Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on March 29, 2010, 06:13:21 PM
-
At the World Golf Architecture Forum in St. Andrews this weekend, we heard from the head of the R&A's equipment testing effort, Steve Otto, who showed a bunch of raw data to assure us all that the average driving distance on all the tours has been unchanged since 2003. It's 287 yards on the PGA Tour and about the same on the European Tour, and 240 on the LPGA and WET tours. [Unfortunately, I didn't understand for sure whether that is the average length of every tee shot on par-4's and 5's, or whether it really is the average for every time the players hit driver.]
I was able to ask the first question after his presentation, so I asked: "Accepting that your data is correct, and there has been no gain in distance among Tour players since the last Open at St. Andrews, then why did anyone feel there needed to be a new tee 30 yards back on the Road hole?"
:)
He responded that the change was not about lengthening the hole but about "strategy," an official position which he was at pains to explain. He was clearly uncomfortable trying to defend it, because the tee obviously isn't his doing.
However, in his subsequent remarks, he warned all the golf course architects that a shorter ball would be unpopular and might cause players to quit the game -- which is the manufacturers' p.r. line. And he casually mentioned an agreement with the manufacturers that the R & A will act on the ball only if their data shows that the driving distance is increasing from the 2002 standard of 287 yards.
So, the R&A let the fox into the hen house. But rest assured they have closed the door behind him.
-
Was there any word on whether they were considering making the ball bigger. Also, I don't think that a ball rollback would cause players to quit the game. A 25 yard loss in distance for a tour player might only equate to a 5-10 yard decrease for the average player, hardly a noticeable drop for joe public but substantial enough to bring a lot more classic courses back into play for the top 1%.
-
I know there are mathematical formulae for ball speed vs distance, but I suspect the "average" player isn't going to lose 5-10 yards, not with his "average" 85 mph club head speed and off center hits. Titleist may say there is but I am dubious.
The ball was too long in 2003, why use that for the benchmark? Does "sell out" work?
-
Was there any word on whether they were considering making the ball bigger. Also, I don't think that a ball rollback would cause players to quit the game. A 25 yard loss in distance for a tour player might only equate to a 5-10 yard decrease for the average player, hardly a noticeable drop for joe public but substantial enough to bring a lot more classic courses back into play for the top 1%.
Thomas,
I think you miss the main point. There are many on this website that don't want to give up the improvement in their games that they got from the new ball. Although they may have gained a little distance, the real thing that would be hard to give up is the straight flight of the new ball. They always could have had a straighter ball flight by playing a TopFlite or Pinnacle, but they could not get the spin they wanted from those balls. Now they have the best of both worlds. Straight and spin. I say shame on the USGA and the R&A.
-
When a majority of golfers can't hit the ball either consistently long or straight - no matter what ball they're using - why would anyone quit the game if a shorter ball was mandated? Is there any logic in this statement?
-
Even though I would like to see it, I think the biggest risk is that manufacturers and players would ignore a ball rollback.
-
Bill, just curious, but do you think the average player would lose more or less than 5-10 yds? It was just an educated guess on my behalf. Players are miss-hitting the current version of the ball aswell. If you slowed down the initial velocity that the ball left the clubface at, would the difference between good and bad strikes not be smaller?
Also, I always thought the manufacturers would make more money on a rollback with everyone having to buy new balls.
-
When a majority of golfers can't hit the ball either consistently long or straight - no matter what ball they're using - why would anyone quit the game if a shorter ball was mandated? Is there any logic in this statement?
I don't get why anyone would quit on length. However, slicing balata balls off the planet when I was young was downright depressing.
-
Was there any word on whether they were considering making the ball bigger. Also, I don't think that a ball rollback would cause players to quit the game. A 25 yard loss in distance for a tour player might only equate to a 5-10 yard decrease for the average player, hardly a noticeable drop for joe public but substantial enough to bring a lot more classic courses back into play for the top 1%.
Thomas,
I think you miss the main point. There are many on this website that don't want to give up the improvement in their games that they got from the new ball. Although they may have gained a little distance, the real thing that would be hard to give up is the straight flight of the new ball. They always could have had a straighter ball flight by playing a TopFlite or Pinnacle, but they could not get the spin they wanted from those balls. Now they have the best of both worlds. Straight and spin. I say shame on the USGA and the R&A.
If the ball did not travel as far, it would not go as far off-line.
-
The R&A are going to kill the enjoyment and affordability of golf but in doing so they will also eliminate the need to have the R&A.
A painful future yet removing the R&A may be more humane for Golf, Golfer and the protection of the traditional game. Perhaps serious suggestions should be tabled on this site for a united way forward as clearly the word ‘leadership’ does not exist in the minds of our R&A Masters.
An honourable game but now controlled by Volvo manufactured dummies – sticking ones head in the sand is no answer to working for a better future. Or are we yet again seeing that they are chasing the money trail with golf being just the means to accessing the money?
Wonder if they are a cell left over from the Cold War that have finally succeeded in getting into position of power at The R&A to fully undermine the game.
These modern Nero’s are fiddling but with our game, beware the worms may yet turn.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn, How would one go about getting into the R&A? One is thinking of an inside job. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know there are mathematical formulae for ball speed vs distance, but I suspect the "average" player isn't going to lose 5-10 yards, not with his "average" 85 mph club head speed and off center hits. Titleist may say there is but I am dubious.
The ball was too long in 2003, why use that for the benchmark? Does "sell out" work?
Bill
You make the best point here. The Pro V1 had just come out (2001 I think) with its first full year on tour in 2002. So picking 2003 certainly puts the R&A comparison simply between the new balls. I think some time in the late 90s would be a better comparison.
Chip
-
Bill, just curious, but do you think the average player would lose more or less than 5-10 yds? It was just an educated guess on my behalf. Players are miss-hitting the current version of the ball aswell. If you slowed down the initial velocity that the ball left the clubface at, would the difference between good and bad strikes not be smaller?
Also, I always thought the manufacturers would make more money on a rollback with everyone having to buy new balls.
i think the loss of distance for the average player would be negligible.
And everybody buys new golf balls all the time, right? ;D
-
Tom;
Thanks. That "agreement" that you cited in bold. I expect that you might already know -- it is not some secret agreement. Not unless it is somehting very curious that I don't know about. It is the published Joint Statement of Principles, in which the R&A and the USGA had jointly stated that any further distance gains through technology advances would be undesirable.
What we have seen since then is a general flattening, stats-wise, from Shotlink. And, I submit, it is because there have been only modest changes to the ball during that time, and because in setting up golf courses, tournament administrators, particularly the tours, have done everything that they can to rein in distance and scoring stats.
I think the USGA's golf technology "summit" meeting this fall will be an interesting event. More interesting than a Tiger Woods press conference, for sure.
-
...
However, in his subsequent remarks, he warned all the golf course architects that a shorter ball would be unpopular and might cause players to quit the game ...
Which begs the question since players are already quitting the game, might it not be because golf courses are too long and too expensive?
-
This is the kind of accounting that I like.
Tom,
Did the R&A address the possability of having both a competition ball and a "go far and straight and high so hackers can have fun" ball?
-
...
However, in his subsequent remarks, he warned all the golf course architects that a shorter ball would be unpopular and might cause players to quit the game ...
Which begs the question since players are already quitting the game, might it not be because golf courses are too long and too expensive?
That couldn't be more true. The amount of money courses would save on maintainance if there was to be a rollback.
Also, I looked up the pga tour website and found the average for 1997 was around the 267 mark, meaning that the ball got 20 yards longer in the space of six years?
Michael, you forgot that there are dimwits out there who insist on playing what the pro's play.The type of people who order X-flex shafts and play off the back pegs no matter how short they are and how high their handicap is.
-
Chuck:
I was not aware that the ruling bodies had assured manufacturers they would do nothing to the golf ball as long as the Tour driving distance stayed the same as 2002-3. That seemed to be what Mr. Otto was saying, although his voice was a few decibels lower at that point than for the rest of his talk.
Michael:
Mr. Otto did say that the R & A were against ANY difference in regulations between the pros and the rest of us.
One other point where that came up was when Tom Mackenzie suggested limiting professional players to eight clubs. Mr. Otto expressed some interest in a rule like that ... because he does not want to see the advent of the 68-degree wedge that he held up to show us. He even suggested a letter-writing campaign to show support for such a rule. However, he also mentioned that the manufacturers would be apoplectic about the idea of selling sets of 8 clubs instead of 14.
-
Chuck:
I was not aware that the ruling bodies had assured manufacturers they would do nothing to the golf ball as long as the Tour driving distance stayed the same as 2002-3. That seemed to be what Mr. Otto was saying, although his voice was a few decibels lower at that point than for the rest of his talk.
Michael:
Mr. Otto did say that the R & A were against ANY difference in regulations between the pros and the rest of us.
One other point where that came up was when Tom Mackenzie suggested limiting professional players to eight clubs. Mr. Otto expressed some interest in a rule like that ... because he does not want to see the advent of the 68-degree wedge that he held up to show us. He even suggested a letter-writing campaign to show support for such a rule. However, he also mentioned that the manufacturers would be apoplectic about the idea of selling sets of 8 clubs instead of 14.
??? ???
When is the last time a PGA Tour pro bought a set of clubs from a manufacturer?
??? ???
-
"Even though I would like to see it, I think the biggest risk is that manufacturers and players would ignore a ball rollback."
Jason:
No kidding! To my way of thinking that is the biggest concern for the USGA/R&A and the future of golf by a magnitude of God Only knows what.
By that I'm not saying the USGA and R&A should just cave in to the manufacturers on this in any way, just that they have to be very careful about that potential eventuality.
That has never happened to any significant degree in the almost 100 years since the R&A/USGA took on the roll of regulating I&B for golf but if somehow that did happen because the manufacturers decided not to pay attention to them and the public bought into that-----you want to talk about letting the horse or the whole damn herd of horses out of the barn or paddock with no ability to get it back in again----Oh My God, that would be it in spades.
To me that is A really big picture scenario here and the one to avoid at all costs. It is also one it seems like so few really consider seriously enough.
-
Tom, If the R&A did not wat to see 68 degree wedges, all they would have to do is limit he loft on clubs. Tiger Woods sugested that a few years back that it should be set at 56 degrees saying that it would put more emphasis on course management like missing in the right spot, while the good chippers and more creative players would come to the fore.
-
??? ???
When is the last time a PGA Tour pro bought a set of clubs from a manufacturer?
??? ???
Never but 'if Tiger only uses eight clubs then why should I play fourteen?'.
-
Tom Paul:
Do you really think Titleist would break the rules of golf, if the rules were changed?
I think when all the equipment companies are in China, then your worry will be legitimate, if not moot. They'll do anything they want then. I give it another 10 years.
Thomas:
I would wholeheartedly agree with limiting the loft on wedges. In fact I would roll it back even further than 56 degrees if they let me. (THAT would certainly make "bomb and gouge" a bit harder to do.) But of course, the ruling bodies have never made a peep about limiting loft up to this point, and they now seem to be opposed to illegalizing any club currently in use.
-
"Even though I would like to see it, I think the biggest risk is that manufacturers and players would ignore a ball rollback."
Jason:
No kidding! To my way of thinking that is the biggest concern for the USGA/R&A and the future of golf by a magnitude of God Only knows what.
Both Tom and Jason:
What is keeping the vast majority of the masses from playing non-conforming clubs and balls right now? Both are readily available on the internet right now, but are rarely used.
-
Tom -
The link to the USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles at the USGA website is here:
http://www.usga.org/equipment/overview/Joint-Statement-of-Principles/
The Statement dates from 2002, and from there comes your speaker's reference to 2002 driving distances. But as much as i want to be wholly accurate about the details of this debate, and as much as I might understand the general argument that distance gains on the professional golf tours have substantially flattened since about 2003, I do think (and I beleive that Geoff Shackelford has documented) that when the USGA and the R&A said in 2002 that any further gains in distance among elite players might force them to bifurcate the Rules, there actually were some distance gains that have been largely papered over.
What we do know, with certainty, is that distance gains correspond very closely with advances in the golf ball, and a lot less closely with other things like advances with driver heads, shafts, launch monitor capabilities, etc. Peter Kostis distance-myth whipping boy -- "fitness, training and technique" is laughable, and Wally Uihlein's fave myth -- "agronomy" is also a big lie.
-
Has anyone bothered to check the stats Golf World posts each week on the overall distances between the year prior to the new regs on balll spin and what is happening now ?
-
"Even though I would like to see it, I think the biggest risk is that manufacturers and players would ignore a ball rollback."
Jason:
No kidding! To my way of thinking that is the biggest concern for the USGA/R&A and the future of golf by a magnitude of God Only knows what.
Both Tom and Jason:
What is keeping the vast majority of the masses from playing non-conforming clubs and balls right now? Both are readily available on the internet right now, but are rarely used.
The stigma they would recieve. I'm quite they would lose a lot of friends and playing partners if they would attempt to break the rules of golf so easily. It would be thought of the same way as cheating in a competition.
-
Chuck:
I was not aware that the ruling bodies had assured manufacturers they would do nothing to the golf ball as long as the Tour driving distance stayed the same as 2002-3. That seemed to be what Mr. Otto was saying, although his voice was a few decibels lower at that point than for the rest of his talk.
Michael:
Mr. Otto did say that the R & A were against ANY difference in regulations between the pros and the rest of us.
One other point where that came up was when Tom Mackenzie suggested limiting professional players to eight clubs. Mr. Otto expressed some interest in a rule like that ... because he does not want to see the advent of the 68-degree wedge that he held up to show us. He even suggested a letter-writing campaign to show support for such a rule. However, he also mentioned that the manufacturers would be apoplectic about the idea of selling sets of 8 clubs instead of 14.
Tom. there's another current GCA thread on a reduced number of clubs.
What I have written there is that for somebody like me, or like a Tom Doak walking the hills above Crystal Lake with a faithful retriever at your side, playing with 8 clubs is a glorious and altogether unappreciated idea. For the fun of it. For simplicity and ease of walking, and the encouragement to use different swings.
For people like Bubba Watson, limiting him to 8 clubs is a joke, because it will only encourage him to hit driver-wedge on every hole less than about 485 yards. Driver and wedge will only become more, not less, important, with a limitation on the number of clubs in tour pros' bags.
-
I have made the point here before, but the ruling bodies' stand on principle against "bifurcation" ignores the fact that they have made many rules in the past which were different for pros and amateurs.
For many years the R & A ball was smaller than the USGA ball. In the 1970's, the R & A mandated the bigger U.S. ball for the Open and Amateur championships ... but set no timetable for making the average golfer switch over. It happened over a period of 15-20 years, gradually, as the rule was put into effect in county championships, club championships, and on back down the chain of command, until eventually somebody in your foursome insisted that everyone should play the bigger ball.
Likewise, some of the restrictions on clubs which have been imposed in recent years are grandfathered in for a long time for amateurs, but in a much shorter time window for the pros.
-
Jeff Mingay,
I completely agree with you.
-
??? ???
When is the last time a PGA Tour pro bought a set of clubs from a manufacturer?
??? ???
Never but 'if Tiger only uses eight clubs then why should I play fourteen?'.
Because you can. People were playing many more than 14 before they put that limit in.
Do you know about personal messages and how to use them on the site?
-
Jeff Mingay,
I completely agree with you.
Thanks Tim. My statement is pretty simple. But it might be so simple it's genius ;D
Frankly, to hear one of the top men in-charge of equipment regulation claim that rolling back the distance to begotten by the golf ball might result in "average golfers" quitting the game is scary.
-
The R&A joint statement is news to me. It is also troubling.
The R&A has - in effect, if not legally - bought peace as to future "improvements" to the ball at the price of ceding the right to roll back the existing ball.
I don't know if that means the R&A was simply out negotiated or that they perceived themselves as so impotent that they were forced to take the best deal they could get.
Either way, it's depressing news.
Bob
-
I just remembered what the guys from the USGA and R&A told my group when were done with their ball testing last year. And I think they're right...
Goes like this (I'm paraphrasing)
The ProV1 didn't go any further than the old Top Flite or even the 1970's Spalding Molitor. The difference is that the ProV1 (and the Strata, which was the ball that really changed the game) were workable by better players around the green.
Before the Strata/ProV1 era, the Surlyn-covered rocks sure flew a long way, but putted like crap.
----------------
That being said, I sadly think the members of the Treehouse here are a vocal minority. Unfortunately, the old baseball adage also applies to golf, "Chicks dig the long ball".
-
The USGA and R&A are employing "fuzzy math" in their argument of no significant distance gain since 2003. For one thing, as I understand it, the PGA Tour measures driving distance on select holes only for their stats. Unless something has changed or they are using ALL shotlink data. Also, as stated previously, the significant change in the golf ball happened prior to that date and there hasn't been any significant improvement since.
Why are they so hesitant now when they have examples of banning a flight correcting ball in the past. Specifically, the old Maxfli Black Max would self correct during flight and it was taken off the market by Dunlop.
-
"Tom Paul:
Do you really think Titleist would break the rules of golf, if the rules were changed?"
TomD:
I think the answer to that question depends on a whole lot of factors and I think the USGA/R&A and the manufacturers are all very well aware of what they are.
Do I think the modern golf ball and equipment manufacturing companies think it is ideal to have to operate under the I&B Rules and Regulations of two Amateur bodies for the forseeable future like the next hundred years as they have been for close to the last hundred years? Very, very unfortunately, I definitely doubt it.
-
The USGA and R&A are employing "fuzzy math" in their argument of no significant distance gain since 2003. For one thing, as I understand it, the PGA Tour measures driving distance on select holes only for their stats. Unless something has changed or they are using ALL shotlink data. Also, as stated previously, the significant change in the golf ball happened prior to that date and there hasn't been any significant improvement since.
Why are they so hesitant now when they have examples of banning a flight correcting ball in the past. Specifically, the old Maxfli Black Max would self correct during flight and it was taken off the market by Dunlop.
Bruce,
I like the term "fuzzy math". Very appropriate.
-
Bruce / Jeff:
Mr. Otto from the R & A portrayed the average distance as being derived from Shot Link, but he did not state exactly whether the number represents
(a) the average length of all tee shots on par-4 and par-5 holes
(b) the average length of tee shots in the fairway on the same
(c) the average length of all tee shots where a driver was hit, or
(d) the average length of all drivers hit in the fairway.
I doubt it is the last. It's an important point, because he mentioned that the average roll-out on a fairway is 25 yards ... so if you take the average of all tee shots (some of which get 20 yards less roll), and compare that to a number from the 1990's which was the average for two holes of drives in the fairway, that's not a very fair comparison.
-
Bruce,
Thanks for enlightening me. I had never heard of self correcting balls. Now I know the USGA implemented a symmetry rule to rule them out. So that gets me back to my original argument about the new balls. Why don't they implement a spin symmetry rule? As I have described it before, plot spin vs club head loft. Put a limit in the steepness of the slope.
-
Why does a rule change have to affect the masses? I don't like modern ball technology, and if the manufacturers started putting out balata ablls again I would play them (I think that it is fair to pay for great feel with an unforgiving ball), BUT if the R&A and the USGA cap ball technology I doubt that Pro V1s will cease to exist. The Tour players may have to restirct themselves, but the rest of us can play whatever we want. Most of us play baseball with aluminum bats regardless of what the pros use. Why should golf be different?
And for what it is worth, I think an 8 club max and a 56 degree max would be great for pros and amateurs alike. Not only would it force the pros to be more strategic and inventive, but it might also encourage more golfers to walk rather than ride.
-
Tom D.,
The way I (and, franklly, anyone with sense) look at it, the modern golf ball has been permitted to travel too far. As you know very well, there are very serious, even dire consequences which have resulted. This is a fact which people who cite complex mathematical equations and ridiculously detailed analysis continue to argue with. It's comically mindboggling.
-
Tom Doak,
Great question you asked.
As much as I'd like to see a roll back in both ball and equipment, I came to the realization that the game of golf had transitioned from sport to entertainment, and as long as it remains primarily entertainment, no roll back will occur.
One can only hope.
And I hope that Augusta and The Masters will adopt a competition ball in the next 5-10 years, after everyone discovers that stimp readings of 35 isn't the way to defend par. ;D
-
Bruce / Jeff:
Mr. Otto from the R & A portrayed the average distance as being derived from Shot Link, but he did not state exactly whether the number represents
(a) the average length of all tee shots on par-4 and par-5 holes
(b) the average length of tee shots in the fairway on the same
(c) the average length of all tee shots where a driver was hit, or
(d) the average length of all drivers hit in the fairway.
I doubt it is the last. It's an important point, because he mentioned that the average roll-out on a fairway is 25 yards ... so if you take the average of all tee shots (some of which get 20 yards less roll), and compare that to a number from the 1990's which was the average for two holes of drives in the fairway, that's not a very fair comparison.
Here is a link that addresses a few of these questions Tom. http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html You can select the driving statistics back to 1980.
Also, to quote the measurement parameters from the site: "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not." Now what it doesn't tell you is whether the two measurement holes each tournament are wide open par 5's or tight little par 4's. I'm quite certain that many players use clubs other than the driver on the measurement holes from time to time.
-
One thing that I've noticed in my game from playing a titleist professional in 1998 to the balls of the present is that I really don't hit my irons any further today. I really don't. I've used similar blades with the same lofts my whole life and still hit my 7 iron 165 yards. Sure, the new balls fly much straighter and tighter than a titleist professional....but with no extra distance for me.
However, driver and 3 metal are probably 20 yards further carry!!
-
"The way I (and, franklly, anyone with sense) look at it, the modern golf ball has been permitted to travel too far. As you know very well, there are very serious, even dire consequences which have resulted. This is a fact which people who cite complex mathematical equations and ridiculously detailed analysis continue to argue with. It's comically mindboggling."
JeffM:
You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
-
"The way I (and, franklly, anyone with sense) look at it, the modern golf ball has been permitted to travel too far. As you know very well, there are very serious, even dire consequences which have resulted. This is a fact which people who cite complex mathematical equations and ridiculously detailed analysis continue to argue with. It's comically mindboggling."
JeffM:
You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
The hockey puck hasn't changed much!
-
The ball was too long in 2003, why use that for the benchmark? Does "sell out" work?
Bill, remember the Chicken Little "sky is falling" crowd that extrapolated to the conclusion that, "guys are going to drive it 400 yards."
What I saw seems to be confirmed. The main increase was a one-time shift as professional golfers finally stopped using some real bad golf balls. Titleist Professional and Titleist Tour Balata being the most prominent.
-
Was there any word on whether they were considering making the ball bigger. Also, I don't think that a ball rollback would cause players to quit the game. A 25 yard loss in distance for a tour player might only equate to a 5-10 yard decrease for the average player, hardly a noticeable drop for joe public but substantial enough to bring a lot more classic courses back into play for the top 1%.
Significantly, there's at least one patent claim that says lightening the ball a few grams would actually add distance for the 85 mph swinger.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html
The most interesting thing about that is fact that a lighter ball would absolutely be harder to control for players with a 125 mph clubhead speed.
IOW, it would deliver precisely what many of us think is needed, a rollback for Tour players that didn't hurt average players at all.
Best of all, weight is a ball spec that doesn't require any exotic equipment to test for in the field. A simple, accurate gram scale would do.
But of course that makes too much sense.
Ken
-
You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
Tom: Others can confirm whether or not I am correct but I believe these are all examples
Bowling - has ordered a number of changes to lane conditions and ball specifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling
Tennis - I believe but cannot confirm that tennis has slowed down the ball at the professional level
Baseball - has refused to adopt the aluminum bat at the major league level. As a result certain amateur wood bat leagues remain (Cape Cod league); outlawed the spitball pitch, lowered the mound to make pitching more difficult
Golf - outlawed previously legal grooves, set coefficient of restitution limitations on drivers after manufacturers began producing them, outlawed croquet style putting, there are probably others
Cricket - outlawed a variety of improved bats after certain individuals used them
-
Bruce / Jeff:
Mr. Otto from the R & A portrayed the average distance as being derived from Shot Link, but he did not state exactly whether the number represents
(a) the average length of all tee shots on par-4 and par-5 holes
(b) the average length of tee shots in the fairway on the same
(c) the average length of all tee shots where a driver was hit, or
(d) the average length of all drivers hit in the fairway.
I doubt it is the last. It's an important point, because he mentioned that the average roll-out on a fairway is 25 yards ... so if you take the average of all tee shots (some of which get 20 yards less roll), and compare that to a number from the 1990's which was the average for two holes of drives in the fairway, that's not a very fair comparison.
Here is a link that addresses a few of these questions Tom. http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html You can select the driving statistics back to 1980.
Also, to quote the measurement parameters from the site: "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not." Now what it doesn't tell you is whether the two measurement holes each tournament are wide open par 5's or tight little par 4's. I'm quite certain that many players use clubs other than the driver on the measurement holes from time to time.
Bruce - I don't think that is correct. Yes, back to 1980 you have stats measured on two holes per round. But the data they have since Shotlink was introduced is far more comprehensive, because they are measuring every shot. Steve was very clear about that in his presentation, although as Tom says, it could still hide bits. His data relating to average players was fascinating too: one of the points he made is that since the big drivers are so much easier to hit, more players are hitting driver more of the time.
Adam
-
I decided to start the reduce club number topic because I didn't want to go in to detail about this one... I guess I should have known Tom would go straight for the jugular.
Steve Otto is quite obviously a highly intelligent scientist and a skilled presenter... but whilst I have no doubt that everything he presented us was the truth, I also always get the feeling that he is presenting in a way that tells the story he wants us to hear...
Anyway, the deal according to Steve is that the ball has not improved in the last 8 or 9 years... It was all to do with the Pro-V1... The average golfer does not hit it any further than the old 100 compression ball but the Pro-V1 allowed the spin of the 90 compression balata to be combined with the distance of the old hard ball... Therefore it significantly added to the distance that pros would be able to hit it...
...On a seperate occasion last year, he told us (conjecture probably) that extra distance is a third the ball, a third better equipment and a third better athleticism...
He did indeed say that they wouldn't do anything about the ball until it showed more improvement - a case of "the horse has bolted"...
He also left the door open for reducing the number of clubs... hence the other thread I started...
-
Steve was the guy who tested my club groves at the Scottish Senior Open last summer and we had a long discussion about the ball and club.
He did say that the combination of big headed drivers and the ball was the problem - and without saying it I assumed that meant they regret not limiting the size of the driver when it was obvious that titanium was becoming the key to size but at a playable weight.
You can take all the stats you like - but the point surely is that no one is actually out really watching what is happening and how much the game has changed.And it has changed way more that the stats will tell you because it is so much easier to drive the ball long and straight - for pros.
It is what it is but every great course in Australia is obsolete now in terms of length.
-
Has anyone bothered to check the stats Golf World posts each week on the overall distances between the year prior to the new regs on balll spin and what is happening now ?
4 yards. There is enough data at this point that I think that the result will stick for the year. The stats are pretty interesting because distance seems to be the only number that has changed. Accuracy from the rough and some other stats have not changed or player performance has improved. That could be due to the higher spinning balls or could be due to the way courses have been set up. The rough does seem a bit lighter this year.
-
I have made the point here before, but the ruling bodies' stand on principle against "bifurcation" ignores the fact that they have made many rules in the past which were different for pros and amateurs.
For many years the R & A ball was smaller than the USGA ball. In the 1970's, the R & A mandated the bigger U.S. ball for the Open and Amateur championships ... but set no timetable for making the average golfer switch over. It happened over a period of 15-20 years, gradually, as the rule was put into effect in county championships, club championships, and on back down the chain of command, until eventually somebody in your foursome insisted that everyone should play the bigger ball.
Likewise, some of the restrictions on clubs which have been imposed in recent years are grandfathered in for a long time for amateurs, but in a much shorter time window for the pros.
I agree that bifurcation is the best approach and the objection that "everyone plays the same equipment" is contrary to history. I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out. It would be interesting to see 1970's/80's sales for titleist balata compared to surlyn and one piece balls that the pros never used.
-
...I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out.
Define "good amateurs".
When I first started playing golf in the mid-90's I found plenty of Titleist Tour Balata balls in the rough and woods alongside the $15/round public course where I learned to play. Not as many of them as Pinnacles and Top-Flites but balata balls were not uncommon even on courses where the number of sub-5-handicappers was small.
-
...I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out.
Define "good amateurs".
When I first started playing golf in the mid-90's I found plenty of Titleist Tour Balata balls in the rough and woods alongside the $15/round public course where I learned to play. Not as many of them as Pinnacles and Top-Flites but balata balls were not uncommon even on courses where the number of sub-5-handicappers was small.
Brett:
I do not have a precise definition. I do know that nearly all high school competitive players I played with in the early 80's were not using balata. Eight out of that group played Division I college golf.
Perhaps my experience is unique. I think sales data would be the only way to really get an understanding of how big of a split existed.
-
Bruce / Jeff:
Mr. Otto from the R & A portrayed the average distance as being derived from Shot Link, but he did not state exactly whether the number represents
(a) the average length of all tee shots on par-4 and par-5 holes
(b) the average length of tee shots in the fairway on the same
(c) the average length of all tee shots where a driver was hit, or
(d) the average length of all drivers hit in the fairway.
I doubt it is the last. It's an important point, because he mentioned that the average roll-out on a fairway is 25 yards ... so if you take the average of all tee shots (some of which get 20 yards less roll), and compare that to a number from the 1990's which was the average for two holes of drives in the fairway, that's not a very fair comparison.
It's Doctor Otto. He has a problem, his wife is a +3 or 4 handicap player! They play at Elie.
-
I do not think that the discussion should be just about distance. Even if lengths are rolled back 10-15% (for the Tour players), isn't there a need for further regulation. Balls with super low spin rates off of the long clubs and high spin rates off of the short ones are just too much in my opinion. There should be a give and take. I think longer, straighter balls should be harder to handle around the greens, and balls offering great feel should be harder to control with the longer clubs. I think it would be fun to return to strategic ball selection.
-
......
[/quote]
Here is a link that addresses a few of these questions Tom. http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html You can select the driving statistics back to 1980.
Also, to quote the measurement parameters from the site: "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not." Now what it doesn't tell you is whether the two measurement holes each tournament are wide open par 5's or tight little par 4's. I'm quite certain that many players use clubs other than the driver on the measurement holes from time to time.
[/quote]
Bruce - I don't think that is correct. Yes, back to 1980 you have stats measured on two holes per round. But the data they have since Shotlink was introduced is far more comprehensive, because they are measuring every shot. Steve was very clear about that in his presentation, although as Tom says, it could still hide bits. His data relating to average players was fascinating too: one of the points he made is that since the big drivers are so much easier to hit, more players are hitting driver more of the time.
Adam
[/quote]
Adam- I may have missed your point as to which part of this arguement is incorrect. I understand that shotlink provides compreshensive data on every shot played on tour but the statistical analysis of driving distance on the PGA Tour website from 1980 through 2007 was consistant and compiled in accordance with the procedure in bold face above.
That said, Dr. Otto maintains that the "average" driving distance on the PGA Tour has remained constant at 287 yards. By average does he mean the "mean" driving distance. By the Tour's analysis in 2007 there were 110 players averaging MORE than 287 yards! In the year 2000 there were only 7. In 2000 only 1 player averaged over 300 yards, John Daly at 301.4. In 2007 there were 18 players averaging more than 300 yards. I suspect there are more in 2010.
I think Harrison Frazar's statistics are very telling: in 2,000 he was ranked 7th in driving distance at today's Tour average of 287.3 yards. In 2007 he was ranked 9th in driving at 302.8 yards.
To paraphrase Disraeli "....lies, damn lies and statistics". Dr Otto needs to look at the statistics.
-
Tom D.,
The way I (and, franklly, anyone with sense) look at it, the modern golf ball has been permitted to travel too far. As you know very well, there are very serious, even dire consequences which have resulted.
Jeff,
Like what? Global Warming? Terrorism? (9-11 did happen the year the ProV hit the pro tours....coincidence?)
I understand the issue, but don't think the consequences are "dire."
-
Unfortunate consequences would be pros routinely breaking 60.
Dire consequences would be the continued expansion and lengthening of perfectly good golf courses to keep up with the .001 percent who are hitting the ball 340 yards.
I can live with the former. The latter is what directly affects me.
-
Ok... dire was a strong choice of word, Jeff!
However, the push for more length has resulted in negative consequence.
Better? ;D
-
Dire is the correct choice of word in context...
-
I'm all for free market capitalism, but at exactly what point did the game's ruling bodies become the b*tches of the equipment makers? I assume it was sometime prior to the introduction of the Pro-V1...
-
Jeff,
I think the thing that will roll the ball back will probably be a non golf factor - water restrictions.
Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance. I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.
As Rick says, there is way too much emphasis on the small number of big hitters. But, even the 6300 yard player likes the idea of having a set of tees behind him at over 7000 yards, somehow equating distance with course quality, no? Maybe the big golf issue is to retrain the mindset of the average golfer. 90+% of courses don't need back tees any further back than 6850 yards, which would accomodate 97-99% of all play they will recieve.
If we can build another set of tees and allow carry over natives so as to not add irrigated turf, then no problem with tees at 7200+ yards (this is what I try to do) For that matter, I know many courses that simply lie about their yardage. I think I will counsel some future course simply to put back tees on the scorecard and never build them. No one really goes looking for them anyway, and I think they could pull the scam off for years without being caught!
-
You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
Tom: Others can confirm whether or not I am correct but I believe these are all examples
Bowling - has ordered a number of changes to lane conditions and ball specifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling
Tennis - I believe but cannot confirm that tennis has slowed down the ball at the professional level
Baseball - has refused to adopt the aluminum bat at the major league level. As a result certain amateur wood bat leagues remain (Cape Cod league); outlawed the spitball pitch, lowered the mound to make pitching more difficult
Golf - outlawed previously legal grooves, set coefficient of restitution limitations on drivers after manufacturers began producing them, outlawed croquet style putting, there are probably others
Cricket - outlawed a variety of improved bats after certain individuals used them
Is the football the same size and shape in the NFL, CFL and NCAA ? Has it changed to smaller?
-
You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
Tom: Others can confirm whether or not I am correct but I believe these are all examples
Bowling - has ordered a number of changes to lane conditions and ball specifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling
Tennis - I believe but cannot confirm that tennis has slowed down the ball at the professional level
Baseball - has refused to adopt the aluminum bat at the major league level. As a result certain amateur wood bat leagues remain (Cape Cod league); outlawed the spitball pitch, lowered the mound to make pitching more difficult
Golf - outlawed previously legal grooves, set coefficient of restitution limitations on drivers after manufacturers began producing them, outlawed croquet style putting, there are probably others
Cricket - outlawed a variety of improved bats after certain individuals used them
Is the football the same size and shape in the NFL, CFL and NCAA ? Has it changed to smaller?
Actually in the NFL they altered the rules related to footballs used for kicking. In order to combat the effectiveness of field goal kickers and their practice of picking out specific balls favorable for kicking the NFL uses specifically designated balls for kicking.
-
Aside from the fact that the sports mentioned above actually have introduced legislation to halt equipment advances, there is a fundamental difference...
Each of them introduced those measures so as to ensure that there was no imbalance between two opposing sides performing different tasks.
Cricket outlawed a bat so that batting did not outweigh bowling...
Tennis slowed down the ball so that serve and volley did not become too prevalent resulting in breaks of serve occurring even less frequently and spectators not being rewarded with ralleys...
Golf needs to outlaw the ball so that the playing fields don't become irrelevant... In golf, unlike all other sports, the playing field is the true opposition... It is a harder sell though... The others have a more direct result in the public's enjoyment and therefore the revenue that is received through spectators, TV rights and growing of the game... outside a hardcore few, most people don't see the damage that golf is doing to itself... and you could argue that revenue is better because of the advanced ball...
-
... just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.
Baseball bats. The manufacturers many not have made hollow bats, but the players did, and they were rolled back.
The was a movement to roll back aluminum bats a few years ago, I don't follow close enough to know if they were rolled back.
Baseball gloves. The rollback in size.
Golf of course. The roll back to the initial velocity. The roll back to the total overall distance. The rollback to the ball dimple symmetry. The roll back in COR. The roll back in MOI. The roll back in grooves.
Football has had several roll backs in the rules to contain violence and injuries.
Hasn't track and field had to roll back the pole?
-
The curve on hockey sticks was also rolled back.
-
The ball was too long in 2003, why use that for the benchmark? Does "sell out" work?
Bill, remember the Chicken Little "sky is falling" crowd that extrapolated to the conclusion that, "guys are going to drive it 400 yards."
What I saw seems to be confirmed. The main increase was a one-time shift as professional golfers finally stopped using some real bad golf balls. Titleist Professional and Titleist Tour Balata being the most prominent.
Can 400 yard drives be far behind? There were several +350 yard drives in the Accenture. I played there the week before and it wasn't playing very firm and it wasn't very windy.
-
Aside from the fact that the sports mentioned above actually have introduced legislation to halt equipment advances, there is a fundamental difference...
Each of them introduced those measures so as to ensure that there was no imbalance between two opposing sides performing different tasks.
Cricket outlawed a bat so that batting did not outweigh bowling...
Tennis slowed down the ball so that serve and volley did not become too prevalent resulting in breaks of serve occurring even less frequently and spectators not being rewarded with ralleys...
Golf needs to outlaw the ball so that the playing fields don't become irrelevant...
More importantly, IMHO, is that shift in playing style has made it virtually impossible for the slightly underpowered player to beat a power player by outmanuevering him. Unless the course is made ridiculously difficult with narrow fairways and deep rough.
In golf, unlike all other sports, the playing field is the true opposition... It is a harder sell though... The others have a more direct result in the public's enjoyment and therefore the revenue that is received through spectators, TV rights and growing of the game... outside a hardcore few, most people don't see the damage that golf is doing to itself... and you could argue that revenue is better because of the advanced ball...
-
Bill,
I don't know, can they? That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?
I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards. And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots. That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour. Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.
I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.
-
Bill,
I don't know, can they? That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?
I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards. And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots. That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour. Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.
I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.
Actually Jeff, more would go over 400 yards off the PGA Tour than on it. It is a well known fact that the Nationwide Tour players hit it longer than the PGA Tour players.
-
I am surprised Mr. Otto did not use the better conditioned athlete as an excuse for moving the tee, which is about the only excuse available for golfers hitting farther if it is not the ball or the clubs. I am perplexed as to why the R&A is charged with growing the game. It seems as if the desire or need to grow the game is to meet the insatiable needs of the golf industry including all the tour bodies. But is that good reason to grow the game. It seemed like the game was doing well in the 60’s when I was taking up the game and the implements and balls would seem like quaint museum pieces compared to today’s gargantuan drivers and irons that are impossible not to hit well. Is it really necessary to have these equipment advances to grow the game, is it really necessary to grow the game, isn’t the nature of the game sufficient to attract enough interest without compromising its great courses. I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. It seems like any limit on clubs should be at that end of the club range. Fewer wedges means more skill required to create shots around the greens. But, I guess that disscussion is going on another thread. Growing the game is a crutch. R&A, NGF, PGA, please stop trying to grow the game. Let it be.
Kelly,
I agree.
What I've always wondered is: "grow the game for whom ?" The manufacturers ?
-
I am surprised Mr. Otto did not use the better conditioned athlete as an excuse for moving the tee, which is about the only excuse available for golfers hitting farther if it is not the ball or the clubs. I am perplexed as to why the R&A is charged with growing the game. It seems as if the desire or need to grow the game is to meet the insatiable needs of the golf industry including all the tour bodies. But is that good reason to grow the game. It seemed like the game was doing well in the 60’s when I was taking up the game and the implements and balls would seem like quaint museum pieces compared to today’s gargantuan drivers and irons that are impossible not to hit well. Is it really necessary to have these equipment advances to grow the game, is it really necessary to grow the game, isn’t the nature of the game sufficient to attract enough interest without compromising its great courses. I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. It seems like any limit on clubs should be at that end of the club range. Fewer wedges means more skill required to create shots around the greens. But, I guess that disscussion is going on another thread. Growing the game is a crutch. R&A, NGF, PGA, please stop trying to grow the game. Let it be.
Kelly,
I agree.
What I've always wondered is: "grow the game for whom ?" The manufacturers ?
I sure hope that they keep on trying to grow the game so I have the chance to practice some of the millions of ideas floating around my head and on paper...
And don't you think some of the countries with very immature golfing markets deserve a chance to fall in love with the game also?... The R&A do some great work you know, even if some of their decisions are misguided...
-
I'm all for free market capitalism, but at exactly what point did the game's ruling bodies become the b*tches of the equipment makers? I assume it was sometime prior to the introduction of the Pro-V1...
Right after the USGA lost the court case to Ping at great expense.
BTW-Has anyone else noticed that the mean driving distance (for sake of argument, the 100th ranked professional in terms of distance on the PGA Tour) which bobbled around the 287-288yd mark ever since the intro of the Pro V1 is down to 279 this year? Obviously lots of factors go into this number, including the fact it has been reasonably cold at most Tour stops, but could the prospect of playing from the rough with the new grooves be inspiring a measure of caution in PGA Members?
-
Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance. I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.
This is an interesting point, Jeff. But, what happened to improving by working on your swing and technique? I honestly can't believe there are people out there who think they can "buy a game"; even though I know there are in fact.
-
...I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. ...
Unfortunately, with vanishing loft disease the set you speak of has 4 wedges. That is
4 - 9, PW, GW1 for your 2-9. and GW2, SW for your two wedges, which I assumed you meant the old PW, SW
-
Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance. I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.
So what you're saying is: If you buy the wife a box of Pro V1s she won't look like Natalie Gulbis or play like her?
-
I think this is much ado about nothing. The barn door has been wide open for years. Trying to close them now would be pointless and it would just annoy golfers, pros and duffers alike.
The golf ball technology has not had the quantum leap in performance we saw with the advent of the multilayer ball (i.e. Pro V1). The ball technology has stayed pretty stagnant since then. Most of the gains we have seen since the introduction of multilayer balls has been from the fine tuning of the driver performance to go along with the ball technology. And the stats show correctly that even that has reached its peak.
Of course, that does not preclude from manufacturers to come up with a brand new quantum leap in technology to push the distance even further, but that will be easier to block than trying to roll back the rules. In my opinion, R&A and USGA are approaching this in a proper way.
If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.
I doubt that there is much R&A and USGA can stop them from playing though...
-
OT - It's interesting to me that Dr. Otto chose a public and (relatively) high profile forum to address an issue that seems to hold so little interest to a large majority of the golfing public (if the lack of a broadly-based outcry against distance gains is any indication). To put too fine a point on it, it strikes me as either an indication that the R&A is out of touch with the concerns of the average golfer; and/or that it is an issue of much greater importance to that governing body than their actions/inactions of the past decade would suggest. If the latter, it seems that Dr. Otto/the R&A wanted to let those whose opinions they respect know it.
Peter
-
Bill,
I don't know, can they? That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?
I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards. And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots. That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour. Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.
I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.
"Fear with no facts?" Take a look at the thread about the new 17th tee at St Andrews. Do you think they are building tees on the neighboring courses because there are no facts? Did Augusta make the short par 4 7th hole 455 yards long because there are no facts?
We're not talking about what the new ball and equipment do for my game, I was happy playing the whites at the Wilderness! It's what the I&B are doing to our classic golf courses that is the issue.
-
Jason and Garland:
Thanks for those lists of what you call rollbacks in other sports and in golf. Since the list for golf seems longer and more comprehensive than the other sports perhaps the regulatory entites of I&B in golf (R&A and USGA) really are doing their job.
However, I'm not so sure I would necessarily call some of those items on the golf list rollbacks; to me some of them seem more like itemized standardizations at particular times. I say that because very often in their past things slip by them on the manufacturer R&D and production pipeline and it takes then time to react to it with conformance testing and consequent I&B rules and regs.
-
...If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.
...
Hate to break it to you buddy, but "true" athletes have been failing at golf for eons. Don't put your money on this flight of fantasy happening.
Ever see Tiger Woods play basketball? Pretty ugly sight.
-
Bill McBride,
That's a good point.
Advances with the I&B have disconnected the interfacing between the architectural features and the golfer.
The "hotel" bunker complex on # 7 at NGLA is a perfect example, as is the centerline bunker complex at # 8..
-
Jason and Garland:
Thanks for those lists of what you call rollbacks in other sports and in golf. Since the list for golf seems longer and more comprehensive than the other sports perhaps the regulatory entites of I&B in golf (R&A and USGA) really are doing their job.
...
Really doing their job would be specifying the materials and construction techniques for the equipment, not adding a new reg after the horse gets out of the barn.
Major League baseball specifies the materials and the construction for the bats and balls. They are doing their job.
The reason the USGA and the R&A have the most rollbacks is because they are not doing their job.
-
"Ever see Tiger Woods play basketball? Pretty ugly sight."
That's what his buddy Charles Barkley says-----eg Tiger is the only "Brother" he's ever seen who just can't jump like all "Brothers" can. And Tiger's second love sport----skuba-diving---drives Charles nuts! He's said he's told Tiger endlessly that "The Brothers" just DO NOT skuba-dive, and that kind of dumb sport is more for effete white guys and French people and such.
-
Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.
As to standardization, a good example is the baseball used at Coors Field. They built a ball field with fences too close in for a city that is a mile up in the air. The balls were flying out so frequently that they decided to keep the balls in humidors so that they would fly less. A specialization that only applies to this one stadium, no one else does it. Other sport is not as anal about uniformity as we are in golf.
-
I think this is much ado about nothing. The barn door has been wide open for years. Trying to close them now would be pointless and it would just annoy golfers, pros and duffers alike.
The golf ball technology has not had the quantum leap in performance we saw with the advent of the multilayer ball (i.e. Pro V1). The ball technology has stayed pretty stagnant since then. Most of the gains we have seen since the introduction of multilayer balls has been from the fine tuning of the driver performance to go along with the ball technology. And the stats show correctly that even that has reached its peak.
Of course, that does not preclude from manufacturers to come up with a brand new quantum leap in technology to push the distance even further, but that will be easier to block than trying to roll back the rules. In my opinion, R&A and USGA are approaching this in a proper way.
If you are really worried about distance, you should be worried about more and more "true" atheletes playing golf hoping to make the tour. With the prize money being where it is, it is attracting more and more atheletes who may have gone into other sports trying to make it in golf. These guys are bigger and stronger and distances that these guys hit will be phenomenal. Just look at the driving stats from basketball, hockey, and baseball player at celebrity tournaments, they can hit tremendous drives.
I doubt that there is much R&A and USGA can stop them from playing though...
Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.
-
Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.
I am not talking about crossover athletes. I think the Michael Jordan experiment showed that even the best athlete on earth cannot switch sports in mid-stream. I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school. I would love to see the average height of PGA tour players over the years. I would bet a lot of money that average height will go up dramatically over the next decade or two.
-
Rich-I wonder if you can name even one crossover athelete from basketball,hockey or baseball that has made it to the PGA tour let alone had any impact. Additionally I don`t know of any long drive competitors that have made it to the PGA tour. You still gotta get it in the hole.
I am not talking about crossover athletes. I think the Michael Jordan experiment showed that even the best athlete on earth cannot switch sports in mid-stream. I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school. I would love to see the average height of PGA tour players over the years. I would bet a lot of money that average height will go up dramatically over the next decade or two.
Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!
-
Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.
...
It seems your thesis is that top athlete's don't mind being beaten. Of course they care enough! A long time ago I played on a small town HS golf team in a mostly rural state. When the state golf championships would roll around, a lot of the top athletes with conference and state titles to their name would be there. And, they were still getting beat by nerdy guys with paunches and wearing coke bottle bottom thick glasses. It hasn't really changed that much. As Tim wrote, you still have to get the ball in the hole.
-
Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!
The tournament prizes have exploded since Tiger came to the scene. What an average golfer makes in a year is now comparable to the average yearly salary from other top pro sports. This wasn't the case 15 years ago. You figure golf became a legit alternative to other pro sports about 10 years ago, you are going to just start to see a new wave of athletes. The real change won't come for another 10 years or so.
-
Richard Choi,
Years ago or rather decades ago, before 46 inch shafts with oversized tennis rackets affixed, they conducted that study.
I believe the ideal height was in the 5' 10" range.
There's something to be said for a compact swing.
Being 6' 8" isn't an advantage if you can't control and produce a precise swing.
And, you can't swing at tremendous speed if the increased speed produces mis-hits.
To illustrate the point, put today's 3-wood in the hands of the biggest strongest athlete you know and see how he fares as he tries to drive the ball six miles. He'll run out of ammo before he hits the back nine.
The huge club head, coupled with lighter, stronger shafts has allowed golfers to "swing away" without fear.
When the USGA caved in and allowed the larger size club head it advanced the emphasis on distance.
I used to play with Evan "big cat" Williams, a very nice fellow and one of the first "long" drivers of the golf ball.
With the "olde" equipment, it was one thing to hit the ball long, it was quite another to control it.
Today's equipment has solved the latter problem to a great degree.
-
It seems your thesis is that top athlete's don't mind being beaten. Of course they care enough! A long time ago I played on a small town HS golf team in a mostly rural state. When the state golf championships would roll around, a lot of the top athletes with conference and state titles to their name would be there. And, they were still getting beat by nerdy guys with paunches and wearing coke bottle bottom thick glasses. It hasn't really changed that much. As Tim wrote, you still have to get the ball in the hole.
Hate to break it to you, Garland. Those "top athletes" long time ago, were not the "top athletes" in the state. They just seemed like it just because rest of you were so scrawny... :)
-
Where are these guys you are talking about? There`s been big money in golf for a long time. Hello!
The tournament prizes have exploded since Tiger came to the scene. What an average golfer makes in a year is now comparable to the average yearly salary from other top pro sports. This wasn't the case 15 years ago. You figure golf became a legit alternative to other pro sports about 10 years ago, you are going to just start to see a new wave of athletes. The real change won't come for another 10 years or so.
Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong
-
I agree with Patrick. The further away from the ball you are, the further it will go, but it is also way harder to control. A 3 iron is way herder to get a consistent strike out of than a 6 iron. Did anyone else also realise that the smaller the player is, the better his short game seems to be.
-
Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong
So, your response to my general trend is to put up a single anecdote? Seriously?
So, by following your logic, white men need not apply come next presidential election.
I agree that it is more difficult for tall players to control their swing. But there will be those "special" athletes with freakish hand-eye control who will be able to control their power, and more and more of them are going to try golf instead of other sports. Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.
-
... Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.
Bubba Watson an athlete. Now I have heard everything. At 60, I could probably take that scrawny dude at basketball.
-
Rich- Yours is a hollow argument. Why didn`t Phil Blackmar win more tournaments? Come on. I guess your previous reply gives you a ten year window to be proven wrong
So, your response to my general trend is to put up a single anecdote? Seriously?
So, by following your logic, white men need not apply come next presidential election.
I agree that it is more difficult for tall players to control their swing. But there will be those "special" athletes with freakish hand-eye control who will be able to control their power, and more and more of them are going to try golf instead of other sports. Bubba Watson is the future of things to come.
Rich-Bubba Watson has -0- PGA tour wins and -0- Nationwide tour wins. If he is the future then we don`t have to wait 10 years to prove you are wrong. My point with Phil Blackmar is that he was 6`7' and the biggest guy out there and I don`t think he is going to the hall of fame. Its easy to make a silly argument with absolutely no statistical data to back you up and then say we have to wait for another 10 years to see if your whimsical notion comes true. As far as your analogy to the next president once again you miss the point.
-
Bubba is a big guy with freakish hand eye coordination. That is the future. He may never become a consistent winner, but if enough guys like him come to PGA Tour, they will win and they will win big.
Tim, I would give your comments more weight if you just said there have been tall players in PGA Tour before but generally, they did not excel. To pick out one guy and say "see, tall guys suck" is just a lazy and poor argument.
-
Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.
-
Bubba is a big guy with freakish hand eye coordination. That is the future. He may never become a consistent winner, but if enough guys like him come to PGA Tour, they will win and they will win big.
Tim, I would give your comments more weight if you just said there have been tall players in PGA Tour before but generally, they did not excel. To pick out one guy and say "see, tall guys suck" is just a lazy and poor argument.
What about your argument that the players are taller today than yesteryear? The people today are taller than yesteryear.
-
Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.
Oh, bite your tongue...
Richard was a master debater in high school.
Dave-It`s always been painfully obvious to me that all you ever needed was a good straight man. ;D
-
This thread if now on Shakleford's blog.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/
-
Rich-I feel like I am arguing with a 4th grader. You win if that makes you feel better. Its obvious you were not on the debate team in high school.
Oh, bite your tongue...
Richard was a master debater in high school.
...and quite the cunning linguist.
-
Man, I will try to suck less next time...
-
Jeff B:
Never trued words were said in your reply to Bill ...
Bill,
I don't know, can they? That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?
"I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards. And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots. That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour. Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.
I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences."
The simple fact is that so long as the Cor ceiling stays in place and drivers cannot go beyond a certain length the idea that tour players will hit 400 yards is inane. The sky is falling routine is getting to the point of roll-on-the-ground laughter.
Carry on all of you self-appointed protectors of the game. ;D
-
Failing, or didn't care enough? I would say the latter. A simple fact is more money there is, you will attract more competition. Just looking at the average distances that top juniors are hitting and how tall they are tells you that more quality athletes are playing golf.
As to standardization, a good example is the baseball used at Coors Field. They built a ball field with fences too close in for a city that is a mile up in the air. The balls were flying out so frequently that they decided to keep the balls in humidors so that they would fly less. A specialization that only applies to this one stadium, no one else does it. Other sport is not as anal about uniformity as we are in golf.
Richard,
Baseball does make for an interesting comparison with golf as one can look at the varying sizes of fields as somewhat analogous to the varying lengths of courses. Players are expected to use equipment that does meet certain requirements, but certain aspects of the playing field vary.
Coors Field is a bit of a strange example, however. Knowing that altitude was an issue, they built Coors Field as the biggest ballpark in the majors. Balls still flew out of the place at record rates. What the humidor addresses is not altitude but the fact that the climate in Denver is so dry that balls were drying out and becoming harder, and thus being hit harder and further. So the purpose of the humidor isn't to change anything about the ball; it is to help keep it as alike as possible to the ball being used at lower altitudes. Now, fly balls will still go a long way at altitude and CF still is among the leading ballparks in home runs, but the humidor has cut don on it some (CF will always be a big run scoring park because it's so big that even if you don't hit it out, the outfield is a gigantic area to cover and you end up with lots of extra base hits). Meanwhile, Chase Field in Phoenix is a bit of a microcosm of Coors Field--it's in a very dry climate and at some altitude (not much, but more than any other stadium besides Coors). It's also among the bigger fields in the majors but they don't use a humidor (I wonder if they've ever considered it?) and it is also among league leaders in home runs and offense in general.
The field size is not unlike golf--courses in Colorado(or others at altitude) are typically built with more length because of the understanding that players can hit the ball further there than at sea level. But dry climates don't effect the condition of the golf ball in the same way they do a baseball.
Bill McBride, meanwhile, raised a complaint that the long ball (in golf) wasn't ruining his game but was ruining many a classic course (his excellent example is the now 450+ yard 7th at ANGC). But I am not sure we ae right to simply blame technology. The ProV1 did lengthen Augusta (or grow more rough there or plant extra trees), the club did that themselves. Now, their claim is of course that they take all such steps as a response to "technology" but surely they don't have to do this! If the 7th at ANGC was still 350 yards it surely would not play quite the same as it did a century ago, but then the hole as it exits today doesn't play like it once did, either. The question is how to respond to technology. I am in the camp that finds it more interesting to leave a hole at 50 yards and test the wedge game. ANGC chose to add length and rough and trees, but they didn't have to.
-
Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports. Golfers getting bigger? No, it is not happening. I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.
My son was born in January of 2002. That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour. It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein. In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..." Huh? Based on what?
I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address. He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me." I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion. He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen." As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer. He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.
Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer. About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two. Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be. What is an average American male? 5'10" +/- 2"? Nearly everyone fell in that range.
Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s. Here is a list done quickly.
Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"
Where are all these big golfers? Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds. I don't see many of them succeeding in golf.
-
I am talking about those 6'2" to 6'9" athletes with amazing power and hand eye coordination who probably would have gone to basketball or football before choosing to go with golf when they are still in school.
Sadly, Rich, Gordon Sherry never did anything in professional golf. Dude, they aren't out there. No more so than the occasional Faldo, Els, Archer, or Blackmar.
-
Gents,
I have re-read this thread and remain convinced that it is mostly much ado about nothing.
For the record, in the last dozen or so remodels I have been involved in, only a few have added length to the golf course. Most are to improve maintenance, so overall, I can't say that length is ruining golf courses. A few of you have pointed out that your concern is with the handful of "classic" courses that are being extended for tournament play, which again is worrying about such a small percentage of courses.
Personally, if a course I designed in this era is considered in a few decades for a major tourney, and all they feel they need to do is add a few back tees, I will consider the design a real success! What an honor and tribute to the design of TOC that a few new tees is all that is required.
As to stronger athletes, while we say baseball hasn't changed, I do think the newer ball parks are bigger overall, unless they specifically shorten one field or another specifically to create more home runs. Its kind of like the driveable par 4. While other sports fields have stayed similar in dimension, I think there is pretty general agreement in hockey that the bigger ice would suit modern players better, but they can't change the existing stadiums economically.
So, the comparisons are not all accurate and every situation is unique. But again, when you start with the premise that we want our older courses to test modern players like they tested Hogan and Snead then we set in motion a whole lot of changes to keep things stagnant, which just goes against human nature.
Some worry about losing golfers to longer play times, cost, etc. which are very valid concerns. But how many of those came to the game once they thought they could play better and hit it further? A bunch, I am sure!
-
Jeff,
I think the point is it went too far ages ago... Courses sat at about 6,900 yards for the pros for about 40 years... That was as far as it should have gone...
Anyway, it's not just about ruining the classic courses, it's about ruining the game... long courses mean long rounds, NO sustainability, more expense and less fun for just about everyone... therefore less growth of the game and no jobs for you or more likely, me...
-
Ally,
I wonder if the longer course equals longer round is totally true, as well. Most of the worlds 5 hour rounds are probably played at 6300 yards by 90 shooters. If they were playing 700 yards longer, it would result in 3-4 extra shots at an average of 155 yards, or about 12 minutes. I do think the spreading out of courses through housing has added time that wasn't there before.
I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres). As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time. And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?
Sometimes, its human nature to extract low scores and long drives on the PGA tour as the norm, and they are so far from the norm they don't count. Its kind of like my grandmother seeing some crime on TV from anywhere in the world, and believing she will get mugged tomorrow. Don't we all, via human nature, long for the "good old days?" And do we sometimes overlook just how much better we have it today?
For that matter, writers were saying in nearly any decade that the ball should have been rolled back and that the old days were better. What makes this period of time any different? Or what makes taking any current "classic" course out of the tournament rotation any different than when Prestwick held its last Open?
Short version - I am convinced nostalgia shouldn't drive policy positions.
-
Ally,
I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres). As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time. And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?
As to expense, last time I checked land was sold on a PER ACRE basis.....
-
Jeff,
I fundamentally disagree with most of what you say above...
In short, long courses are not sustainable because:
- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play (even those 6,300 yard golfers are playing on 7,200 yard courses with all the extra walks)
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)
All of these factors make golf more expensive to play, more of an arduous day long task (rather than a quick walk in the morning or evening) and therefore less fun and less attractive to a new generation growing up...
And that is before even talking about the environmental side of it all...
-
Ally,
I wonder if the longer course equals longer round is totally true, as well. Most of the worlds 5 hour rounds are probably played at 6300 yards by 90 shooters. If they were playing 700 yards longer, it would result in 3-4 extra shots at an average of 155 yards, or about 12 minutes. I do think the spreading out of courses through housing has added time that wasn't there before.
I also wonder about your suppositions on sustainability (it might be possible to water less with more acres, for instance, not to mention there is a lot more to sustainability than total turf acres). As to expense, I think new equipment (and perhaps less than tournament maintenance standards, which again, apply only to 1% of our courses) cut mowing time. And, since everyone seems to dig the long ball, I wonder if you can prove that longer courses have really taken away the fun?
Sometimes, its human nature to extract low scores and long drives on the PGA tour as the norm, and they are so far from the norm they don't count. Its kind of like my grandmother seeing some crime on TV from anywhere in the world, and believing she will get mugged tomorrow. Don't we all, via human nature, long for the "good old days?" And do we sometimes overlook just how much better we have it today?
For that matter, writers were saying in nearly any decade that the ball should have been rolled back and that the old days were better. What makes this period of time any different? Or what makes taking any current "classic" course out of the tournament rotation any different than when Prestwick held its last Open?
Short version - I am convinced nostalgia shouldn't drive policy positions.
Jeff, I'll stipulate that recreational golfers are demonstrating no particular problem with technology-produced distance gains, if you will in turn stipulate that there is a technologically-produced distance issue for elite-level players. And the elite-level problem is proven by no more and no less than the need to perform severe distance-protection architectural changes to classic championship courses. (To say nothing of gigantic distance increases shown statistically in the Pro V era.)
Are we on, on that basis?
I'll wait for your answer before proceeding with the next level of inquiry.
-
Jud,
Last time I checked, very few golf courses had the land cost in their budgets - they are either on donated land from a developer (where the extra length and frontage creates value) or in city inventory and long ago paid for.
Ally,
Disagree if you want, and your points are somewhat valid as acknowledged, but much of this "debate" is driven by theoretical items that don't apply. In reality, we are talking about lengthening existing classic courses here. Except for the new land for the 13th tee at Augusta, I can't recall many of these clubs buying new land.
In any event, there are two debates - defacing classic courses and whether the ball should be rolled back to keep new ones shorter. I will point out that there are many desert courses with only 90 acres of turf, and many midwest courses of over 7000 yards that don't water 150 acres of turf. The additional cost of length is related mostly to irrigation of all the added turf, but it doesn't have to be added. In fact, there aren't real water shortages in many areas of the midwest (except cyclical ones that have existed forever)
You also assume that new 7400 yard courses are also designed to be difficult defacto. That may not be true. The extra walks are figured in the 3 minutes per shot, and extra walks between holes on a non housing course are routing dependent.
Again, I wouldn't design anything based on your broad based assumptions.
Chuck,
There is no doubt that the Pro V1 and new drivers have added distance for pros. I just feel that the greater good for the greatest amount of golfers is served by making the game somewhat easier via getting the ball airborne, and that there is little evidence that new clubs have hurt the popularity of the game. The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers? Should the "right" of a few dozen old courses to be tournament ready trump the right of 25 million golfers to have the hope of playing better? Or of the mfgs to offer excitng new products?
That seems to be a pretty narrow view of the "dire" consequences of the longer ball. IMHO, of course.
-
Jeff
The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers?
A simple question the flying of ones countries flag or honouring the head of your country is that nostalgia, should we not do away with that for the good of the 8 Billion people in the world today.
Antiques are not just old pieces of junk, they are quality items that are precious to us so reflect its rare value in excessive money terms.
With out our history where would we be, where would your country be.
Jeff, if we are keen supporters or lovers of the game, then these old courses are worth more than perhaps the game itself, it all down to our own view point, passions and lets not forget that’s one of the reasons we go to war and kill.
So my friend the answer IMHO is a very much Yes it is a factor and for me a very big factor.
Melvyn
-
...
Chuck,
There is no doubt that the Pro V1 and new drivers have added distance for pros. I just feel that the greater good for the greatest amount of golfers is served by making the game somewhat easier via getting the ball airborne, and that there is little evidence that new clubs have hurt the popularity of the game. The only question is, is the nostalgia of playing a select few courses a factor that should outweigh the other 25 million golfers? Should the "right" of a few dozen old courses to be tournament ready trump the right of 25 million golfers to have the hope of playing better? Or of the mfgs to offer excitng new products?
That seems to be a pretty narrow view of the "dire" consequences of the longer ball. IMHO, of course.
Well, I'll take that as your agreement as to my premise, Jeff.
I agree that there is no "distance" problem for recreational players, and you agree that there is a distance problem with respect to elite players on classic championship courses.
So then the question is what do we do about that? Nothing?
What I say, Jeff, and I dare you to disagree with me, is that the Pro V era has brought a distance explosion to elite-level golf that has widened the gap between recreational and elite golfers. Recreational golfers are now simply further behind elite golfers, than ever before. That is not something that most recreational golfer ought to celebrate, in my view.
If there were a thoughtful and carefully crafted rollback of golf ball specifications such that recreational players lost little or nothing (they have certainly gained little or nothing in the Pro V era, since only a minority of recreational players even buy urethane balls; most recreational players buy budget surlyn or ionomer balls), but elite players were significantly rolled back, I'd think that would be a very, very good thing for golf.
It might be a very easy matter, to just bifurcate the Rules, and apply different ball specs to elite players. But I won't take that easy route. I think bifurcation is inherently bad, and that there should be one set of Rules for the entire game.
But you seem to think that the status quo ante is okay. It can't possibly be because the Pro V era has made the game better for recreational players. Because it hasn't. The Pro V era has just made a lot of great courses unusable for elite level competitions. And led to some exceedingly bad architectural changes at some courses that do host elite events.
-
Jeff,
I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...
...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...
Ally
-
Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports. Golfers getting bigger? No, it is not happening. I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.
My son was born in January of 2002. That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour. It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein. In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..." Huh? Based on what?
I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address. He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me." I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion. He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen." As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer. He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.
Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer. About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two. Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be. What is an average American male? 5'10" +/- 2"? Nearly everyone fell in that range.
Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s. Here is a list done quickly.
Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"
Where are all these big golfers? Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds. I don't see many of them succeeding in golf.
John, this is good stuff. I admit my data is lacking. I need to some research to see if there is any trend at all. I will let you know if I find something.
-
Rich, you are repeating the greatest misconception in sports. Golfers getting bigger? No, it is not happening. I have never seen any evidence - in fact quite the opposite - yet people repeat this over and over.
My son was born in January of 2002. That week there was a USA Today page previewing the upcoming season on the PGA Tour. It featured an interview with Wally Uihlein. In it, he said, "it will get to the point where if you aren't 6'3" and 225 pounds..." Huh? Based on what?
I called a friend in the business and asked if he had Uihlein's e-mail address. He passed it along and said, "you didn't get it from me." I sent Mr. Uihlein a note and directly challenged his assertion. He was cordial in his reply, but dismissed my argument with a comment that paraphrased was , "I've seen it and am just reporting what I've seen." As you know, his son at that time was already aggressively training to ultimately become a top junior and college golfer. He sent me a dozen Pro V1s; I took photos of them in my son's crib at the hospital.
Fast forward several years and I wondered if perhaps I was off base in my assertion that size is not an advantage for a professional golfer. About two years ago I looked at the final sixteen players at the US Amateur and pulled up their college bios in search of a big golfer or two. Not only did I not find them, they were even smaller than I thought they'd be. What is an average American male? 5'10" +/- 2"? Nearly everyone fell in that range.
Let's look at guys on Tour in their 20s. Here is a list done quickly.
Dustin Johnson is 6'4"
Villegas is 5'9"
Bill Haas is 6'2"
Hunter Mahan is 5'11"
J.B. Holmes 5'11"
Kevin Na is 5'11"
Rickie Fowler is 5'9"
Nick Watney is 6'2"
Anthony Kim is 5'10"
Derek Lamely is 6'
Ryan Moore is 5'9"
Michael Sim is 6' and 150 (an athlete only in the jockey sense)
Matt Every is 5'11"
Spencer Levin is 5'10"
Graham DeLaet is 5'11"
Troy Merritt is 6'
Martin Flores is 6'
Jason Day is 6'
Rory McIlroy is 5'10"
Nicholas Thompson is 6'
Chris Stroud is 6'2"
Cameron Tringale is 6'2"
Aron Price is 6'
Brent Delahoussaye is 5'7"
Where are all these big golfers? Other sports like baseball and hockey are full of guys over 6' tall and weighing over 200 pounds. I don't see many of them succeeding in golf.
Well, I for one agree with John Conley. With or without that list.
Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0". And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list. And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases. Those guys are not that tall. It's hilarious. Why do they do that?
-
Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0". And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list. And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases. Those guys are not that tall. It's hilarious. Why do they do that?
They aspire to the NFL and NBA, and we all know that lying about your height is a sure way to get there.
K
-
I agree that there is no "distance" problem for recreational players, and you agree that there is a distance problem with respect to elite players on classic championship courses.
So then the question is what do we do about that? Nothing?
IMHO, there are only two viable solutions.
My choice is a lighter golf ball, which would help short hitters and make long hitters be a little more precise than the current pro-level balls.
But the most logical and simple is to do away with the Par 5.
There was once a standard for par 6s, and now it's gone. The three-shot hole is effectively gone for all elite players anyway, why maintain the farce?
All of those courses with four par fives would become par 68, and you'd start seeing pros having to play well to shoot even par for 72 holes.
K
-
John, this is good stuff. I admit my data is lacking. I need to some research to see if there is any trend at all. I will let you know if I find something.
You'll find plenty that confirms professional golfers are about the same size as the general population. This is far different than other sports. What is interesting to me is that tennis, where there is clearly a serving advantage for tall players, still has lots of little guys that are just really good at tennis.
For a long time the argument was that there wasn't enough money in golf so the "true athletes" (whatever people mean by that) pursued team sports like baseball, basketball, and football. It has been nearly 15 years since the acceleration in purses. By any measure there is a lot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you excel at golf. People will keep repeating that big players are coming, but I'm interested in seeing what the next excuse will be when they don't materialize. Maybe they peak later in their career and will be dominant in their 40s?
-
Here's the funny thing -- I am very nearly exactly 6'0". And I have stood next to the majority of the guys on that list. And the indicated heights are, for just about all of the players I know, overstated by an inch or two in most cases. Those guys are not that tall. It's hilarious. Why do they do that?
Chuck, I suspected so but didn't mention it. The only way to prove otherwise would be to have these guys lined up with a tape measure. Whether they average 5'11" or 5'10", or whether these heights are with shoes on, I think it is pretty obvious there isn't a wave of guys in the 6'2"-6'9" range or whatever Richard cited.
One friend, a tall golfer that has made a cut on Tour back in the day, says the only advantage to being tall is that he doesn't need the pin tended as often on long putts. Makes sense to me. While there is a theoretical advantage with a wider arc, longer lever, and higher clubhead speed, real world application of said advantage is tricky. It was harder for Gordon Sherry to be consistent compared to someone like David Toms or Mike Weir. Also, the angle of impact seems to lift the ball higher. In order to play in wind that is a disadvantage.
-
Jeff,
1. I've never known a developer to donate anything
2. Creating more frontage for house lots wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to create great golf architecture or promote the growth of the game.
-
Jeff,
I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...
...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...
Ally
As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%. Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that. I am not in favor of rolling it back.
As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention. I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design? Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.
-
John / Chuck:
The funny thing is that all of those heights DO represent that golfers are getting taller, but probably only at the same rate that everyone else is getting taller.
Twenty years ago I took my first wife to the centennial of St. Andrews (NY) Golf Club, where they had a huge gathering of all the most important people in golf over its first 100 years in America. Everybody was there -- Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Seve, and a lot of the previous generation as well. My wife's reaction: "I am bigger than nearly all of them." (She's 5 foot 10.)
Golfers have always been small, for many of the same reasons they are still smaller than other athletes ... the natural selection of different sports for different physiques. The gifted 5-9 guys don't play basketball, but they find another sport at which they can excel.
-
Jeff,
I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...
...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...
Ally
As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%. Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that. I am not in favor of rolling it back.
As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention. I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design? Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.
Yes, Jeff, Augusta has had lots of changes. It is the one course above others where perfection has been a daily goal. (That might not be so good for all of golf course maintainance, but that's another argument.) Still, reversing the nines, perfecting the drainage, adjusting some greens, etc., had teh effect of enhancing the architects' vision. You can't say that about the distance-fighting changes. Trees on 11. Longer rough and pinched fairways. Tees at the far edges of the property.
And yes, Oakland Hills underwent a big change in 1951; it was fortunate in 1951 -- they still had room to move tees then; now they don't. The tees at 2 and 5 and 15 are next to fence-lines. Tees at 11, 18, and 12 are crammed into the adjacent holes. The tee at 8 is a Par-4 walk away from the 7th green.
Riviera is as cramped as Oakland Hills. They were lucky in past years that they had a little room to move tees. No more.
These are big problems -- I'm wondering, Jeff, what's the upside for leaving the status quo ante in golf balls? If you say it is to preserve the recreational player's enjoyment of the game I call b.s. Because the average recreational player doesn't ordinarily buy a premium ball like the Pro V, and doesn't derive any incremental benefit from the Pro V.
I'd be the first to admit that the Pro V has been a terrific invention. That is, if you are Bubba Watson or JB Holmes. It's a funny thing -- I saw Steve Stricker listed in Tour stats from the 1990's as a Top-10 driving distance leader. Where is he now? He's gained some yardage, but he is losing the comparative battle at least in that one statistical category.
Anyway, Jeff, my question for you is why not investigate changes to the golf ball? Why leave it as is? When somebody suggests that people like Mackenzie and Jones, Ross and Max Behr, etc., etc., have been complaining about golf ball distances for decades, does that make them wrong? Why? Why should golf equipment rules foster ever-increasing distances?
-
I've been reading this thread with amusement and just wanted to thank Jeff Brauer for being the voice of reason.
Tom Doak's thread title says it all--so why waste energy teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing about something that's not going to change?
I've been playing and enjoying golf for 40 years.
In my teens, I enjoyed the game....my favorite ball was <no recollection>
In my twenties I enjoyed the game...my favorite ball was Titleist Balata
In my thirties I enjoyed the game...my favorite ball was Titleist Professional
In my forties I enjoyed the game....my favorite ball was Titleist ProV
In my fifties I enjoy the game...my favorite ball is <who cares, I'm alive and playing golf> :D
In every era, the pros hit it alot farther than me.
Still, when I get to play the Old Course, I'll just laugh at the stupidity and vanity that new back tee on 17 represents and...enjoy the game. Doak's Pacific Dunes and Langford's Lawsonia are going to be just as magnificent next time I get to play them as they were last time, and whether Phil Mickelson could shoot 59 or 79 on those courses won't change my enjoyment of them one little bit.
-
Eric,
I recall two things about my early golf career - Dad was too frugal to join Medinah like our neighbors so I played my first round there, and my next 20 at Rob Roy nine hole adjunct course, quite a comedown.
The other was his frugality that made my first ball of "his" choice for me the Walgreens Po-Do. I couldn't wait to "move up" to something else because for a buck more per sleeve, even Wilson's or some other brand let me pretend I was a real golfer, while everyone knew that Po-Do's were the sign of a beginner.....
-
Eric,
With all due respect, it's not about whether you enjoy the game... It's about whether there will even be a game if we keep on heading in the same direction...
They are not going to roll back the ball - true...
But it doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our opinion and make absolutely sure that the consequences of future equipment / ball changes are shouted loud and clear...
Ally
-
Eric,
All that's needed for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.
Should we just accept increased distance and cease citing how it's harmed classic golf courses ?
With shaft technology, and perhaps friction resistant covers, don't be so sure that increased distance is no longer an issue.
-
Ally and Patrick,
The thing that strikes me about your posts back-back there is that both cast the argument in apocalyptic terms...the "end of the game as we know it" and the" evil that men do" etc...
Gee, we have come a long way since hickories and featheries to graphite, titanium, and ProVs, and somehow golf survived all that..it seems the game is more vital and elastic than you imagine.
Ally, I certainly hope it's about me and people like me, when Messrs Brauer and Doak and their brethren go into the field to build a course. Sure, we are stuck with the Donald Trumps and their lust for the attention of a major tournament, and there will always be a market for that. Fortunately, we are also blessed with Mike Keisers who are building courses for the enjoyment of the rest of us, seemingly unconcerned about whether next year's superstar will "bring the course to its knees."
I would modify your post 119 as follows:
In short, poorly conceived and designed courses are not sustainable because:
- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play, regardless of length
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)
All of these factors make golf more expensive to play, more of an arduous day long task (rather than a quick walk in the morning or evening) and therefore less fun and less attractive to a new generation growing up...
-
...
With shaft technology, and perhaps friction resistant covers, don't be so sure that increased distance is no longer an issue.
Actually, that is what the ProV and similar balls have done. The have the same effect as putting Vaseline on the driver. I say that if they allow the new spin less balls, they should allow Vaseline on the driver too. Same effect!
They have allowed the ball manufacturers to circumvent the foreign substance rule!
-
...
- They are more expensive to construct
- They are more expensive to maintain
- They take longer to play, regardless of length
- They are too hard (to try and attract the pros who make up 0.001% but drive everyone's thinking)
...
May I supplement that with
- Any detrimental environmental effects are increased
- They make it more likely golf carts will be used instead of walking like the traditional game
-
Predictions for the year the first 8,000 yard tournament course takes place?
As it stands now you need 550 to 550 yards to equal a 450 yard par-4 from 25-years ago.
Tragic.
.
-
Predictions for the year the first 8,000 yard tournament course takes place?
As it stands now you need 550 to 550 yards to equal a 450 yard par-4 from 25-years ago.
Tragic.
.
What is the longest course they have played to date? If i recall, Torrey Pines was 7600 on the card when they played the Open there, though I don't think it ever played that long on any given day.
Dye's new course at French Lick is 8,000+ pn the card, though again that's using all back tees which will never all be in play on the same day. But he did build that with the hope of attracting majors.
-
I think Erin hills plays 8200 if you tip it all out.
-
PGA Club Professional Championship will be at French Lick resort, and the Dye course will be played.
The Dye course is listed and could be played at over 8000 yards.
-
Really interesting going back and looking at this thread ten years after the opening post.
We've edged closer to the 8000yd mark for a golf course, with Erin Hills (2017 US Open) and Torrey Pines South both playing over 7700yds. The longest 10% of guys on the professional Tours have gotten longer. The number consistently driving over 300yds has grown, the average drive length of the pro ranked 100th on the PGA Tour has gotten longer. The nature of play has changed drastically with continued use of solid core balls, large headed drivers, and the implementation of TrackMan. Courses have been stretched, water and land have become more of a pressing concern, as has cost to play, and the time taken to walk 18 holes for recreational golfers.
There seems to be growing recognition of the possibility of a rollback within the rank and file golf community, or at the very least, some greater concern regarding distance than there was in 2010. The USGA and R&A have continued to study things. The gulf between pro golf and recreational golf has grown. Over the last decade more golf courses have paid considerable sums to address safety issues that were not apparent twenty years ago. Teen handicappers who are strong, young, and boast high swing speeds hit errant and far flying drives, raising safety issues with course boundaries, neighboring roads and adjoining properties.
The next step of the Distance Insights Project is to be taken next March. Who knows if and when regulatory reform will ever occur.
-
Nice thread bump Matt.
Interesting to note that in the 10 year period from 2010 when this thread was raised to now, a period during which the golf authorities have continued to dither and procrastinate about the rollback issue, the population of the world has managed to increase by circa 800 million!
Fiddling while Rome burns?
Just saying.
atb
-
I half wonder what the game would look like without a professional arm. Rugby seemed just as exciting (if not as fast and skilful) in the amateur era and much more relatable to duffers such as me.
-
Jeff,
I realise that they are broad based generalisations and you can always throw many exceptions at them... but they hold true more often than not I would have thought... plus you overlook that a long desert course with only 90 acres of turf is trumped by a short desert course with only 75 acres of turf... It's all relative...
...I'm really talking about taking the ball back for new courses and the good of the game... But the saving of our classic courses is a huge added benefit...
Ally
As to new cousres, if there are already 17,000 landlocked courses with 100 acres of maintained turf, or 1,700,000 Golf Turf Acres and we build 100 new couses per year that are short enough to save 30 acres of turf each, those 30000 Acres of turf increase golf's "sustainability" by 0.17%. Actually, if the USGA limits ball flights to what we have now (I fear going backwards will really hurt bringing in new play) I would be in favor of that. I am not in favor of rolling it back.
As to "classics" I sense that folks arguing that they haven't changed numerous times already haven't been paying attention. I don't have time to go through the list, but how many Top 100's have hosted tournaments at the same length, or with the same original design? Not Augusta where changes started immediately, Oakand Hills, changed in 1951 in response to pro tour skill, etc.
All valid points.
The real problem lies in the fantasy that the "USGA limits flight to what we have now"
We've been hearing that fantasy my entire golf lifetime.
As Erik B. pften points out, there ARE limitations to the ball, clubs etc.
It's just that the manufacturers are far more innovative and smarter than the USGA spec makers.(I would say better funded, but the USGA holds it own there now)
It's not like anybody's broken any rules with equipment, yet it's 10-15% longer than it was 25 years ago.
-
This would be a good place to drop this epic. f'ing. rant. by Gary Player regarding Chambers Bay in 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Ha59iKfjTxw&feature=emb_logo
-
Holy hell, what a rambling rant, even if I did agree with his point on how far the ball goes for the pros.
They need to get a few drinks in him, give him the mic, and let em really have it!! ;D ;D
P.S. I was about a 16 capper when I played it and had an absolute blast!
-
The fact GP indicates Bethpage Black is better for the amateur over CB shows he has no idea what he is talking about. He complains about factors in the setup and blames them on RTJ II, when RTJ II didn't have the features he complains about. As around a 20 index, I shot 103 from 7670 yards when they set it up in US Open configuration. Kalen and I both broke 90 when we played there. I with 40 putts. The greens were much slower than what I usually play, and I adjusted poorly leaving lots of putts far short resulting in 3 putt holes. When I played it with Anthony Gray, we played the silver tees, and I made 8 pars and closed him out on the 17th hole while getting 4 fewer strokes from him than the USGA would entitle me two. So he was just spouting nonsense by saying the 16 handicap would shoot 110.
Sure, the course takes up a lot of land, but in doing so it allows wild long balls with much more safety than most courses.
The biggest challenge for the average golfer is the steep green fee since they are used to paying $40 or so for 18 in the area.
-
Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgCxgWtX0AUUZhg?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
When I first heard Gary's rant, I understood him to be claiming Bethpage to be better for the amateur than Chambers. On rehearing, I find his reason for mentioning Bethpage to be ambiguous.
I used the GHIN app to find back tee slopes at BB to be 155 and 148, whereas CB has 145 and 140 for longer yardages.
-
Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgCxgWtX0AUUZhg?format=jpg&name=medium)
I don't find this very informative. If the course is 1000 yards longer, it adds 10 to 12 minutes to the walk. Hardly something to keep you from playing 36, or 54, or more.
-
This would be a good place to drop this epic. f'ing. rant. by Gary Player regarding Chambers Bay in 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Ha59iKfjTxw&feature=emb_logo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Ha59iKfjTxw&feature=emb_logo)
Never gets old!
-
Henry Longhurst 1966 (via Lee Patterson)
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgCxgWtX0AUUZhg?format=jpg&name=medium)
I don't find this very informative. If the course is 1000 yards longer, it adds 10 to 12 minutes to the walk. Hardly something to keep you from playing 36, or 54, or more.
I’m confused a little here GB. How do you determine that 1000+ more yards adds this amount of time to a round? Is that just factored for average walking speed in a straight line?
-
John,
That is factoring in average walking speed for walking 1000 yards.
Since the USGA wants you to play it forward so you can hit wedges to most greens, moving back 1000 yards means hitting 5 irons to most greens. Score increases because of the larger misses around the green. If you go up 5 strokes, that also is minimal delay.
-
Some nice essentially tour chat here from circa 26 mins about shot making, spin, equipment etc etc - mainly European Tour related but worth a listen -
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-filthy-lipout-golf-podcast/id1522533863#episodeGuid=1b8e023d-35f9-4345-ae5c-197024007882 (https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-filthy-lipout-golf-podcast/id1522533863#episodeGuid=1b8e023d-35f9-4345-ae5c-197024007882)
atb
-
Garland, why would you add 5 shots?
A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...
-
Garland, why would you add 5 shots?
A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...
Jim,
This was my thought too. For most mid teen cappers and above, playing a course from 6000 or 7000 yards will have a massive impact in extra shots, looking for offline shots hit by longer clubs into nearly every hole, balls in hazards/junk, etc.
However, if the change was 5000 to 6000, I would agree it wouldn't be a big difference.
-
It sure is funny to re-read the first article in this thread from 2010. I quote:
And he casually mentioned an agreement with the manufacturers that the R & A will act on the ball only if their data shows that the driving distance is increasing from the 2002 standard of 287 yards.
-
Garland, why would you add 5 shots?
A 90 shooter going back 1,000 yards will surely be over 100. If he/she is playing with 3 friends, that's 40+ more strokes at 30 - 45 seconds each...plus the 12 minute walking time...
Because I'm a Wild Willy, and playing a longer course results in my handicap index going down. Short hitters will be more adversely affected by playing 1000 more yards.
Adding 10 ponds in play on a course is more likely to cause my handicap index to go up.
Take a 400 yard par 4. I drive, I miss, i pitch, I two putt. 5
Add 55 yards. I drive, I miss short, I pitch, I two putt. 5
Take a 300 yard par 4. I drive, I pitch, I two putt. 4
Add 55 yards. I drive, I pitch, I two putt. 4
;D
-
Taking Chambers Bay ratings. The light blue tee is 1300 yards shorter than the sand tee, which is 1200 yards shorter than the teal tee.
My course handicap jumps by 8 when I shift light blue to sand, and again by 8 when I shift sand to teal.
So the USGA seems to say that 1000 yards is definitely not 10 strokes added. Closer perhaps to 7.
My experience as a Wild Willy is that get more advantage in the handicap system by moving back tees. In a communication with Dean Knuth, he agrees that my handicap index should go down if I were to use a longer tee to play my rounds and set my handicap index.
-
Christ, Garland and I do have something in common! Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope. I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens.
Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am. There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.
The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution. I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other. And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose. If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods. In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%. If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.
Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency. I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.
-
Watching the replay of the '91 Ryder Cup. That would be a decent year to roll back the tech. Langer was still playing persimmon even though metal drivers were common (indicating that they couldn't have been much better). Irwin played a metal driver, but a persimmon fairway wood. But overall, it has the feel of modern golf on the approaches and short game.
The course looks great as well. One thing that escaped my memory was how badly Irwin was gagging. 3-putted on the 17th, pulled his drive in the gallery on 18, missed the green, then delivered a really poor chip that came up way short.
-
Christ, Garland and I do have something in common! Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope. I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens.
Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am. There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.
The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution. I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other. And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose. If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods. In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%. If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.
Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency. I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.
Lou,
The rest of the world was forced to give up yardage in 1983 or 1984 then the big ball was mandated and the 1.62 ball banned.
No one complained - although Peter Thomson made the point of asking 'why are we blindly following the Americans' - and no one gave up golf because they were forced to play a ball that was 15-25 yards shorter for good players.
The administration need to test both balls (current and rolled back) at every speed from 70 mph to 130 and show definitively who loses what. The world isn't going to fall in if you and I (maybe 100 mph with my driver) lose a few yards.
-
The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution. I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other. And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose.
If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods. In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%. If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.
Lou:
I broke your paragraph into two key parts.
The first half is spot on. The ideal would be a ball that costs the pros 15% and the guy with a slower swing speed 5-10%, and I think that's just as likely an outcome as something 10% across the board if we tried for it.
The second half - ? If you're 170 yards out, let's say your shot has to be 5 degrees offline to miss the green wide. (Jeff B would know the angles better than me.) Doesn't matter if you are hitting 5-iron or hybrid, if you're 170 yards away the same angle offline means the same result. Sure, your buddy who hits hybrid from 170 now misses the green more often than you do, but he is also not as good a ball striker as you are!
There may be some reason a hybrid is not as straight as a 5-iron but I'm not sure what it is.
-
Would someone like to indicate the maintenance cost difference including water of looking after a course that’s say 7,000 or 6,000 yds as against a course that’s say 5,000 yds?
Just curious.
Atb
-
Would someone like to indicate the maintenance cost difference including water of looking after a course that’s say 7,000 or 6,000 yds as against a course that’s say 5,000 yds?
Just curious.
Atb
Don't forget Thomas you can also have desert courses which basically don't have rough. "Target golf" some call it, however you do need to water during the drought months more. Of the great links courses do all have irrigated fairways? How many gallons of water do they use each year? Someone is keeping track of the water bill, should be known.
-
Aware of this Jeff. Bit like courses where the grass is eaten rather mown.:)
Water is a slight sideline, although it’s cost, where applicable, ought to be included.
The question could be re-phased along the lines of what’s the cost difference to maintain the same course if it were 7,000 or 6,000 yds or only 5,000 yds. Different overall cost basis depending on the type of course and the climate and the location etc etc but how much less would it be if the course wasn’t as long.
As to great links course water usage, once upon a time damn near none, these days too damn much!
Atb
-
Christ, Garland and I do have something in common! Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope. I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens.
Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am. There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.
The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution. I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other. And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose. If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods. In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%. If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.
Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency. I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.
Lou,
The rest of the world was forced to give up yardage in 1983 or 1984 then the big ball was mandated and the 1.62 ball banned.
No one complained - although Peter Thomson made the point of asking 'why are we blindly following the Americans' - and no one gave up golf because they were forced to play a ball that was 15-25 yards shorter for good players.
The administration need to test both balls (current and rolled back) at every speed from 70 mph to 130 and show definitively who loses what. The world isn't going to fall in if you and I (maybe 100 mph with my driver) lose a few yards.
Thank you for saying this Mike. I feel like this is the point that is lost in all the "don't take my yardage away from me" crowd. I watch moderate to slow swing speed guys use ProV1s, TopFlights and even grab the limited flight range balls from our range and they can't tell a difference in the distance they are hitting the ball. If they did, they would surely stop snitching the range balls to play their rounds with. It would be such a simple thing to test multiple individuals with varying swing speeds, and especially those under 95 mphs, and see what exactly they would be losing with a ball redesign.
-
Tom D,
The variable here is the ball. A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens. Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid. In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.
-
Tom D,
The variable here is the ball. A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens. Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid. In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.
There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. ;)
-
The first half is spot on. The ideal would be a ball that costs the pros 15% and the guy with a slower swing speed 5-10%, and I think that's just as likely an outcome as something 10% across the board if we tried for it.
I appreciate that you didn't go for the 20% I've seen lobbied for by others, but at 15%:
- Dechambeau would hit it 275.
- Rory would hit it 265.
- Dustin Johnson, just under 262.
- The other Johnson, Zach, all of 243.
In 1980, Dan Pohl hit it 274.3, and 150th on the PGA Tour hit it 248.5.
So you'd basically roll the ball back four decades, Tom?
The second half - ? If you're 170 yards out, let's say your shot has to be 5 degrees offline to miss the green wide. (Jeff B would know the angles better than me.)
https://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/angles_of_error (https://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/angles_of_error)
From 175, to a green 25 yards wide, you have about 4°. So you're really close with 5°.
-
Current ball + 1991 equipment would be much more fun to watch than 1991 golf ball with current equipment. When I play with hickory clubs, it doesn't really matter to me if I play a proV or a 1920s replica. You just don't get that trampoline effect and you're actually looking for more spin to achieve distance and stopping power.
In the second case, you'd get tons of accuracy with very little variance. It would be like t-ball whiffle ball with the big red bats.
-
I am in full agreement with Lou's post at #162.
We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate. But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal. So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2) Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.
-
There’s a road across the 1st and 18th fairways on TOC at St Andrews. It’s called Granny Clark’s Wynd.
In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd unless there was a good wind from behind .... and don’t give me any tosh about Jack Nicklaus driving the green in 1971 coz that was with a very strong wind from behind, a firm fairway and a 1:62” ball and even Doug Sanders drove the green that day and he only ever used a half swing!
These days it is commonplace for tee shots to reach the 18th green during The Open.
Seems to me that the distance from the 18th tee used at The Open to Granny Clark’s Wynd would be a good historical reference point for tee shots, ie no shot irrespective of ball or club type or player or combination should ever be able to carry over Granny Clark’s Wynd from the 18th tee in still air conditions.
Atb
-
The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."
-
In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd
Really?
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/Jru6Oeyj/Image%202020-08-26%20at%201.27.13%20PM.png?v=82f21be10a62e190535803c0b234b4b5)
-
In the days of persimmon, steel shafts and balata it required a damn good hit to carry Granny Clark’s Wynd
Really?
Yip.
atb
-
Yip.
atb
No. It's a 230-yard carry.
-
Yip.
atb
No. It's a 230-yard carry.
So what!
atb
-
No. It's a 230-yard carry.
So what!
atb
Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.
-
“Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.“
Some of us have had the benefit of actually playing the hole ourselves on many occasions with persimmon and balata and have at other times stood at the side of the hole watching numerous major championship winners and other elite players do so using the same sort of equipment.
Atb
-
No. It's a 230-yard carry.
So what!
atb
Well, our definition of "a damn good hit" is pretty different, then.
Considering that before 1985 the average driving distance on the PGA tour was less than 260 yards, a carry of 230 yards sure sounds rather hard to obtain by at least half of the PGA tour back in those days.
-
Some of us have had the benefit of actually playing the hole ourselves on many occasions with persimmon and balata and have at other times stood at the side of the hole watching numerous major championship winners and other elite players do so using the same sort of equipment.
I took your post as applying more to Tour players than to all golfers, so that is probably the bulk of the disagreement, and my mistake.
But we still probably have different definitions, as I played persimmon and balata on a softer course than the Old Course when I was a junior, and a decent number of us would carry it 230+. (Which speaks to the case that the gap has grown.)
At any rate, even 15% is a BUNCH. Back to 1980.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubd-spHN-0
-
Have been watching the scotch game at OFCC with interest since I know it so intimately. Bryson nearly driving 10 and then carrying a 3-wood to the front of the 11th green is crazy. The 10th hole was named "Carry" because it had a diagonal trench/ creek that was about 180 yards from the back tee box. And the back tee box was added in modern times to combat length. He carried the remnants of the trench by 203 yards and would have been by 235 from original tee location.
-
Have been watching the scotch game at OFCC with interest since I know it so intimately. Bryson nearly driving 10 and then carrying a 3-wood to the front of the 11th green is crazy. The 10th hole was named "Carry" because it had a diagonal trench/ creek that was about 180 yards from the back tee box. And the back tee box was added in modern times to combat length. He carried the remnants of the trench by 203 yards and would have been by 235 from original tee location.
I watched the coverage too. BDC was showing off/having fun with the driver on a couple holes, but I was struck by the hybrid he hit on the long par-4 14th, especially because one of his opponents hit driver within a foot of that tee shot.
-
Watching the replay of the '91 Ryder Cup. That would be a decent year to roll back the tech. Langer was still playing persimmon even though metal drivers were common (indicating that they couldn't have been much better). Irwin played a metal driver, but a persimmon fairway wood. But overall, it has the feel of modern golf on the approaches and short game.
I've been having similar thoughts as to a return to that period as well. Possibly for similar reasoning but with a different line of thinking.
Between 1983 and 1994 the average driving distance on tour was a shade over 261 yards, with the shortest and longest years being within 2.5 yards of 261. This was a long and consistent run of standard play on tour that bridge may have had little influence on the tour average but may have impacted the longest players on tour, Over this same 12 year period the longest driver on tour increased 6.5 yards.
Using the Masters and US Open as reference points for a comparison between course length and driving distance we can then extrapolate what distance would be needed today to present a similar distance related challenge to today's players. Over the last 10 years Augusta National would need to have played on average 295 yards longer, The US Open would need to have been played on average 393 yards longer, and these courses would have needed to average 7,723 yards to compare.
In relative sense, players today are playing championship courses that are 1-2 clubs shorter on every hole than they were 30 years ago. There is little point to lengthening the game anymore especially when only the best of the best can truly use it to their advantage. We no longer marvel at the chance for a player to win a major at double digits under par, that seems to be much of the norm today. We view player's struggling, or not struggling, on the golf course in a relatively binary way. But we fail to grasp that among of field of 150 players its possible that even on an incredibly difficult course it's possible with today's equipment for one player to exploit the game well enough to torch a course for 72 holes.
Even back in the 1983-1994 period that I highlighted previously it was possible for players to hit the ball great distances, but it was not done with great frequency. The equipment did not hold them back from doing it, but it required a great swing to gain the reward. Today's equipment allows players to miss the ball 300 yards and keep it in play. Missed shots should not be marginalized the way they can be today. Any evaluation on the game should focus on impacting player accuracy first. A ball that would reduce a players accuracy on miss struck shots will force players to dial it back for "normal" play without eliminating the potential for a prodigious shot when the time calls for it.
-
Ben, how much — if any — credit do you give to the idea that players are better today than they were in 1983-1994 and don't "miss it" very often anyway? How much credit do you give to the fact that they swing faster, and would have averaged > 261 ± 2.5 yards if they were transported back to 1989 and given a week to get used to playing those clubs/balls?
There's no right/wrong answer here, as we have no way of figuring this out. Just a question, almost entirely opinion, but I'm curious as to your answer.
-
Tom D,
The variable here is the ball. A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens. Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid. In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.
There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. ;)
My reply to Tom Doak was that if I had to hit the reduced distance ball being discussed from 170 yards, I'd be swinging a 3 hybrid. With a ProV1, I am hitting a 5 iron. The difference in club length between my Ping I500 5 iron (38.25") and my TM M6 3 hybrid (40.75") is 2.5". Most golfers I know hit their shorter clubs with greater accuracy on average, myself included.
-
Erik,
Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time. Especially when speaking of their ability to swing at speed and hit the ball accurately with any level of consistency.
Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers in the history of the game, Greg Norman had a high swing speed and in the late 80's, early 90's averaged under 280 yards off of the tee.
-
The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."
Really? Who are you playing with and where? I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6. I treasure every one of those yards.
Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once. I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.
Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences. I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game".
As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either. Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing). I've never seen an adult play a range ball. Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.
-
You can gain distance easily (and free) by moving up a tee.
-
Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.
2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html) Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html (https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html) - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86
Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.
Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.
-
how much — if any — credit do you give to the idea that players are better today than they were in 1983-1994 and don't "miss it" very often anyway? How much credit do you give to the fact that they swing faster, and would have averaged > 261 ± 2.5 yards if they were transported back to 1989 and given a week to get used to playing those clubs/balls?
Sure stronger golfers, higher swing speeds, taller athletes, lighter shafts, better shafts etc all play a role.
Are they the chief factors responsible for burgeoning distance from the tee?
I suspect you've seen this before Erik.
https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1)
-
Sure stronger golfers, higher swing speeds, taller athletes, lighter shafts, better shafts etc all play a role.
Are they the chief factors responsible for burgeoning distance from the tee?
I suspect you've seen this before Erik.
https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/jeffygolf/status/1285266688297111554/photo/1)
I have. My only point, small as it is, is that it's not just the equipment that's "improved."
-
Totally agree with you. 👊🏻
-
There were plenty of guys then that could hit a ball as far as Norman with his equipment. They just couldn’t control it like he could. Now they all can. It’s the margin for error on the club face that has expanded, allowing higher swing speeds to be more advantageous.
Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.
2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html) Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html (https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html) - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86
Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.
Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.
-
Tom D,
The variable here is the ball. A shorter ball which would require me and most others to hit a 2-3" longer club to achieve the prior distance should result in a larger dispersion of shots/longer distances from the intended target/more missed greens. Without regard to the type of ball, I hit my 9 iron better than my 7, my 7 better than my 5, my 5 better than my 3 hybrid. In that regard, I don't think that I am an outlier.
There is only 1" difference in club length in you examples. I doubt a ball rollback would cause you to hit 3 hybrid where you used to hit 9 iron. That would be a 3" change in length. Less if your clubs are MOI matched. 0 if you are Bryson. ;)
My reply to Tom Doak was that if I had to hit the reduced distance ball being discussed from 170 yards, I'd be swinging a 3 hybrid. With a ProV1, I am hitting a 5 iron. The difference in club length between my Ping I500 5 iron (38.25") and my TM M6 3 hybrid (40.75") is 2.5". Most golfers I know hit their shorter clubs with greater accuracy on average, myself included.
Sounds like you have a mini-7 wood. Club manufacturers do crazy things to sell you more length. Traditionally, a 3 hybrid started as being the same length as a 3 iron. I have to wonder if there is bigger gap between how far you hit 3 vs. 4 than how far you hit 4 vs 5.
-
The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."
Really? Who are you playing with and where? I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6. I treasure every one of those yards.
Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once. I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.
Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences. I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game".
As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either. Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing). I've never seen an adult play a range ball. Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.
Lou,
You aren't most people. I am most people. I blame bad shot results on bad swings, and would have difficulty determining that I should blame equipment and not myself.
-
We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate. But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal. So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2) Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.
Jim,
With respect,
1) The USGA and R&A have indicated their reluctance to bifurcate.
2) The TPC courses were exactly that - the Tour's attempt to build their own stadia. They're now ALL too short.
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.
There's a fourth choice, and possibly more.
Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today. The implements had not grown out of proportion with the arena. Nor was the game so sharply fragmented. The R&A and USGA have indicated they find bifurcation unpalatable.
Spin was a governor with the balls we used in the 80s. It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course. Such balls would not adversely detract from driver distances of slower swinging recreational golfers, but would curtail distance to a degree among professionals. There are patents for such balls dating back to the mid 1990s. One such patent is referenced in this very thread.
Matthew
-
There were plenty of guys then that could hit a ball as far as Norman with his equipment. They just couldn’t control it like he could. Now they all can. It’s the margin for error on the club face that has expanded, allowing higher swing speeds to be more advantageous.
I think plenty of guys could hit it as well as Greg with Greg's equipment. Give 'em a week to adjust.
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.
Where's your proof of that?
More people watch the PGA Tour — and it's far more successful and raises more money, etc. etc. etc. — than in the 1980s.
Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today.
Amateurs also played "distance balls" back then, and pros were not as good as they are now.
It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course.
Pinnacles were legal in 1980.
-
Totally agree with you. 👊🏻
Don't agree with Erik!
There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.
-
There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.
I'd probably agree they're not significantly better than the single best (or top two or so?) of each of their generations.
-
Totally agree with you. 👊🏻
Don't agree with Erik!
There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.
It could just be due to a better understanding of Physics.....
-
Totally agree with you. 👊🏻
Don't agree with Erik!
There may be more players with top flight games today, because the money motivates them. However, they are not significantly better than Hogan, Nicklaus, or Norman. It's only the equipment that allows them to set to benchmarks that seem significantly better.
It could just be due to a better understanding of Physics.....
LOL
:D
-
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.
Where's your proof of that?
More people watch the PGA Tour — and it's far more successful and raises more money, etc. etc. etc. — than in the 1980s.
Erik,
Stop being so obtuse. Driver/wedge being boring is an opinion.
And, the Tiger phenomenon hadn't happened before the 1980s.
It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course.
Pinnacles were legal in 1980.
Erik,
Stop being obtuse. Pinnacles are irrelevant to Matthew's points.
-
Oh how I wish "ignore" actually worked here. Garland, congrats on getting down to a 17.9.
-
Considering guys like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer have all had their swing speeds calculated at over 120mph and the average swing speed on the PGA tour has increased by ~1 mph in the last 20 years I have little to no believe that the players of today could swing the equipment of 30 years ago dramatically, if any, faster than the players of the time.
2020 - https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.html) Max: 126.98, Median: 113.49, Min: 105.24
2007 - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html (https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02401.y2007.html) - Max: 124.18, Median: 112.72, Min: 101.86
Those are deltas of 2.8, 0.77, and 3.38 in seven fewer years. I think if we had accurate clubhead speed data going back to 2000, we'd see that your ~1 MPH is a good bit higher.
Now, two sentences on my opinion, and I thank you for sharing yours. 1. There are probably 30-40 guys on the PGA Tour who could hit the ball as far as Norman with his equipment. 2. Players are better these days. It's not solely equipment.
By your numbers, from 2007 through 2020, the average clubhead speed on tour increased by 0.77mph That's 0.055 mph per year over 14 years, not 13 as you referenced. This would suggest that the average clubhead speed in 2001 would have been ~1.1 mph slower than it is today.
If you plot the average swing speed over the last 14 seasons you get the trend equation (0.145 * x - 178) Which would suggest that the average clubhead speed on the PGA tour in 2001 would have been ~112.15 mph. Greater than a 1 mph difference yes, but either way what would be the ultimate impact? The relative change in carry distance related to a difference in club head speed of 2 mph would be around 5 yards total. As a change over 20 years, that impact is minuscule.
Fitness is better today and technique is better today. That has helped some slower swingers get into the middle and some middle swingers get into the top, but there is little to suggest that it has had a massive impact on the whole of the worlds best. To believe that on the whole players 30 years ago had poor technique or were terribly conditioned for golf is just naive. Everything has impacted the evolution of the game, but in relationship to areas such as the equipment, fitness and technique has had a much, much lower total impact.
Norman was never the longest in the game during his time, but he was the rare combination of long and accurate. I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course. From 84-94 Greg ranked in the top 10 in driving distance 9 times and in the top 10 in total driving 6 times. In comparison, over the last 11 seasons players who ranked in the top 10 in driving distance have also finished in the top 10 in total driving 7 times, with Rory the lone player to make that list in two different years. Are we really to expect that today's longest would instantaneously gain a large margin of accuracy with the old equipment and preserve their distance?
-
The main issue I see with Lou's post is the idea that most people will even know they hit the ball 5-10 yards shorter. That is less than the difference in an off center shot. I know that most of the guys I play with aren't thinking "Dang! I am usually 8 paces ahead of this."
Really? Who are you playing with and where? I only gained 5-10 yards when I went from my M1 to the M6. I treasure every one of those yards.
Nearly everyone I know has been fitted for a driver in the past couple of years, some more than once. I don't know anyone who wouldn't notice even a small loss of distance.
Many of us have also been fitted for a ball and have specific preferences. I can't see the ball reps coming out to our range with a marketing campaign "Our ball will go 15 yards less, for the good of the game".
As to slow swingers not being able to tell the difference between a range ball and a premium or next level ball, that's not reflected in my experience either. Range balls I find on the course at my home club are typically played by young juniors and some beginners on their third or fourth attempt (despite repeated admonitions from the pro that it constitutes stealing). I've never seen an adult play a range ball. Our male golfers typically play premium balls, though maybe there is a placebo effect going on.
I will even use myself as an example. I am a good player, not great, but good. 5-10 yards on a drive is almost not even noticeable for me. Maybe it just means I don't take the game seriously enough, but I couldn't tell you the difference between a 250 yard shot and a 260 yard shot. Pretty much everyone I play with would be in the same boat.
As for the range ball comment. I will use my dad as an example. In his prime he was a scratch or better golfer and played collegiate. As he got up there in years and his SS decreased, he would play any ball he would find. I would find him playing 20 year old balls, practice balls, ProV1s, everything. He didn't care and neither he nor I could tell a difference in how far any of them went. Feel is a different thing, but the distance was so close as to not be noticeable.
-
We have 3 choices:
1) Bifurcate. But that probably won't work because the Professional Tours have said they regard the long-ball as an important part of their crowd appeal. So, if we can't get them to go along, we go to #2 and 3.
2) Build professional courses of 8000+ yards for the Tours to play.
3) Shut up and accept -30 scores and a game of driver-wedge for the pros.
Seems simple to me.
Jim,
With respect,
1) The USGA and R&A have indicated their reluctance to bifurcate.
2) The TPC courses were exactly that - the Tour's attempt to build their own stadia. They're now ALL too short.
3) Driver-Wedge, double digits under par each week is not golf nor entertainment. The Tour will eventually die peddling that.
There's a fourth choice, and possibly more.
Decades ago, the gap between the average professional driving distance and the recreational golfer was not as marked as it is today. The implements had not grown out of proportion with the arena. Nor was the game so sharply fragmented. The R&A and USGA have indicated they find bifurcation unpalatable.
Spin was a governor with the balls we used in the 80s. It is clearly possible to revise equipment specifications to legislate balls that are more reminiscent of the performance characteristics of the balls used prior the tees moving outside the boundary of The Old Course. Such balls would not adversely detract from driver distances of slower swinging recreational golfers, but would curtail distance to a degree among professionals. There are patents for such balls dating back to the mid 1990s. One such patent is referenced in this very thread.
Matthew
Yes!!! And the funny thing is most slower swing speed players could use more spin, so they actually may benefit. But again, some simple testing needs to be done and reported.
-
many factors in play
wood drivers were 43 inches and steel shafted(more weight)
Titanium drivers are 45 inches with graphite shafts( less weight)
Longer = faster
lighter = faster
longer AND lighter = even faster
wood COR of .75
modern limit .83
swinging something faster, that rebounds more ='s a lot more ball speed
Now the ball-multi layered balls allow optimum launch and spin conditions to be fit to a specific player's technique
Pinnacles and Top flites were always long but the lack of spin led most elite players to ignore them (Trevino played a 2 piece Faultless and Jim Ferree played a Pinnacle Gold on the Senior Tour when I worked for him-many players carried a top Flite for long par 3's prior to the one ball local rule)
Add in natural selection of more athletes playing golf, more money,better technique, better and more regular physical conditioning,and the psychology of a swing for the fences mentality...
and you get where you are.
I've never said it was all "the ball"
but that's the easiest governor to employ at the highest level(bifurcation)
Probably all we will ever get due to the morbid fears expressed here about "losing 5 yards"(they are clearly better than me as I would never notice)
but that doesn't address the scale problem of younger 10 handicap players obsoleting driving ranges and creating dangerous situations with long and wrong shots off and on property.
-
Someone who likes and plays golf and doesn’t vote Green nor eat lentils and wear sandals mentioned the other day that .....
When the ProV1 was introduced in the year 2000 the population of the world was 6.1 billion people.
That the worlds population is now 7.8 billion.
That the 1.7 billion difference is for example, more than the entire population of China (1.4 billion) or India (1.3 billion) and is the equivalent of 5 times, yes 5 times, the current population of the USA.
As they added, that’s a lot of mouths to feed and water, a lot of bodies to cloth and house, and yet some within golfing circles are happy to use ever more land and water to play a game where you hit a little ball with a stick.
And it was mentioned not by someone who is a big time Green voting environmental-ecology junkie, but by someone who likes and plays golf and wants their children and their children and their children’s children etc to have the opportunity to play the game as well.
Atb
-
You can gain distance easily (and free) by moving up a tee.
Bite your tongue. Why resign to old age when there are better alternatives?
-
Of course the players have gotten stronger and learned swings that produce more club head speed.
The dilemma lies in what % can be attributed to an improved ball and equipment vs player improvement. If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be at least 70% due to equipment. Look no further than the Senior Tour where players are hitting it far longer at 55 than they were at 35...
For example, Ernie Els.
2000 in his physical prime - 278
2010 at 40 - 288
2020 on the Senior tour - 298
If he had same equipment in 2000 as now, he'd easily be a 305+ hitter.
-
If you plot the average swing speed over the last 14 seasons you get the trend equation (0.145 * x - 178) Which would suggest that the average clubhead speed on the PGA tour in 2001 would have been ~112.15 mph.
Those assume that nothing else changed between 2007 and 2000, and several things changed from 2000 to 2007.
To believe that on the whole players 30 years ago had poor technique or were terribly conditioned for golf is just naive.
Ben, where did I say they were terribly conditioned or had poor technique? I didn't. I simply said that players are better today.
Everything has impacted the evolution of the game, but in relationship to areas such as the equipment, fitness and technique has had a much, much lower total impact.
My point was it's more than equipment. Even just understanding how beneficial it can be to hit it 30 yards farther if you're in the rough only 1.4 times more per round or something changes the way people approach the strategic elements of playing golf.
I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.
I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.
Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.
BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.
So, that's fine Ben, and thank you for answering my question. You likely think I'm over-rating the skill and talent of the game's current crop of players, just as I think you're under-rating them. I appreciate that you answered my question(s).
-
Jeff and Thomas,
Great points both of you!
Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.
-
...
I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.
I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.
Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.
BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.
...
Once again Erik demonstrates that he does not understand the topic. The data you recite is useless on this topic Erik. Perhaps you should change your major to English Literature.
-
...
Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less ??? fairway hit per round)
...
.6810 * 18 = 12.23
.6118 * 18 = 11.01
12.23 - 11.01 = 1.22
which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.
-
Usually 14 fairways.
-
Jeff and Thomas,
Great points both of you!
Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.
Stephen
I agree with what you say. Golf courses are often a valuable green space in urban and built up areas. They provide a haven and habitat for wildlife and they allow a lot of people to get exercise in a very pleasant environment. You don't need to be a tree hugger to know and appreciate that.
Niall
-
Jeff and Thomas,
Great points both of you!
Thomas, I think anyone who does not want to address the environmental aspect of golf (myself also not being a Green party card holder), is seriously whistling past the graveyard. These same people will be so suprised when their remaining local courses start closing because the golf course is becoming too expensive to maintain and too politically toxic to keep.
Stephen
I agree with what you say. Golf courses are often a valuable green space in urban and built up areas. They provide a haven and habitat for wildlife and they allow a lot of people to get exercise in a very pleasant environment. You don't need to be a tree hugger to know and appreciate that.
Niall
I totally agree. Unfortunately, many out there would rather see golf courses shut down in favor of parks. They clearly don't understand the economics of what they are lobbying, but since when did ignorance stop anyone :D
-
I don't understand the call to roll back equipment. Why do golf courses "need" to be longer? Have they gotten too easy for the average golfer? Let the pros shoot whatever they can. It doesn't matter - low score still wins.
If a club's membership decides to spend big bucks on making their course longer to "protect par", let them - it's their money. Otherwise,leave courses alone.
-
When the implements and the arena move further out of proportion, the way the game is played changes. And lots of people don’t like that change.
I suppose Dave that you form your position in the belief that the PGA Tour is the only place the lack of proportion is evident. I would contest that. I think most here would. Certainly the architects...
The issue of balls flying further and raising liability / safety / boundary issues more readily in this day and age is irrefutable. Costs of higher boundary fencing, course revision in the name of safety, escalating insurance premiums etc are other factors cited by those favouring a rollback.
-
...
I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.
I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.
Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.
BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.
...
Once again Erik demonstrates that he does not understand the topic. The data you recite is useless on this topic Erik. Perhaps you should change your major to English Literature.
Garland, as we both know Erik’s degrees change depending on topic.....
-
I don't understand the call to roll back equipment. Why do golf courses "need" to be longer? Have they gotten too easy for the average golfer? Let the pros shoot whatever they can. It doesn't matter - low score still wins.
If a club's membership decides to spend big bucks on making their course longer to "protect par", let them - it's their money. Otherwise,leave courses alone.
We had one of the qualifiers yesterday at my home club for the Texas Golf Association's Mid-Amateur being held at Oak Hill (Tillie) in San Antonio this coming October. The two co-medalists shot 66 (-6) and -2 played off for the final spots (10 total). Reportedly, the course was set up at just over 6800 yards, or 500+ yards from the back plates. Many of those trying to qualify played college golf.
A few weeks back we hosted a last-chance qualifier for the Texas State Open where there was a 63 and a 64, and it also took -2 to make it to the tournament. The course was set up around 7100 yards, still leaving quite a bit in the tank. With very little capital or operating expense or effect on safety, we could add another 200 yards. As it is, I estimate that less than 15% of our rounds are played from the back tees, maybe 25% from the blues, and the rest from the whites and the reds (women and SS).
What would be the interest of our members to roll back the ball 15% -20%? Our driving range does not contain all of our players, but more on the slice side than over the back. We could easily go green and plant some trees to serve as barriers, but in the years I've been a member, there has not been a liability problem dealing with a ball being too long or far of line.
We don't compete with Dallas CC, Brook Hollow, Lakewood, Colonial, Shady Oaks, etc. Our ability to accommodate the modern ball does not prompt these clubs to tear down fences, acquire more real estate, or otherwise "disfigure" their courses to keep up with us. All have very smart, successful members who know what is in their best interests and how to resolve conflicting objectives. They too have children, grandchildren, and legacies to protect.
All the Malthusian fear-mongering about population growth and depletion of resources is even older than the 100 year-old dystopian predictions of technology ruining the game. As I drive down the North Dallas Tollway going a bit over the speed limit and being passed by all sorts of high performance trucks, SUVs, sports cars and sedans like I am standing still, I can sympathize with some of you feeling the rage. Maybe the government should be rolling back this new technology as well. I mean, who needs to spend $75-$150k+ on a car and why not go back to the times when the maximum speed in the US was 55 mph? Who needs a ProV1 or an SL500? All sorts of liability, environmental, and sustainability issues here too. ::) ::)
Having said all this, if the ruling bodies decide to regress the ball, I would comply. As Mr. Pritchett suggests, I can always move up a set or two and continue to whine, this time about not being able to hit it to my shadow.
-
I noticed that Tom started this thread many years ago, and then I realized (duh!) that he has carved out a very successful and likely historic career building award winning courses -- the majority of which are not long by modern standards, and indeed seem to have been designed with nary a thought given to the distance debate. And yet golfers and raters of just about all ages and skill levels love playing them -- finding them neither too easy nor too hard. Which may either mean that the importance of distance/the distance debate is greatly exaggerated and/or that the majority of golfers don't hit the ball nearly as far as they think they do!
-
Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe. I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.
Ciao
-
Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe. I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.
Ciao
Sean distance is now seen as the way to go for people coming into the game. These young guys are not out scoring me but they are out smashing me. Recently played with a guy who thought nothing unusual about the 8 balls he lost - he had 2 birdies! I play with the father of a guy who played a 6i,8i to Deal's 16. His dad despairs that despite obvious talent the son has no interest in getting better, just hitting it further. He wants to play long courses.
The game is being changed by technology, and it's not just the elite who play a game I am unfamiliar with. Just saying let the pros score whatever, is burying our heads in the waste areas and neglecting to stand up for what has made golf great for so long.
-
Spangles
I have news for ya, all kids like to smash the ball.
I never said the game isn't changing... its always changing. Sure, I would prefer if carrying a ball 350 yards or even 300 yards wasn't possible. It would be one less reason for numptys to change courses. But I don't believe an across the board rollback is the best solution. For one, I think courses would continue to be altered as it has been the case. Second, I want to see the theory of rollback tried slowly. I don't necessarily buy that certain players will be hugely effected while others are not. Easy does the change... bifurcation.
Ciao
-
Erik,
What exactly changed in golf between 2001 and 2007 that would have had a noticeable impact on club head speed? Improvements in the golf ball and club head would impact ball speed but not club head speed. By 2001 nearly every player on the PGA Tour was using a graphite shaft in their driver. Launch monitors were not widely adopted as training tools until the end or after this period. What's missing that can be directly linked to an increase in club head speed?
You spoke of players being better today, If fitness and technique are not key drivers in their performance improvements then what are?
Greg Norman was using a 190cc MacGregor M43 back in the late 80's / early 90's, An fantastic club but nowhere near as forgiving as Dustin's TaylorMade SIM. Do you really think you can make a strong comparison here? Norman hit more fairways than Dustin with a club that was measurably harder to hit well.
We've gotten a bit in the weeds here. I was proposing a change to the ball that would bring driving and difficulty back to what is was 30 years ago. While I'd love to see a great equipment change around clubs I understand that's a line too far. At the same instance we are unable to lengthen golf courses to present the same level of challenge that was common 30 years ago. Distance has always presented an advantage in the game, but for the longest time that was balanced with a demand on accuracy. In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy. If we're unable to curb distance directly then let's place a higher demand on accuracy. Once again, I'm not in favor of blanket changes to the courses. It's a broad expense that could have lasting negative impacts on the game. Rather, regulations on the ball would seem to be most appropriate area of influence. A new tour specification that increased ball spin, especially side spin, would lead to a ball that would curve more and demand greater control by those that played it. For those that embraced the workability of the ball they may thrive, while other who only want to hit it straight would suffer and have to adapt. What this may lead to is players compromising on top end distance to find a greater level of accuracy. Which would be more in line with how the game was played 30 years ago.
Unlike courses, changes to golf ball regulations are not permanent and would not need to impact every player. Golf balls are a commodity that players dispose of on a regular basis. Golf balls are also relatively inexpensive, especially compared to a new driver, so asking players to purchase a new type of golf ball would not be a large expense of inconvenience. Also, as the range of golf balls today is very broad, there is no reason a tour spec golf ball could not be slotted into the market without disrupting the current market. Golf is a game that is often touted as one in which any player can play the game as the tour players do, but rarely is that the case. Just look at the equipment industry. The clubs played by tour pros are not the majority of clubs found in a causal golfers golf bag. The casual golfer is marketed game improvement equipment. If there was a tour spec ball that would not change. Titleist could continue to sell the Pro V1 to the masses, but could also sell the Pro V1 (tour spec) for those who want the same challenge as the pros. Interestingly, many slower swing speed players have difficulty generating spin so a higher spinning tour spec ball could actually present a benefit to them over the current ball line up.
-
In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy.
Nicely said Ben and not just within the pro game either .... applies to elite amateurs and even average club players etc these days too.
Once upon a time if a player felt they couldn't keep the ball on the fairway with a Driver they chose a club that they reckoned they could hit the fairway with.
Now not only are Drivers easier to hit but when hit off-line other modern generation clubs that are these days routinely in players bags like hybrids/rescues and wedges with multiple lofts and shapes of flanges make it easier for amateurs generally to recover in some progressive way whilst allowing pros and elite players to go for the green with their next shots, even more so when soft greens are the target.
And with softer fairways and 1st-2nd-3rd-cuts of rough shots heading off-line into less than pleasant areas don't run as far off-line as they did in previous eras plus off-fairway areas are much more manicured now than they were in the past.
As has been said herein and elsewhere before, firm ground conditions and wide cut-short grass can in themselves be hazardous as they allow miss-directed shots to bounce and roll further off-line. And with variable off-fairway conditions, the nature of recovery shots changes which ought to prompt variations in playing strategy generally as would firmer greens.
atb
-
What would be the interest of our members to roll back the ball 15% -20%? Our driving range does not contain all of our players, but more on the slice side than over the back. We could easily go green and plant some trees to serve as barriers, but in the years I've been a member, there has not been a liability problem dealing with a ball being too long or far of line.
Having said all this, if the ruling bodies decide to regress the ball, I would comply. As Mr. Pritchett suggests, I can always move up a set or two and continue to whine, this time about not being able to hit it to my shadow.
Lou,
your comments remind me of various equipment requirements in baseball. And no I'm not speaking of wood vs. composite bats. At virtually every level of base ball (LL, High School, College, Summer Ball, MiLB, MLB, etc...) the formula of ball they play is different. From the outside perspective it's nearly impossible to tell the difference but the players are very aware of it. The ball is tuned in a multitude of ways to be most competitive for specific levels of play.
It is very similar in Tennis, where a single manufacture like Wilson will make nearly identical balls with small differences to the felt on the cover. A heavier felt ball will be slower to a lighter felt ball. Once again, from the outside is incredibly difficult to see the difference.
It does not seem far fetched for golf to follow a similar path. Dictate a few different ball formulas for manufactures to build balls too and then allow organizations to mandate a particular formula for their events. Class 1 may be the general ball of today, Class 4 the ball used at the top level professional tournament, and 2 classes in between for top level amateur / low level professional. Lets say the Texas Golf Association specifies a Class 3 ball for the Texas Open, then when the players come to Oak Hill to qualify they'd be using the Class 3 ball. It would help to keep the scores honest and preserve the course as it is for the membership without asking them to make any changes to their beloved course.
-
.6810 * 18 = 12.23.6118 * 18 = 11.0112.23 - 11.01 = 1.22 which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.
18 fairways per round eh? 14, man. And yet I'm the one who doesn't understand the topic. :)
Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe. I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.
Well stated. 6500 yards is enough for the vast majority of players, and the game should not be controlled by what the game's best do.
What exactly changed in golf between 2001 and 2007 that would have had a noticeable impact on club head speed? Improvements in the golf ball and club head would impact ball speed but not club head speed.
Longer, lighter shafts with bigger club heads as well as an increasing understanding of what distance can do for the ball. In 2000, Tiger was one of the first players to go to a solid core ball (and he still played a 120+ gram X100 steel shaft in his driver, so I don't think the switch to light graphite is as pre-2000 as you may be thinking). Switching to that type of ball alone let players swing faster. I worked (web development) with a manufacturer at the time and they had clubhead speed data from their Tour players, and from 1995 to 2005 it increased several MPH. The solid core ball didn't curve quite as much, and didn't float or rise up as much, and Titleist was fitting with photo launch monitors in 2005.
Look, players hit the ball farther these days. The equipment is undoubtedly a big part of the reason why. But I don't think it's as much of the reason why as I think you would say it is. I could be wrong, and maybe you think equipment is only 60%, or 65%, but it feels like you think equipment is responsible for 90% of the distance gains. Or 95%.
You spoke of players being better today, If fitness and technique are not key drivers in their performance improvements then what are?
The players of today are better all around — fitness, technique, understanding/coaching, etc. — and there are more of them. Jack Nicklaus has said the same thing. That doesn't mean that players of yester-year are "terrible" or whatever you had me saying.
Greg Norman was using a 190cc MacGregor M43 back in the late 80's / early 90's, An fantastic club but nowhere near as forgiving as Dustin's TaylorMade SIM. Do you really think you can make a strong comparison here? Norman hit more fairways than Dustin with a club that was measurably harder to hit well.
Look, I think Dustin (and 20 other guys) could hit it about as well as Greg Norman hit it, given a little time to adjust, with Greg's equipment. While there was once one Greg Norman, I think there are maybe 10, 20, maybe even 30 now. We understand the golf swing better, we understand launch conditions, ball flight, biodynamics, etc. There are more players, and so the guys who reach the PGA Tour are better players now.
That's my opinion. You disagree. That's all good, man, and since neither of us can "prove" an opinion — it's not a fact — I don't know where we go from there. We just have different opinions.
We've gotten a bit in the weeds here. I was proposing a change to the ball that would bring driving and difficulty back to what is was 30 years ago.
If you're going to make a change — and y'all know I'm not in favor of that — you'd have to change more than just the golf ball, unless you made a ridiculous change to the golf ball. Guys could drive a modern-day balata ball (if you could re-create a new one) much better than from 1985.
In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy.
Stats show that hitting from the fairway presents about a 70-yard advantage over being in the rough.
Golf is a game that is often touted as one in which any player can play the game as the tour players do, but rarely is that the case. Just look at the equipment industry. The clubs played by tour pros are not the majority of clubs found in a causal golfers golf bag.
There's nothing stopping them from being the same, though. The average softball beer league player isn't going to get an at-bat against whoever Justin Verlander, but the average golfer can hit a ball and a club that are under the same regulations as Justin Thomas better than Justin Thomas every once in awhile, and feel good about that. The hole is 4.25" for everyone, and the courses can have the same defenses, etc.
At virtually every level of base ball (LL, High School, College, Summer Ball, MiLB, MLB, etc...) the formula of ball they play is different.
Three points there:
- The baseball is what I call "shared equipment." The golf ball is not. It's personal equipment. Baseball players get to choose their own gloves, bats, etc.
- Baseball isn't governed by effectively one ruling body worldwide. (The USGA/R&A agree to the rules and regulations, at every level of the game).
- Nobody gets pulled from a college program to play in the World Series. Players have a different path to the top levels of the game that allow them to make adjustments to different regulations. That is not what happens in golf, and one fo the reasons why bifurcation is a non-starter (IMO, and it sounds like you disagree, which is fine).
-
I fell that there's a way forward that very few talk about:
I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.
I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin. So any player can pick any point along the continuum, but you can't pick a ball that goes forever off the driver and still checks up off wedges around the greens and out of bunkers. So Gramps will pick a Slazenger Raw, while DJ will pick a ball that spins around the green and thus will limit his driver distance, as that particular ball will have to be spinnier off of the driver as well. Similarly, if that ball is spinnier off the driver, it will be more difficult to drive the ball accurately, thus the great drivers will be recognized. The elite players will ALWAYS select a ball that gives them the best short game control. This allows for a rollback at the elite level that is driven by player choice, while leaving the average hacker mostly unaffected.
I guess the model tour ball would be something like the old Nike One Platinum that Tiger played. It was quite a bit more spinny than any of the other tour balls of that time and was really almost balata like in it's characteristics. If you cupped your wrist at impact it would balloon like crazy into the wind, for example. Tiger selected it as he's probably the greatest iron player of all time, and it was absolutely dirty around the greens in terms of spin. Of course his driving was squirrely, but it was always squirrely anyways.
As far as what those parameters should be and how to form the compliance curve, I am no Dr. Scientist.
-
I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin.
Have you messed around with the spin rates here?
https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ (https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/)
-
I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.
I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin. So any player can pick any point along the continuum, but you can't pick a ball that goes forever off the driver and still checks up off wedges around the greens and out of bunkers. So Gramps will pick a Slazenger Raw, while DJ will pick a ball that spins around the green and thus will limit his driver distance, as that particular ball will have to be spinnier off of the driver as well. Similarly, if that ball is spinnier off the driver, it will be more difficult to drive the ball accurately, thus the great drivers will be recognized. The elite players will ALWAYS select a ball that gives them the best short game control. This allows for a rollback at the elite level that is driven by player choice, while leaving the average hacker mostly unaffected.
I guess the model tour ball would be something like the old Nike One Platinum that Tiger played. It was quite a bit more spinny than any of the other tour balls of that time and was really almost balata like in it's characteristics. If you cupped your wrist at impact it would balloon like crazy into the wind, for example. Tiger selected it as he's probably the greatest iron player of all time, and it was absolutely dirty around the greens in terms of spin. Of course his driving was squirrely, but it was always squirrely anyways.
As far as what those parameters should be and how to form the compliance curve, I am no Dr. Scientist.
So how far the ball goes doesn't matter?
I hope one of your Driver/wedge relevant spin balls that someone, and it doesn't have to be a pro or an elite amateur, hits 300-400-whatever yds from the tee but 100 yds offline doesn't hit another player or greenkeeper out of eye sight on the course or some innocent person as they walk or ride their bike alongside the course. Ian Andrew has written extensively and very well about shot envelopes and the effects of errant shots.
And this is of course before other outside-golf issues like land and water use and population are taken into consideration.
The golf authorities need to act before golf becomes toxic to the public.
Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe. I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.
Ciao
Specifically, "What I care about is preserving great architecture."
There are already reasons why non-golfers dislike golf. And if golf through additional things like lack of safety, excess-use of land and water etc allows itself to become more disliked by the public, to become toxic to the public, then golf will go kaput and there won't be any great architecture to protect.
Seems to me the best way to preserve great architecture is equipment, especially ball and Driver, rollback.
atb
-
It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao
-
It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao
I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades until very recently, and the way many play hickories now.
Or the grownup way the entire R&A world adopted the larger 1.68 ball even though it traveled shorter and was worse in the wind.
ProVslow
-
It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao
I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow
My preference would be a general rollback but some form of bifurcation would certainly be better than the current situation and certainly better than nothing at all and some lessor players may voluntarily join in as well.
Mind back in the 1970’s-1990 the longer 1:62” was still in international non-pro use and those using it didn’t moan when they lost distance to the shorter US originated 1:68” ball. Kind of ironic and amusing in retrospect where the shorter 1:68” ball originated given the location of seemingly most of the opposition to a current potential rollback. Funny old world.
Other concerns re toxicity still stand though.
Atb
-
It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao
I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow
I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.
Ciao
-
I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.
Ciao
“Ego within golf” might well make an interesting thread in its own right!
Atb
-
Does anyone here draw any conclusions from the tournament on now at Olympia Fields? Best players, good weather, not absurdly long course. But the leading scores are right around level par after most of the second round is done. Rock hard greens, tight fairways, and heavy Chicago rough. Bombers don’t rule. Bryson has only hit 2-3 fairways in two days and is well over par.
-
Curious as to what people think of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U)
Essentially, Mark Crossfield was able to generate almost the same distances with a ZStar as an old balata ball. He dropped his driver loft and changed his AoA. He could have done some similar things with the 8I, hybrid, and 52° club. He could decrease loft a bit to match up the distances.
Small sample size alert, though, including not only how few balls he hit, but also that it's one guy (and not a particularly long hitter at that).
-
.6810 * 18 = 12.23.6118 * 18 = 11.0112.23 - 11.01 = 1.22 which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.
18 fairways per round eh? 14, man. And yet I'm the one who doesn't understand the topic. :)
...
Yep, I blew that one.
-
I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.
Does this mean you would do away with the initial velocity standard? If you do that, how much the ball spins won't matter, because they will make super balls that go miles with the spin of the old balata balls.
So how far the ball goes doesn't matter?
I hope one of your Driver/wedge relevant spin balls that someone, and it doesn't have to be a pro or an elite amateur, hits 300-400-whatever yds from the tee but 100 yds offline doesn't hit another player or greenkeeper out of eye sight on the course or some innocent person as they walk or ride their bike alongside the course.
Without the initial velocity standard, your 300-400 estimate would definitely be an underestimate.
-
It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao
I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow
I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.
Ciao
They could just put a revised ball factor into the handicap calculation and cause handicaps to remain essentially the same. 8)
-
Curious as to what people think of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U)
Essentially, Mark Crossfield was able to generate almost the same distances with a ZStar as an old balata ball. He dropped his driver loft and changed his AoA. He could have done some similar things with the 8I, hybrid, and 52° club. He could decrease loft a bit to match up the distances.
Small sample size alert, though, including not only how few balls he hit, but also that it's one guy (and not a particularly long hitter at that).
Waste of time. They guys whacked! "Ball speed is the same" over and over again. Hasn't he heard of the initial velocity standard? Essentially he is saying Jack Nicklaus could crank the balata out over 300 yards when he wanted to, so he should have been doing it all the time. ::)
-
Ok Erik, Let's dig back into the weeds...
Tiger may have been one of the first to switch to a solid core ball, but was also one of the last to switch to a graphite shaft. When speaking of the field as a whole its hard to learn a lot from the outliers.
Defend and qualify this statement: "Switching to that type of ball (Solid Core) alone let players swing faster". To suggest that the ball of choice alone has a noticeable bearing on club head speed is laughable.
In 1995 probably 85% of the players on the PGA tour were using steel shafts in their driver, by 2005 probably more than 85% of players were using a graphite shaft. So over that 10 year period, it's not surprising that swing speeds would increase, but when did that occur? From the end of the 1994 season to the released of the Pro V1 in October of 2000 the average driving distance on tour increased 11 yards. With Titanium drivers in wide use by 1995/96, starting a the beginning of the 1997 season there is still an increase of 6.3 yards, or a 2-3 mph difference that would be achieved in the transition from Steel to Graphite before the start of 2001.
By the start of the 2001 season, 20 years ago, virtually every Titleist staffer had switched to the Pro V1.
To qualify the impact of the Pro V1 and its children on the increase in driving distance lets take a look at the situation surrounding its release in October 2000. the first time it was made available was in Las Vegas, where the year before the average driving distance that week was 280.1 yards. Nearly 50 players put the ball in play that week, resulting in an average driving distance of 290.2 yards. The season-average up to that point was 272.2 yards. From Las Vegas through the end of the season, the average increased to 276.6 yards. Compared to the same events the year prior, that was an increase of 7.8 yards. Clearly the Pro V1 had an acute and profound impact on driving distance that can be separated from everything else at the time.
The USGA and R&A have classified the distance gains from 2001-2003 as related to ball improvements. This would include improvements to the Pro V1, introductions of competing balls, and tuning of clubs to better match the performance of the new balls. From 2004 through the early 2000-teens you see marginal changes in average driving distance, which would align to the data we have around a marginal change in clubhead speed.
In 2006 the average driver length on the PGA tour was 44.5". In 2019 the average driver length peaked at 44.75" This was a period of great shaft exploration on tour with players trying different shaft profiles, weights, and lengths. But yet the average length and club head speed changed very little. You need a significant change in shaft weight to generate a meaningful increase in club head speed.
A few days ago you said 30-40 guys would hit it as far as Greg Norman, yesterday you said that 21 guys could hit it about as well as Norman, at this rate in a weeks time Norman will stand on his own.
-
Now onto golf and other sports:
The average player playing on a US Open golf course from the US Open tee's would face the same challenge as a beer league softball player facing off against Randy Johnson pitching from 40 feet away. Doesn't matter if he's holding a brand new Louisville Slugger or the highest tech composite bat, he can't win that matchup.
At every level of baseball, there are equipment specifications on both the ball and the bat. While baseball may "share" the balls, in a "shared equipment" game such as football they do not. Each team provides their own balls for both their kickers and quarterbacks, as long as those balls meet the specs of the game their fair to play, which is the same we have in golf. In the NFL that ball must come from the same source, but for College, High School, and below that is not the case. Also, at each level, the specifications on the ball are different.
Brandon Finnegan would argue against your final baseball point. In 2014 he played in both the College World Series and MLB World Series. With how the draft is structured in baseball, the age ranges in baseball are extreme. Als, players hop around leagues and regulations all of the time. you get called up from the minors to the majors, different ball. You play on a High School team and a travel team, a different ball. In college, you play for the SEC and then play in a Cape Cod summer league, a different ball and a different bat!
The game is already bifurcated and gets further and further bifurcated every year. We allow it to get further separated by not building in steps to curtail the gab. Nearly every sport is bifurcated across all levels of play, but for the most part, no one really cares. Why should golf act holier than thou?
Finally:
The initial velocity regulation has been in existence for a long time. While the background behind the regulation may need some updating, All Mark did was to adjust his club back to how they were set up 25 years ago, when that ball was commonplace. The results are not surprising. He of course was also aided by the performance advantages in the design of the head that didn't previously exist.