and having one of the players announce that he was going to wait for the green to clear before teeing off.  I was annoyed - the guy was not that good and play was slow.  The green cleared and his tee ball landed in the middle of the green and went over.  Good thing he waited.

The spread in tour player v. average player driving distance has increased from about 50 yards in 1980 to about 100 yards today.  That spread makes achieving an ideal design much more difficult.  A 400 yard par 4 might have been a driver mid-iron in 1980 and be reachable for the 18 handicapper.   In order to have a driver/7 iron for a the average tour pro today, you probably need something like 470 yards (just guessing). 

Many courses have added significant length over the last 20 years, presumably because they want to host events or because they need to do so in order to charge a premium as a "championship" course.  Added length has impacted both classic and modern courses.

My club was built in 2000 and hosts a college tournament.  Originally it was about 7100 yards.  Now, the back markers measure over 7500 yards and can be stretched another 100 or so.  Top end classic courses in the area have also added length, potentially compromising design quality in some cases.

Tom Doak has expressed his view that one should just forget about the long hitters and build a course for the vast majority.  I am fine with that approach and think it makes logical sense for 99% of courses.  However, courses continue to lengthen.  I am sure part of that is due to ego, however, I do not discount the possibility that courses of that length are able to generate more revenue because they are perceived as capable of challenging the best.

This is a long way of saying that I believe monitoring driving distance is an important issue for architecture.  I think it is important regardless of the cause of increased distance and regardless of whether one believes additional distance is a good or a bad thing.

[Garland Bayley]

Did I miss the part where the average golfer all of sudden became a 1 handicap hitting 300 yard drives?

No but the 20-35 handicappers pump it out there all the time. My son would have trouble establishing a 35 handicap, as he plays seldom, but he can bomb it 300 ever since high school. My buddies son is a 20, plays semi-regularly and can do likewise. Both are 6'4" and strong young men.

[JESII]

The spread in tour player v. average player driving distance has increased from about 50 yards in 1980 to about 100 yards today. 

Jason,


In your initial post you show 292 yards as the 100th ranked player today. Based on that, how do you square up the sentence just above?


There are three other numbers that seem impossible to accomplish for this to be true:


- Average Player today at 192 yards - Maybe but unlikely
If true, and they had remained flat for 35 years, then
- Average Tour Player in 1980 = 242 yards - Doubtful but not impossible


I'm probably focused on the wrong thing here anyway...

[jeffwarne]

You're probably in the top 1/10 of 1% but nobody changes their course in anticipation of you showing up I don't think.

I resemble that remark....
Actually, many courses have been known to start me on 10 to get me early and often 1/2 way house access

[Peter Pallotta]

Suddenly this thought occured to me:
as a collective we seem just fine with courses being built in near-deserts with sinking water tables that will soon have to start piping water in from the Great Lakes so that people with second or third homes in Arizona can maintain their property values while looking out at totally incongruent ribbons of bright green grass for 3 months a year; and yet we all seem terrified at the thought that courses that can well afford to might feel (foolishly in most cases, but that's beside the point) they need to add 500 yards to keep up with the distance gains achieved by .001% of the world's entire golfing population. Compared to the level of idiocy and self-indulgence of the former, I couldn't give a shite about the latter.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak has expressed his view that one should just forget about the long hitters and build a course for the vast majority.  I am fine with that approach and think it makes logical sense for 99% of courses.  However, courses continue to lengthen.  I am sure part of that is due to ego, however, I do not discount the possibility that courses of that length are able to generate more revenue because they are perceived as capable of challenging the best.

Jason:


The problem with that is that business dictates that every course wants to try to be in the 1%, so they can compete on the basis of quality, not price.  And most fear being left behind if they are perceived as not long enough and therefore "no longer challenging," even though almost 0% of the players who pay to play need more challenge.


The majority of my courses are still perceived as challenging, and some of them are still quite highly priced, even though many of them have done it while eschewing length.  I've never argued against making courses challenging, like David Kidd seems to be arguing now.  I just think unnecessary length is wasted space.