USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project

[Cliff Hamm]

https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/usga-ra-publish-conclusions-of-distance-insights-project/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Cliff: Golf Governing Bodies Say “Time To Rein In Distances” right here on GCA already.

[jeffwarne]

Pages of drivel
102 pages of summary, and then 15 pages of conclusion... we've all been aware of this for years...
multiple quotes by an inept leader, then this gem..


"we're too early in this"


Anyone who thinks Jack Nicklaus at 23 wouldn't have hit a 45 inch optimized Taylor made twist face and and multilayer ball 360+ yards a la Tony Finau on 18 Sunday simply is not a student of history or technique.
The guy broke 9 inserts in his 42 inch XX steel shafter driver in 1961.
Of course this generation hits it farther-better technique, physical conditioning, more athletes selecting golf, but to barely broach the subject of equipment(the 800 lb elephant in the room) in the blathering article just tells me it's more of the same. And quite frankly, I think it's probably actually too late as the golf world has adapted for better or for worse.
In 2002 with the ball and the increased rebound effect of thin spring-faced drivers by say '05. combined with the dialed in optimization of launch and spin-provided all the evidence these luddites needed, but they dug their heads deeper in the sand(preferring instead to invest their time in rendering Shinnecock green's lifeless)-digging them out of the sand now is quite frankly useless and insulting-especially at this point with many of current the gains coming from the player's training and technique themselves.


But they went after grooves, and anchored putters-then shoulder high drops.
Can't wait till someone wins with the stand alone putter-which is somehow legal in the bubble world these dottering fools live in.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In 2002 with the ball and the increased rebound effect of spring-faced drivers by say '05 provided all the evidence these luddites needed, but they dug their heads deper in the sand(preferring instead to invest their time in rendering Shinnecock green's lifeless)-digging them out of the sand now is quite frankly useless and insulting-especially at this point with many of the gains from the player's training and technique themselves.

You're talking about the "stability through regulation" phase? Distances didn't seem to change much there.



Also, I think the jumps around 2015 to today are a result of players understanding strategy, how important driving and distance can be, etc.

[Cliff Hamm]

Erik, sorry.  Didn't see that when I posted and with a reply don't want to make changes....

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, sorry.  Didn't see that when I posted and with a reply don't want to make changes....

Yeah, oh well, maybe Ran or someone can merge the topics. Jeff posted in here too, and now I have again, so…

(I do think this is a better titled topic than the other one.)

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
Agreed on 2015-now gains mostly

In addition to recognizing bomb and gouge as strategy-especially with top heavy money.
Also, a generation weaned on Tiger came of age during that period

I'm pretty sure we agree here.


the ship sailed.
The USGA's commentary now insults me.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I think there is plenty of correlation in that graph if not out-right causation. 

If you focus on the PGA Tour line and break it up into 3 - 12 year segments, the middle segment with significant club and ball innovations shows a massive jump:

1)  1980-1992 - Start 256, Finish 260 = 1.6% Distance gains.
2)  1992-2004 - Start 260, Finish 286 = 6.2% Distance gains.
3)  2004-2016 - Start 286, Finish 290 = 1.4% Distance gains.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder how many pages this thread will reach?
Atb

Also see this thread - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68010.0.html

[Peter Flory]

I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is.  If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is.  If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.

Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?

[Peter Pallotta]

edit.

[jeffwarne]

I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is.  If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.

Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?

+1
One of the biggest myths out there.


Elite players don't miss the sweet spot bacause they swing full speed.
Might not control the face as well at super high speed,but it's really not a sweet spot issue for an elite player.


aim small-miss small

[John Emerson]

I was interviews twice about this topic.  Boy did I let the lady have it (respectfully of course!)  I forewarned her before both interviews that I am passionate about this ludicrous distance issue, and how everyday joes and jills are flipping the bill for it in the end.  Good to see that they didn’t try to doctor up the stats with some smoke and mirrors.

[Peter Flory]

I'd just dial down the CCs to 200 and keep the ball where it currently is.  If someone wants to swing 125 mph with one of those, they deserve a 300+ yard drive.

Do you think they swing softly with their current 3Ws? Or do they pretty much give those a rip, too?

Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed.  It appears as though they are usually not going after it.  Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.

If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist.  It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed.  It appears as though they are usually not going after it.  Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.

That's only 6 MPH lower than what the report shows as their driver swing speed, most of which comes from the 2" or so from the shorter shaft. They're going after their 3Ws just as hard (except on the holes where they're just bunting it out there a little). Give them a good lie (on a tee) and they're gonna be able to go even a little bit harder.

If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist.  It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing.

They are good at hitting the sweet spot.

Did you read @jeffwarne's post a few up?

[Peter Pallotta]

I was interviews twice about this topic.  Boy did I let the lady have it (respectfully of course!)  I forewarned her before both interviews that I am passionate about this ludicrous distance issue, and how everyday joes and jills are flipping the bill for it in the end.  Good to see that they didn’t try to doctor up the stats with some smoke and mirrors.

I noted that too, John. But I also noted they used language carefully, and didn't engage/challenge the equipment companies too directly -- which I think is probably understandable this early in the process. Yes: they do say that "Equipment Rules" will be a main topic/focus, but they also contextualized that, ie:

Both the USGA and the R&A took pains not to focus on the dramatic gains of 2000-2004, but instead to note: "the consistent increase in hitting distance and golf course lengths over the last 100-plus years" (USGA), and that "the impact of long-term hitting distance increases on some of golf’s essential elements are now clear" [the R&A, my bolding in both cases]. 

The risk I see is that, in being so circumspect & careful, they are establishing a framework for the future debates that will minimize potential outcomes & limit the scope of possible solutions.

The other 'risk' (from the perspective of my personal wishes) is that both governing bodies are doing this quite intentionally, i.e. are being so circumspect precisely because they wish to minimize outcomes & limit the scope of possible solutions.

The "over the last 100 years" time frame is accurate, I suppose, but does seem to downplay the titanium factor; and the phrase "hitting distance increases" seems to be intended to 'spread the blame around' -- superior athletes, better training, differing maintenance practices, the benefits of custom fitting, more wind, and err, um, 460 cc trampolines.     

[Tom_Doak]

Per trackman, the average carry distance on the PGA tour for a 3 wood is 243 yards with 107 mph clubhead speed.  It appears as though they are usually not going after it.  Easy to hit the sweet spot with a controlled swing like that for them.

That's only 6 MPH lower than what the report shows as their driver swing speed, most of which comes from the 2" or so from the shorter shaft. They're going after their 3Ws just as hard (except on the holes where they're just bunting it out there a little). Give them a good lie (on a tee) and they're gonna be able to go even a little bit harder.

If they are good at hitting a thimble size sweetspot, then it is ludicrous for 460 cc drivers to exist.  It means that they will virtually never miss with a normal tempo swing.

They are good at hitting the sweet spot.

Did you read @jeffwarne's post a few up?

Erik:


Maybe you shouldn't talk down to Peter.  I hear he's a pretty good golfer.  Maybe better than you, even. 


His point is sound:  if the pros are as good as you say, they won't miss having their big drivers taken away, and that would help matters, wouldn't it?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Maybe you shouldn't talk down to Peter.  I hear he's a pretty good golfer.  Maybe better than you, even.

I didn't, nor does one's ability to play really matter all that much here.

PGA Tour players go at their 3Ws pretty hard, too, and I am of the opinion that limiting drivers to about that size won't result in much of change at all.

His point is sound:  if the pros are as good as you say, they won't miss having their big drivers taken away, and that would help matters, wouldn't it?

I feel my point (above) is sound as well.

The problem exists only at the professional level. The 0.01%. Limiting the size of the drivers to the size of a 3W or something won't have much of a change, and if it's just at the pro level… it won't have accomplished anything. And, if it's at every level, it will make the game more difficult for average golfers.

[jeffwarne]

I have no issue if the USGA wants to limit driver size.
But i fear it would be another misguided attempt to limit distance via theory.(to say nothing of unintended consequences for amateurs)
They said the same thing about grooves-That players would hit less drivers or not swing as hard with driver out of fear of being in the rough and losing control with "new" grooves.
Didn't directly address the issue.
A driver doesn't go 340 yards because of head size-shaft length plays a role, and perhaps a small head on a 45 inch driver could play a role and make harder to hit, but I promise you the elite will swing just as hard,for the same reasons cited above-they are good enough to hit the center and grew up swinging at that speed so it's simply normal with graphite shafts.


Address the real issues-hot faces, lower spin faces, multicover balls that allow low spin at some speeds/lofts and high spin at other speed/lofts. Or don't address them and just dial back the ball.


Bescause I'd hate to see anoter opportunity wasted chasing a theory(grooves did nothing-anchor ban did nothing) rather than an actual cause..

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I hve no issue if the USGA wants to limit driver size.
But i fear it would be another misguided attempt to limit distance via theory.(to say nothing of unintended consequences for amateurs)
They said the same thing about grooves-That players would hit less drivers or not swing as hard with driver out of fear of being in the rough and losing control with "new" grooves.
Didn't directly address the issue.
A driver doesn't go 340 yards because of head size-shaft length plays a role, and perhaps a small head on a 45 inch driver could play a role and make harder to hit, but I promise ypu the elite will swing just as hard,for the same reasons cited above-they are good enough to hit the center and grew up swinging at that speed so it's simply normal with graphite shafts.

The semi-rare time when Jeff and I are on the same page. Driver head size is not a solution, and will punish amateur golfers (if they're subject to it) far, far more than the negligible difference it would make to the PGA Tour level players.

[Rob Marshall]

Here is what some of the pros think...


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/

[Jim Hoak]

Don’t know which of these 2 threads on the same subject to post on, so I’ll try here since it has the most replies.


I am wondering—What happens if the PGA Tour and the European Tour thumb their noses at this report and refuse to do anything?  It seems pretty obvious that that is their present intent.  Bifurcation without the Tours going along seems meaningless, right?
If the US and British Opens were played with a rolled-back ball or other equipment—and even assuming the Masters went along—, would anything really be accomplished?
It seems to me that before anyone gets too excited about anything happening, we need to see what, if anything, the Tours are going to do.  We can roar on about one side or the other of the argument.  But we seem to be just deluding ourselves, without the Tours.

[David Harshbarger]

Here is what some of the pros think...


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/02/04/distance-report-pga-tour-players-reaction/

“My caddie and I were just discussing this and what would bring it all back is a golf ball that didn’t go as straight, that curved more. Then you’re going to think twice about hitting driver. Hitting the ball straight should be a skill. You can’t deny that power is important, but that’s what makes a sport a sport. Tell me a sport where power isn’t important. Now, is it disproportionately important? That’s the question the ruling bodies have to answer.” - Stewart Cink

[Sean_A]

Jim

In theory, if Open courses (and presumably all USGA /R&A event courses) used a rolled back ball there is no need to alter the courses. If true, and that is a huge if, that goes a very long way to solving the problem.

Ciao