USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project

[Brian Walshe]

Royal Melbourne worked incredibly well at the Presidents Cup because it was match play.  If it had been a 4 round stroke event played to a par of 71 or 72 it would have been a slaughter.  It simply isn't long enough for modern equipment.  Golf today is one dimensional, it is power (and data Erik) above all else. To say the problem it's simply pro golf is nonsense.  Go follow a good amateur event and they all smash it and more than a few as far or further than guys on Tour.  Champ is an outlier today and will be the norm tomorrow.


Erik,


If the distance today is all or even mostly technique and athleticism then let's go back to persimmon and Tour Balatas because they'll all still bomb it like they do with a SIM driver and a ProV1x.  Happy to have a few bottles of good red that we'd see driving distance back to where it was 20 years ago pretty quickly.  It might even make pro golf interesting to watch again.  Oh and if they do, I'm putting a lot of money on Tiger breaking Jack's record.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Champ is an outlier today and will be the norm tomorrow.

I'm on record as doubting it.

If the distance today is all or even mostly technique and athleticism

I've specifically said I don't think it's "all or even mostly technique and athleticism." It's a combination of a lot of things.

then let's go back to persimmon and Tour Balatas

Good luck with that.

because they'll all still bomb it like they do with a SIM driver and a ProV1x.  Happy to have a few bottles of good red that we'd see driving distance back to where it was 20 years ago pretty quickly.

FWIW that's only the year 2000. Maybe that's what you meant, maybe you meant about 1990…?

[Cliff Hamm]

Update from global golf post including comments from the PGA tour:




http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/global_golf_post/20200210/nugent_col.html

[Peter Pallotta]

From the mouth of babes, as they say -- or in this case, from one of the very best golfers in the world, who also happens to be a smart & thoughtful young fellow: Rory McIlroy

“The people that are giving the architects the money to build these golf courses have this grand ambition of maybe having a Tour event one day,” McIlroy said. “Building these golf courses on these massive pieces of land means having to use so much water, so much fertilizer, pesticides, all the stuff that we really shouldn’t be doing nowadays, especially in the climate we live in and everything that’s happening in our world.

“You look at what happened in Australia, you look at what happens in this state every August, September, October time with fires and global warming — I think golf has a responsibility to minimize its footprint as much as it possibly can. For me, I think the sustainability aspect of what they’re trying to do is very important and that’s the one thing I would definitely stand behind.”

[Thomas Dai]

Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb

[Joe Zucker]

Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb

Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades? Tying this into the Book Club thread on Hunter, he noted that advances in technology were hurting the game in the 1920s. While the distances Nicklaus hit it seem quaint by today's standards, they surely would have been shocking to Hunter.  I know and agree with all of the data that the slope of the growth has increased in the last 20 years, but I'm wondering if Nicklaus and company would have been thought of charitably by Hunter and other golden age designers if they had different views on how far the ball should go.


Many people think the best era of the game was from the 1950s until the Pro V1.  I know Mike Clayton has expressed this sentiment that it was the era when courses and players were most evenly matched.  Before then, courses were too hard and after, courses too easy.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the best lines in Alister MacKenzie's book is,


   It has often been suggested that an uninteresting hole might be improved by lengthening it, but it would be a safe axiom to adopt, "It will only be made worse and take longer to play.  Shorten it and get it over."




Sadly, few clubs will even consider the idea of "taking points off the board" and shortening a hole in an attempt to add life to it.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the best lines in Alister MacKenzie's book is,
  It has often been suggested that an uninteresting hole might be improved by lengthening it, but it would be a safe axiom to adopt, "It will only be made worse and take longer to play.  Shorten it and get it over."
Sadly, few clubs will even consider the idea of "taking points off the board" and shortening a hole in an attempt to add life to it.

I’ve played numerous holes on occasions from ‘the ladies tees’ over the years that have been much better holes than when played further back. I’m sure you have too.
Indeed, a game I play with some friends on regular away trips to links courses is if there’s a decent strength of wind blowing to play from the white/yellow tees downwind and play off the yellows/reds into the wind.
Atb

[SL_Solow]

Joe,   I have discussed this issue a number of times over the years.  Sports evolve over time.  American football invented the forward pass in response to Teddy Roosevelt's threat to outlaw it because of deaths arising out of the flying wedge.  Basketball widened the lane and created a rule against goaltending.  Baseball livened the ball and outlawed various trick pitches including the spitter.  But at some point, games become "mature" and further tampering leads to disadvantages.  Baseball's 90 foot distances between bases seems just about right and the continued use of wooden bats appears to have worked.  The question is, when is (or was) golf "mature" so that changes in equipment alter the basic challenge of the game.  Layered on to this question are the various issues regarding land use, chemical use, water use etc.,  all of which suggest erring toward equipment that requires less rather than more.  But for those suggesting that the game was at its best after heel toe weighting but before the Pro V type of ball construction, perhaps a different way of saying it is to suggest that the game was mature; the balance of challenges seemed about right and that further changes did not improve the game.  Surely baseball could have changed balls and bats but at the professional levels, those in control decided that the game "worked" so they resisted further change.  Perhaps they were able to do so because manufacturers had less influence or because fewer adults continued to play the game.  Other sports continue to tinker in material ways but that may be due to the nature of the games in which they tamper with rules and not equipment such as basketball. A fair argument can be made that advances in tennis rackets have materially altered the game; far less serve and volley today than when I was playing and its because the new rackets permit harder hitting with greater spin on groundstrokes than with wooden rackets or even the early generations of metal or composite ones.  So the issue is not whether golf equipment should have evolved.  Rather, one should ask is there a time when it makes sense to stop or even roll back the evolution.  The answer depends in part whether one thinks the interaction between classic courses and top level players is important.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Kalen: https://datagolf.org/importance-of-driving-distance/

1. The raw correlation between a golfer’s average driving distance and their total strokes-gained has increased slightly since 1984. Conversely, the raw correlation between driving accuracy and total strokes-gained has steadily declined since 1984; this decline has flattened out since 2004. This is consistent with work done by Jake Nichols. Overall, it's fairly striking how little the raw correlation between distance and performance has changed since 1984.

In other words, the correlation between driving distance has only slightly increased since 1984 (but it has increased, slightly), and they call it "striking" how slight that increase is.

5. So, what is our answer to the question we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration.

In other words, the relative importance of driving distance and driving accuracy is almost the same as it was in 1984. It trended down for awhile, then trended back up, but overall has remained relatively flat.

This does not support the idea that driving distance has grown significantly in its importance since the 80s.

[john_stiles]

The USGA and R&A will always be behind the manufacturers. Distance is only likely to increase from time to time.


The manufacturers make golf balls and equipment to standards set by USGA/R&A who might be former top researchers but are not now in charge of selling anything.


Manufacturers make stuff to sell.  USGA and R&A don't make anything.


Manufacturers experiment, fail, experiment, fail, experiment, and succeed.


USGA and R&A get a second cup of coffee at 9 am and talk about how far their teenage son can hit it.


Whatever bar or standard is set,  it needs to be periodically adjusted in the case of the sport of golf.


Now seems like a good time.

[Joe Zucker]

SL_Solow, thanks for that response.  Thinking about when different games reached maturity and attempted to maintain that level of maturity is an instructive way to think about it.  I'm in agreement that the game seems out of wack at the pro level from a technology and resource perspective.  As someone who fell in love with the game right as the Pro V came along, I'm just skeptical of people saying the game was best back when I learned it.  In some cases these people are right, but why not go back to your father or grandfather's game?  No one ever advocates for that.


For golf, maybe the game had not reached suitable maturity by then.  That seems reasonable to me, but I wonder if Hunter would agree.  He was lamenting the technology in the 1920s.  I imagine millenials have a better opinion of the current ball because they grew up with it.  We are all shaped by our adolescence and often hold onto that as the benchmark.

[Jason Topp]

Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb

Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?

Nicklaus raised the issue in the early 80's as I recall.  He was not alone. 


The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?).  The game has exploded in popularity over that time.


My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues)  can be mitigated through an equipment rollback. 


I also think that in thinking about these issues we should assume that if all equipment remains the same, driving distance will increase nearly a yard per year at the professional level due to the pressures of competition.   

[Joe Zucker]

Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb

Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?

The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?).  The game has exploded in popularity over that time.


My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues)  can be mitigated through an equipment rollback. 

I agree with that.  If now is the time to stop technology, a reason other than "the game was perfect 30 years ago" needs to be offered because people have been saying that for 120 years.  Environmental issues and  the things you mentioned seem perfectly reasonable reason to me.

[Pete Lavallee]

Jason,


The evolution of golf balls in the early days made the game better because it made it cheaper so now everybody could play. The Pro V 1 era has only made it an expensive arms race. If you’re competitive, it’s hard not to play with the same $4 ball everyone else is using. Sadly the answer to: How has the Pro V 1 made the game of golf better, is that it has made Titleist a fortune and given them a market share which they are unlikely to abandon without a fight!

[Thomas Dai]

Well spotted and posted Peter and well said Rory. Nice to know that one of the younger generation of elite men’s tour pros is able to see the bigger picture.
Atb

Did Nicklaus (or any other players in the 60s-90s) worry about the ball going too far in those decades?

The best counter argument I have heard against a rollback is that architects and traditionalists have complained about driving distances dating back to the Haskell ball (1900?).  The game has exploded in popularity over that time.
My response is that the economic pressured today are more significant than they once were and the biggest problems with the game (expense, time to play, preservation of historic venues)  can be mitigated through an equipment rollback. 

I agree with that.  If now is the time to stop technology, a reason other than "the game was perfect 30 years ago" needs to be offered because people have been saying that for 120 years.  Environmental issues and  the things you mentioned seem perfectly reasonable reason to me.

It's worth noting that when Jack Nicklaus was speaking in 1980 about the distance the ball was going, and good on him for doing so then and still, the population of the world was approx 4.5 billion.
The worlds population is now about 7.7 billion. A lot more mouths to feed and water and house these days, which makes Rory's other comments (see below) even more praiseworthy.
atb

[Thomas Dai]

Here is the response to the USGA/R&A distance report by the CEO/President of Acushnet, Titleists parent company - https://www.titleist.com/distance-insights-perspective
Given the wording I’m not sure I’ll be reaching into my wallet to buy any of their products in future.
Atb

[JESII]

How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...


I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - you're right, and I understand how you can be stunned by the underlying assumptions.
But:
While I'm not one to usually make any case based on "human nature", here's a possible analogy:
It's our responsibility to drive safely and smartly, taking good care of both ourselves and the others sharing the same roadways by staying at the speed limit and factoring in road/weather conditions.
But "human nature" seems to be that, if the speed limit is 60, but there are no cops around and we're in a bit of a rush (with whatever self-important project we have on the go), we'll push it up to 70; and, if everybody else is going 70, and there's a car in the passing lane travelling at just barely that, we might speed up to 75 or 80 to pass them.
And if someone is young and ego-bound and full of (misplaced) competitive fire, he might gun his fancy new BMW up to 85 -- confident that he can get away with it and confident too that, if he get's pulled over, he can "afford" the ensuing traffic ticket.
In the meantime, he gets to "impress" his date and show off to the poor sap driving an 1985 Honda Accord.
At some point, aren't you glad that there is a 'governing body' and cops and the weight of public opinion so that, at the very least, the official speed limit stays at 60? 
Without it -- and though we are all supposed to be 'responsible' for our own actions -- that idiot in the BMW might take it to 90, and a whole bunch of other idiots trying to impress their dates would say 'well, if he is going 90 I can too, and maybe a little more'.
P 

[JMEvensky]

How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...



I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.


"Clubs" don't alter their golf courses so much as a few guys in a position to do so. When those with their own agenda are allowed free reign, bad things frequently happen.


But I agree that none of this would happen if the "good men" spoke up.

[Pat Burke]

Jim - you're right, and I understand how you can be stunned by the underlying assumptions.
But:
While I'm not one to usually make any case based on "human nature", here's a possible analogy:
It's our responsibility to drive safely and smartly, taking good care of both ourselves and the others sharing the same roadways by staying at the speed limit and factoring in road/weather conditions.
But "human nature" seems to be that, if the speed limit is 60, but there are no cops around and we're in a bit of a rush (with whatever self-important project we have on the go), we'll push it up to 70; and, if everybody else is going 70, and there's a car in the passing lane travelling at just barely that, we might speed up to 75 or 80 to pass them.
And if someone is young and ego-bound and full of (misplaced) competitive fire, he might gun his fancy new BMW up to 85 -- confident that he can get away with it and confident too that, if he get's pulled over, he can "afford" the ensuing traffic ticket.
In the meantime, he gets to "impress" his date and show off to the poor sap driving an 1985 Honda Accord.
At some point, aren't you glad that there is a 'governing body' and cops and the weight of public opinion so that, at the very least, the official speed limit stays at 60? 
Without it -- and though we are all supposed to be 'responsible' for our own actions -- that idiot in the BMW might take it to 90, and a whole bunch of other idiots trying to impress their dates would say 'well, if he is going 90 I can too, and maybe a little more'.
P
[/quote




The idiots still go 90.
The idiot owners/operators of many courses still lengthen courses in response to what they see on television it seems as well.

[Jason Topp]

How is it not the responsibility of individual club and course owners to draw the line in golf course length/size/sustainability etc...


I am stunned every time this conversation comes up that it's simply assumed that XYZ course simply had to add 400 yards and strive to maintain Tour conditions 365 days per year.

I guess that courses add this length because they see higher revenue when they do so.  A disproportionate number of courses that have closed over the last 10 years have been shorter budget courses. My old club at 6600 yards did not attract top level players in part because they wanted a bigger course to prepare for events.  Even par was good enough to make it through US Am qualifying in the post Pro-V1 era.   

[JESII]

Let’s say they take 10% off across the board...who will be the first to regain that 10%? The Tour guys? Or you and I...

[JESII]

So I typed that as I was flying down the highway at 80 something MPH...not being intentionally pithy although it comes natural as Peter likes to point out.


Ha




To me, the roll back will be great. Won't change my interaction with or enjoyment of the game at all. At least I don't see how it could as hitting distance has never really been top of my mind as an attraction.


My concern is that a great deal of time, energy and political capital will have been used to what end. Will this force any clubs to now revert back to their smaller foot print? Will anyone turn off the water now that the ball doesn't go so far? Will a single new potential player pick up the game as a result?  No across the board in every instance.


You might say the trend will at least back up some if the top guys are pulled back 10%. Ok. I would agree that's both likely and good...but only if you then agree that it's back to the people operating these courses to decide their benchmark is the people that actually play their course as opposed to those that might come and play it.




Also...Peter, the safety analogy is often used but kind of misses the reality of talking about golf course length, don't you think? As a golf course owner determined to present a good course at it's 1990 length and work hard on it's condition and the playing experience, the guy going 90MPH has nothing to do with me. We're on completely different roads...
 

[JESII]

Jason Topp, I simply believe there are factors much beyond length and challenge to top players dictating the viability of a course/club. There are too many examples of bad courses doing great and good courses suffering.