[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I think Ken makes some excellent points in his post.  Of course driving distance isn't the only thing a pro needs to be successful, but it does correlate the best, by a wide margin, to actually winning on tour.

I did some analysis a couple of months back on all the winners on tour in 2018-2019, and found that over half the time (52.4%) the winner was ranked in the top 25% for Driving Distance for the year.  Conversely, only 19% of the time was the winner in the top 25% for Driving Accuracy.

Perhaps this weekend I'll post up my analysis for all 5 categories I tracked: Driving Distance, GIR, Sccrambling, Total Putting, and Driving Accuracy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think Ken makes some excellent points in his post.

I'm being a bit facetious when I say this, but… "… and then undoes them all by pointing out that Nicklaus hit it past everyone in the 60s." I chuckle when rollback proponents bring that up. And again, I'm being a bit silly there, so don't take that as a slight to the rest of what Ken wrote.

Of course driving distance isn't the only thing a pro needs to be successful, but it does correlate the best, by a wide margin, to actually winning on tour.

No it doesn't.*

I did some analysis a couple of months back on all the winners on tour in 2018-2019, and found that over half the time (52.4%) the winner was ranked in the top 25% for Driving Distance for the year.  Conversely, only 19% of the time was the winner in the top 25% for Driving Accuracy.

* It correlates the best if you're only considering two (or five, below) statistics. My goodness! And what did you find for that stat in the 1980s? The 1960s? Power has always been an advantage. Nicklaus relied on it. Palmer. Hogan. Snead. Heck, power/speed being an advantage is one of the ways I determine what is a sport vs. a game.

Perhaps this weekend I'll post up my analysis for all 5 categories I tracked: Driving Distance, GIR, Sccrambling, Total Putting, and Driving Accuracy.

In this day and age, you tracked five categories? And… those five?

SG:Approach matters more than SG:OTT, and even OTT we see the 60-70 yard difference between tee shots that find the rough versus the fairway. The truth is the long hitters are still pretty accurate. The strokes they gain hitting the fairway + 20-30 yards are more than offset by the extra 1-2 times per round they find the rough over the "short but accurate" hitters.

(Oh, and that doesn't consider that SG:Approach is "hurt" when a player hits it farther. Rory and DJ have a tougher time gaining shots with their approach shots when they are hitting from 130 than another player does from 160. And yet, SG:App still matters the most.)

[SL_Solow]

Erik.  Regarding Nicklaus, perhaps you failed to consider where he hit that shot.  It was in a long drive contest where he could go after the shot full bore without any penalty for hitting it off line.  Note the significant reduction when he was playing for keeps likely caused by the "spinnier" balls and the small sweet spot on the smaller wooden driver.  Surely you are not implying that the current ball is no longer or easier to control than wound balata given your prior posts.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik.  Regarding Nicklaus

Despite me - twice - trying to call attention to this fact, you took my response far too seriously.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

There is approx 150-200 different measurements on the PGA Tour stat site, so I will certainly not attempt to correlate all of them. In lieu of that, I wanted to take a quick stab at testing the hypothesis: Does distance off the tee correlate the best to winning on tour? 

So I picked out a critical measurement (as noted above) from each main category: Off the Tee, Approaching the Green, Around the Green, and Putting.  I didn't using scoring stats because that doesn't tell us anything about the different components of actually playing the game. I then added Driving Accuracy as a control of sorts to compare to Driving Distance and i'm not surprised it correlated the worst to winning of all 5 measurements I looked at.

The results at least anecdotally suggest what many of us suspect and even you have preached over the last couple of years that distance off the tee is most important and these guys are instructed to hit it as far as they can as often as they can.. and that accuracy is far less important to winning.  (I'll post the specifics up later today)

P.S. It looks like I can go back to 2002 in all of these categories, so I may do that as another comparison point over the weekend...

[jeffwarne]

You have compelling arguments for many of your points and have certainly done your homework.

Thank you. Many of the people who disagree with me also make compelling points and have done their homework. I just don't agree with them, in the same manner in which they don't agree with me.

Would golf be a better game today if a magic pill suddenly had the ball go 15% shorter for elites and 5-10% shorter for the rest?

Why not just 15% for everyone? I hate arguments like this because they get bogged down and defeated (IMO) in semantics. Where does it switch from 10% to 15%? Why have a break point at all?

Safety corridors would be less stretched.
Liability would decrease.
More ranges would allow drivers.
Maintenance costs would drop.
Less lost balls due to offline shots travelling shorter.
Probably less lost balls/searching due to clubs not trying to "protect par" via rough, native etc.(an inane thoughtless solution I see thrown out on every forum where distance/rollback is discussed)

My oh my, all that from a 5-10% drop in distances, eh? I think you're over-reaching a bit.

Do good(Not TOUR but 0-5 hdcp) players enjoy golf more now that a 400 yard hole is driver wedge rather than driver 7 iron?

0-5 handicappers aren't hitting all that many wedges on 400-yard holes. That range of handicap still averages about 155 yards in. So, if they hit wedge there, it's not a 48° club very often; they're just hitting a 7- or 8-iron marked with a "P" or a "W." Or maybe it's the Titleist "P43". 

Do they enjoy it knowing they simply bought equipment that gave them that, not technique improvement or physical conditioning?

Golf is still ridiculously hard. Equipment can only help the average golfer so much.

and if you can successfully dispute all of that..

I can't dispute it any more than you can "prove" any of it. This is all just opinion. From both sides.

If more distance is good, why not even more?

Straw man argument. Just because "no reduction in distance" is seen as "good" by some doesn't mean they're also saying "more distance" is also good.

-----

Edit: a question for you, Jeff. Do you agree or disagree that 6500 yards is "enough" golf course for 95% of the world's golfers? Do you agree that the "distance problem" is almost entirely limited to a small part of the golf world (of which you are likely a member [to clarify: a member of the "very very good golfers" group, not a "part of the problem"])? Do you also think that if golfers across the world lost 10% of their distance, that golf courses would in fact have to renovate and build new tees and possibly re-configure hazards, etc. in the opposite direction - shorter - so that people could continue to play and enjoy the game? What would happen to the current "back tees?"

Well in Erie..
nothing would happen to the back tees

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is approx 150-200 different measurements on the PGA Tour stat site, so I will certainly not attempt to correlate all of them. In lieu of that, I wanted to take a quick stab at testing the hypothesis: Does distance off the tee correlate the best to winning on tour?

My point was simply that you chose poorly, or misleadingly. SG:App matters a good bit more than SG:OTT, despite the fact that longer hitters have a harder time gaining SG:App from closer to the hole.

You said "driving distance correlates the best to winning on tour, by a wide margin." Yes, it might correlate the best only out of the few stats you hand picked, but that's like saying a goalie's save % most strongly correlates to his team's success because you're comparing it against only their PK rate, how much the fans like the team logo, and the average weight and height of their bottom six left wingers.

We have much better stats than the five you chose. Plus, you aren't even able to say whether this is new or was also true using your selection of stats in the 40s, 60s, or 80s.

I didn't using scoring stats because that doesn't tell us anything about the different components of actually playing the game.

SG isn't really a "scoring stat" per se. It rates the value of a single shot. You can add them together to get scoring, but separately, they tell us where the game's best are gaining the most shots. It's the perfect tool to determine what skills actually matter. And what we find is that approach shots matter the most, not driving (let alone just driving distance).

FWIW, in 2019:
- Wyndham Clark was 5th in Driving Distance, but 88th in SG:OTT at 0.084 because he wasn't very accurate.
- Reeves and Mullinax were 7th/8th but neither was in the top 30 in SG:OTT. Not accurate enough.
- Davis was T10 in DD, but outside the top 60 in SG:OTT. Not accurate enough.
- Scniederjans was top 20 in DD… and 161st in SG:OTT, losing 0.285 strokes off the tee. REALLY not accurate enough.
- Ditto Phil Mickelson. T19 in DD, 165th in SG:OTT losing almost a third of a shot off the tee for his inaccuracy.

Driving distance doesn't matter as much as you're pitching, and good golfers have almost always been longer golfers. The best "short" player might have been Gary Player, and he had success many decades ago when the Tour was much weaker than it is now.

Distance matters. Of course it does. Speed matters in every sport. But so does accuracy in golf, as nobody's regularly hitting it 70 yards past anyone else, and that's about the difference between a ball in the rough and a ball in the fairway. Accuracy still matters, too. (Besides, it's easier to hit a ball in the fairway when it goes 40 yards shorter, even with the same angular accuracy.)

The results at least anecdotally suggest what many of us suspect and even you have preached over the last couple of years that distance off the tee is most important

I have not preached that "distance off the tee is most important" if you're talking about all the skills in golf. Again, even on the PGA Tour, a ball in the rough is equivalent to a ball in the fairway 60-70 yards further back.

------

Jeff, I answered your questions. How about taking a stab at mine?

[jeffwarne]

Erik,


Sorry I was doing a rant on just this subject on SiriusXM with jim McLean-should've had you call in (taped for tomorrow-there goes my Callaway contract)


Given that some of my favorite golf courses tip out at 6300-6500 sure I"d say 6500 is plenty of golf course for most players.(So yes we agree)
But the reputation of many/most elite courses is established by what events they have held or how they hold up against elite players in a competition.
I'd just like to see courses play somewhere near where they were designed, but as we know that's a moving target for hundred year old course.


Yes 6500 is plenty of course for most...but I'm not sure why the best players have to settle and not be tested as they were 30 years ago.....
But that doesn't mean my 10 handicap son doesn't have to wait on 325 yard par 4's. before pelting it 60 yards off line into someone's yard(but I've been wrong enough times to make him wait). I would argue he'd have more fun hitting it 15% shorter and find more balls-his score wouldn't suffer.
Palmetto is 6300 yards and has fantastic greens but I will admit I get agitated when I see their young bombers hit wedges into every hole and short irons into par 5's and remark what a fun little course, like their girlfriend's little sister.
That course could easily have hosted US Mid Am or even a US Am in 1980, but now it's passed by for longer more recent courses.
Aiken GC, a lovely course but would never host anything of any significance, yet was a reasonable length in 1912.
Multiple MET area courses ditto-instead these go to newer courses that can find 7000 (Winged Foot, Baltusrol)plus yards-certainly not better courses, just have room for the work of the latest "Open Dr." and therefore newer and bigger.
Inwood being a prime example of a great course distance passed by. Bobby Jones hit a 4 iron into the 400 yard 18th.
Apawamis-great course that tech just demolished-. Even iconic National Golf Links is a pitch and put, merely defending par by resorting to green speeds never ever conceived by the original architect. Difficult due to this , sure but a completely different kind've difficult for elites. The rest of us, an incredible gem, but again, why must the elite not enoy the brilliant challenge it once was?


More will follow.


Chambers Bay and Erin Hills are quite low on the fun factor, but are perfectly scaled for today's Championships.Just takes 5 hours to play 'em
I'd much rather play a ball where Merion,Inwood(scene of my first blown major) and Palmetto were relevant and you and I could play the same tees as competitors in a Major,without walking back 120 yards.Granted I'd have a long iron or wood in and they'd have a mid to short iron,
but we'd see the same course without walking 8 miles.


Professional golf spectating is a big part of my enjoyment in golf, and is for many others.
It's one of the few sports where current participants can spectate and compare what they did or would do on a hole.
Or they derive enjoyment from watching how a pro plays a shot on TV,
Some of that is lost when they're not ever hitting a long iron or fairway wood and usually one of their wedges.


On most classic courses no new tees would be needed as so many forward and senior tees have been built, but even if they weren't the average guy hasn't gained that much and I doubt he'd lose that much. that said, in a generation where 20 handicappers think they should be able to hit the same club into a green as a pro, well yeah they'd need to move up to the forward tees.


Would back tees be abandoned? They already are at many modern courses and at resorts like Bandon the back pads rarely are used as the tee color convinces people they are on the "back" tee that's 50 yards behind them .
So yes at courses designed to be "relevant" with modern balls , many back tees would be abandoned.
More sustainability. Now would they need more shorter tees? No as forward tees exist at nearly every course and that 130 yard woman isn't getting her current distance from caving the face and a low spin driver so she didn't gain much-wouldn't lose much.
And EVERY time I've moved a forward tee forward I've been screamed at by the women! (of course they could always play the senior tee that sits in its place..but I digress...)

[David Harshbarger]

Why not 1 minute abs?
 

While everything else you said made perfect sense, this is non-sense.


Workouts are 7 minutes.  Not 1 minute and definitely not 6 minutes.  7 minutes.

[jeffwarne]

Why not 1 minute abs?
 

While everything else you said made perfect sense, this is non-sense.


Workouts are 7 minutes.  Not 1 minute and definitely not 6 minutes.  7 minutes.

It's actually about the only thing that made sense to me.
I'm even confusing myself.
After a week on my back I'm looking for the spring loaded driver...

[Ira Fishman]

In several ways golf is an outlier regarding the effect of technology on the sport. Most sports have defined playing surfaces, and the participants are competing against each other directly. So the amazing progress in tennis racket technology equalizes among players because they all play the same landform. Not so for golf. If technology overwhelms the land, then Gca suffers by a fair margin.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Chris Solomon pointed out what a great test of golf Royal Melbourne was during the Presidents Cup. I'm sure "par" was hidden a little by match play, but I don't recall too many people blitzing the course like Phil/Sergio in their Ryder Cup, either. He pointed out that the course isn't that long, and yet because the greens were firm and the ball rolled, angles mattered, as did your precise landing spot and the way you could control spin. And we got to see a LOT of creativity from Tiger.

Maybe, and I'm paraphrasing him, the answer was to simply keep golf courses the length they were, but make them firmer (at least near the greens… but if it's firm in the fairways the ball can run into trouble, too) and make sure they have enough contour to keep the attention of the guys.

This can't work everywhere, and not everywhere is built on sand so the drainage wouldn't work everywhere. Maybe it wouldn't work anywhere except a few very specific places… which is probably the real answer, but still… I feel he made a good point. And the Presidents Cup was incredible golf to watch.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

It looks like you're missing the point.  The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors.  Of those players you picked in your last post, only Mickelson won last year, so the others are not relevant to this question.  One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first?  Given over half of the winners on tour are in the top 25% of Distance off the tee, that sure seems to be the best place to start on average. And perhaps if they're already in that top 25% look to improving GIR %s, etc.

In my analysis I looked at all 42 winners last year on Tour and gathered 5 data points on each winner for a total of 210 data points.  Here is the summation of the data and how it correlates.




This shows the aggregate stats for each winner on tour last year and their relative rank to everyone else on tour in the aforementioned categories.  It includes the median value as well as analysis for success rates in each ranking quadrant. For example, 76.2% of winners on tour came from the top 50% in Driving Distance, 64.3% for top 50% in GIRs, etc.

At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...and this data set at least suggests there may be something there.  A better balance between these categories would be more interesting over the constant bomb and gouge assault you see from the leaders week in and week out.

[Tim Martin]

Erik,

It looks like you're missing the point.  The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors.  Of those players you picked in your last post, only Mickelson won last year, so the others are not relevant to this question.  One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first?  Given over half of the winners on tour are in the top 25% of Distance off the tee, that sure seems to be the best place to start on average. And perhaps if they're already in that top 25% look to improving GIR %s, etc.

In my analysis I looked at all 42 winners last year on Tour and gathered 5 data points on each winner for a total of 210 data points.  Here is the summation of the data and how it correlates.




This shows the aggregate stats for each winner on tour last year and their relative rank to everyone else on tour in the aforementioned categories.  It includes the median value as well as analysis for success rates in each ranking quadrant. For example, 76.2% of winners on tour came from the top 50% in Driving Distance, 64.3% for top 50% in GIRs, etc.

At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...and this data set at least suggests there may be something there.  A better balance between these categories would be more interesting over the constant bomb and gouge assault you see from the leaders week in and week out.

Bye Bye Broadie

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It looks like you're missing the point. The question is, how does distance correlate to winning....not to other factors.

I'm not, and since you haven't run the stats to know how much distance correlated in the 1940s, or the 1960s, I also see little "point" in what you're trying to do.

One of the points of this exercise is: if a player is either new to the tour or looking to win more, which general area of their game should they focus on first?

You'd be laughed out of the locker room if you tried to talk to a player, agent, coach, caddie… anyone with an analysis based on the five stats you chose.

Look, again, you're using really old statistics, and only five of them, when much better statistics exist.

At the macro level, what I was trying to address is that the skills to succeed on tour seems out of balance, specifically distance seems to trump the other skills to winning...

No, again, distance only trumps "the other four stats" you chose.

And, you don't know if that relationship (even if we limit it to your four stats) has changed since the 40s, 60s, etc.

+++++++
This doesn't feel particularly on-topic, so I attempted to be brief in re-stating my opinion there.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

That's a terrific Straw man argument you've set up by insisting this must be compared to stats from the 40s and 60s...which don't exist.  Which even if they did, you would then just dismiss them as too 'old" anyways.

As for the measurements in each of the main categories, which ones are supposedly "better"?  Most of the other ones on the PGA Tour Stats site are for specific yardages, or 3 putt avoidance, etc, which doesn't provide nearly enough overall context.

P.S.  In case you missed it, i'll re-post this: " this data set at least suggests there may be something there"  I have no trouble admitting this is far from conclusive, but at least enough of an acid test to further pursue.  Once again its a simple question.  What correlates the best to winning on Tour?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That's a terrific Straw man argument you've set up by insisting this must be compared to stats from the 40s and 60s...which don't exist.  Which even if they did, you would then just dismiss them as too 'old" anyways.

It'd show (or not show) a trend - that "driving distance" is becoming more and more important.


This still feels off topic, and rudimentary at that. Better players hit it farther? Duh. That's always been the case. Distance - speed - is an advantage in just about every sport. And a 250-yard tee shot hit 3° offline will find more fairways than a 320-yard tee shot hit 2.5° offline.

[David Harshbarger]

The report is a good read and has many interesting sections and insights:

• Condensed history of balls and clubs from pre-1850 to today
• Analysis of factors impacting distance
• Charts showing that driving distance is the one skill that has increased in importance (relative to others) on the PGA tour
• Of 11 factors, recreational golfers said that the factor least representative of "success in golf" is driving distance

Lot's of other good material in there.  Definitely recommend it for a read.

[Tom_Doak]

 EVERY time I've moved a forward tee forward I've been screamed at by the women! (of course they could always play the senior tee that sits in its place..but I digress...)

Well, I could have told you that one.  They DO NOT LIKE being pandered to by men, and that's how it comes across to them.


The funny thing is, if you build a new course and put the tees pretty far forward, they love them.  I was at a dinner the other night for 90 crazy-avid golfers, and the two who were most effusive in their fondness for my courses were both women [out of less than ten at the dinner overall].

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a point that's been made by many others (here and elsewhere) and many times before, but it's worth repeating:

While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.

In other words: in terms of shooting the lowest and winningest scores, the scale has never been weighted so much in favour of the longest driver than it is now.

The 'balance of required skill sets', ie accurate irons, a deft short game, excellent putting, distance off the tee, has never been as unbalanced as it's been in the last decade and a half.

The game *has* changed -- and, from what I read, every golf pro and great player and expert observer old enough to have competed in & watched the game when it was differently 'weighted' and more evenly 'balanced' recognizes this.

The only debate is between those who think that all change is good -- or at least inevitable & irreversible -- and those who don't. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.

I don't think you're wrong… but where's the proof of this? How much has it shifted (if, and I doubt that this is true, but still: if it has shifted)?

I think you're probably right, but are we talking about a small shift? A huge one? What's the data?

[Tom_Doak]

It's a point that's been made by many others (here and elsewhere) and many times before, but it's worth repeating:


While driving distance has always been important and has always been rewarded, it has never been more important and more rewarded -- relative to other aspects of the game -- than it is today.


In other words: in terms of shooting the lowest and winningest scores, the scales have never been weighted so much in favour of the longest drivers than it is now.


The 'balance of required skill sets', ie accurate irons, a deft short game, excellent putting, distance off the tee, has never been as unbalanced as it has been in the last decade and a half.


The game *has* changed -- and, from what I read, every golf pro and great player and expert observer old enough to have competed in & watched the game when it was differently 'weighted' and 'balanced' recognizes this.


The only debate is between those who think that change is good -- or at least inevitable & irreversible -- and those who don't.

Actually, there is more to it than that.


Every time I have talked to PGA TOUR players about course setup for Tour events, they have told me that the setups are biased in favor of the longest hitters in the field. 


Courses are designed so that in no wind, longer hitters can carry much of the trouble off the tee, while shorter hitters must thread the needle through the trouble. 


The bias comes when there is wind:  if the hole plays into the wind, Tour officials will move the tees up so that the long hitters can still carry the trouble, and the short hitters still can't.


I would guess that has something to do with the results you are highlighting.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik -
I'm just on my phone right now, and it's hard to 'search' for past threads/post with it, but I'm almost sure I saw the data here on gca.com (but also other places) several months ago. I'll try to search when I get home.
P

[Peter Pallotta]

E -
I did find this. I'll just post, without extra comment or attempts to analyze. (As Tom points out, there are more factors than I realize.)

Correlation of distance to scoring average on the PGA Tour:
1980-13%
1990-14%
2000-31%
2017-44%

Correlation of accuracy to scoring average on the PGA Tour:
1980-53%
1990-48%
2000-35%
2017-12%

[David Harshbarger]

The USGA and R&A have also provided a library of 57 supporting analyses and reports.  Some are other studies and some are original research.


In the original research, no. 33, "How Golf Courses Change (Global)", summarizes analyses of aerial photos of 80 courses, looking specifically at the changes that have been made to them over the years.    (Link may only get you to the list of reports.  Scroll down to 33 if that happens).




Very interesting is that a few of the championship courses they include specific details for are Merion and Oakmont. For each they calculate the amount fairway lost over the study period.  It's a lot.


Merion - 1939 - Present lost 6.6 acres, 24.5%
Oakmont - 1938 - Present lost 14.9 acres, 38.6%
Olympic Club (Lake) 1938 - Present lost 18.3 acres, 42.3%
Shinnecock 1938 - Present lost only 2.2 acres, or 4.8%.


If the listed courses Shinnecock started with the most fairway and still has way more (43.8 acres) than any to the listed courses.  Erin Hills currently has 38.5 acres.  Bay Hill has 30.2 and all of the other championship courses have fairway acres in the 20-30 range.


Of their more modern courses, Quail Hollow, Bellerive and TPC Scottsdale have the biggest lost fairway acreage.


Lots of other interesting statistics on the changes over the years.


1920's courses lost an average of 17.1% of their greens, 30's courses lost 22.4%, 50% courses lost 19.1%.  In fact courses from every decade represented lost green area (other than the courses from the 40's, which can't be many).


Report also talks about bunkers, tees, turn-points, centerlines and boundaries. 


The discussion notes that older courses started with larger fairways than modern courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()