Dean Snell's Video on the Distance debate

[DFinch]

I agree with Dean's "it's more than just one thing" opinion on the evolution of distance on tour.

Tiger won the ‘97 Masters with a steel head 10.5* Cobra driver at 43” and an X100 shaft. I couldn’t find the head size but this was pre-titanium so I would reasonably guess it was laround 250cc. He was using a liquid core, rubber wound, cast urethane Professional 90. He averaged 323 yards off the tee (or 294, there are multiple sources for both figures) for the tournament and won by 12 strokes. He didn't hit more than an 8-iron on a par 4 on Sunday. Panic ensued.

From 1997 to 2002 PGA courses started lengthening to the degree it outpaced the field. Players had difficulty reaching the 10th fairway at Bethpage in 2002.

Chicken or egg? As the 80's/90's generation of players aged out and the new breed, attracted by expanding purses and the "Tiger effect" were drawn to pro golf, length was being set as a requirement for entry. Add in new measuring tech (Trackman/Foresight) and increasing adjustability and it became easier to optimize. People had a much better understanding of spin/launch/AoA/ballspeed starting in the late 90's to where today it's basically mandatory. Just like basketball and football, the prototypical player athletic/genetic profile evolved. Instead of outliers like Jack, Snead, Palmer, Daly, and Love III it became the norm. Clubhead speed for the fastest 10 PGA players went up 4mph from 2007 to 2019 and I would bet there is a similar ratio if the stats went back farther. One player averaged over 300 yards in 1997. 58 players averaged over 300 yards in 2019. Equipment or players? I think the lengthening of courses during the "Tiger proofing" era demanded upcoming pros bring distance. Corey Pavin need not apply.

The fairway height impact on distance would be extremely easy to test on tour. That would be a reasonable place to start. I think if the ball becomes the target you'd have to roll it back to pre-balata because I still think today's pro's would bomb a newly manufactured liquid core, rubber wound Professional or even Tour Balata. Require a solid core ball to spin more off a standardized test driver, manufacturers will optimize CG and get back the high launch/low spin distance. They've been doing that for years. Even if you went to steel shaft, 43", steel driver head...there are dozens of "1997 Tiger speed" players on tour now and it's easier to optimize. It might shuffle the deck for awhile, but like the non-impact of the square groove change it won't fix the "problem". The same adjustments would be made in iron designs, if necessary, taking into account Tiger plays the same basic iron loft/design with the modern ball that he did with balata.

 

 

 

[Maximilian]

I wrote “shot values“, because they were the words quoted by Bill Payne in the post I was replying to. How do you measure an “exciting” or “fun” golf experience? Everything can’t be measured and I’m not sure this discussion becomes more fruitful by playing word games.

[farmer]

DFinch made some excellent points. My point, which I will never address again, is that all the calls for nerfing the ball, making it spin more, shrinking drivers, reducing COR, on and on assumes a demand for these products. Companies will not build products for which there is no demand. If any OEM was required to make these products for the tiny number of golfers who would be forced to play them, every single product from those OEM's goes up in price. That is not good for golf.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

More precisely, the lack of it is the issue.

Not just munis, everywhere. It will add up to revenue loss for courses as players take longer to complete a round.

[cougarthesecond]

Rolling back the golf ball sounds like a good idea on the surface. After all, Jack Nicklaus says roll it back so it must be valid. But Jack is in the golf course design business, so maybe he has an agenda? But when you look at closely and really analyze rolling back the golf ball, it is a terrible idea for 99.99% of golfers.

[The Mad Bomber]

I don't know where the whole distance debate is going to end up, but I know that in July, right before our Open Tournament, we're hosting a Blades4Life rollback tournament where everyone has to play pre-1990 equipment (balls included, because we have a massive stash) from the white tees, which are two boxes up from the tips to negate the modern distance disparity and I'll give my modern clubs away if the scoring is better with the old golf ball. It's so obvious that if you make the ball spin more, you negate a lot of the distance debate. Snell makes some good points, but I can't agree that all 4 points he makes are equal. The ball is the main culprit.

 

I just don't care what the rules become. It seems most likely that a ball roll back is coming. But spinny ballsl, smaller drivers...whatever. I loved this game playing with persimmon woods and balatas that you could cut in half with a thinned 2 iron, and I love playing this game now. I'll love it when the equipment changes. And if my new equipment only goes 220 yards off the tee, I'll move up to the forward tees and it'll still be fun.

[DFinch]

Of course it won't be better...most people aren't used to the old equipment. 30+ year old liquid core, rubber wound balls will likely be slower than brand new, liquid center, rubber wound balls and most people will have trouble adjusting to tiny wooden drivers. It wasn't a deal back then...I remember when 460 became a thing and we dubbed them "a Volkswagen on a stick". It was ridiculous. Now it's normal and a persimmon driver looks ridiculous.

Shiels did a video with a never used, but obviously old, Titleist Professional. It spun just as low off driver. It spun the same off irons and wedge. The only difference was ball speed, which left the question of how 25 years in a closet did/did not impact that balls speed characteristics. I was as surprised as anyone that the old "wound balls are spinny" belief, which I also held (and I played them back in the day), was shown to be false. If all of that is true, we're back to blaming the modern driver which scrubbed spin off just fine on that wound ball. That sends the debate in circles.

 

[The Pearl]

No rational thinking person can possibly come to the conclusion that reducing distance, by whatever means, ball, clubs, or otherwise that it will be a POSITIVE for the game at the grass-roots level. I can't think of a single person I play golf with that will say " this is awesome, we hit it shorter now so lets move up a tee block. We are gonna have even more fun now!"

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Haha, yes.

[freowho]

You're just making stuff up. Ladies fields play quicker than mens because they don't have to wait on shots. The shorter the ball goes the more players you can get on the course increasing revenue.

[freowho]

The ball will drop out of the air quicker so less chance of going out of the property. The instruments are part of the problem as well. They are too long and too light.

It's not a contest between short and long hitters and no one is trying to stop long hitters having an advantage. But where does it stop? If distance isn't a problem why don't we just let the ball go 1 mile?

We have to protect the playing area and the cost to clubs just like other sports have tried to protect their playing areas and integrity.

I still don't understand why people are putting the commercial side of golf, i.e. manufacturers, ahead of the game. The game is the most important thing. If manufacturers want to send lawyers kids to private schools go for it.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

More revenue? Did you just make that up? Lol

[SOONERMAGIC]

We got to see a "proof of concept" for Snell's comments over the last two weekends with deeper rough, tough pins, and tough conditions. I personally thought The Honda and Bay Hill were awesome television with the courses playing so difficult and scores not being in the -20 realm.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Everything Dean said, you can prove with what’s available today.

There’s theory and practice. It basically comes down to the USGA versus reality on distance issues.

[davep043]

I think everyone, including the R&A and USGA, has agreed that course set-up can influence driving distance. These past two weeks have shown that if you increase the reward for accuracy (or increase the penalty for inaccuracy, however you choose to phrase it), some players will voluntarily give up distance at times. But who among us believes that the courses at the John Deer Classic, or the Wyndham, or the Travelers will be set up in a similar way? The PGA Tour markets long drives, do we think they'll really choose to limit long drives going forward? Do you think the players will be happy that there's actually going to be a negative consequence for hitting it 40 yards offline? Maybe they will, and maybe it would be a good strategy by the PGA Tour to address driving distance before the Ruling Bodies feel a real need to do it.

The results of the past two weeks don't surprise anyone. The surprise will occur (to me at least) if the PGA Tour keeps these kinds of tough conditions consistently through the season.

[smashdn]

That's not bad. Only thing I would say is be careful with "irons." I could see a manufacturer souping up a driving iron. In fact some are already out there with graphite shafted driving irons that look like the early hybrids when they started making a comeback. You'd have to be very specific about what is an iron and what is an attempt to circumvent your proposed rule.

[smashdn]

Club length is only partially related to player height. A tall player may use a driver that maxes out but his irons are all shorter so he can play a shorter driver if there was a mandate.

[smashdn]

Ask Billy Payne. It was he who brought it up in regards to #13 at ANGC.

[smashdn]

Tour players don't pay for their clubs and balls. The "tour van" is not there for the retail golfer. You are paying for it already.

[Skhacker]

Maybe us old guys will have a chance again! I too will always enjoy the game. I realized long ago that I wasn't going to be playing golf for a living, so I just enjoy the experience.

[smashdn]

Theory and practice. Sort of like conjecture associated with what might happen if there was a reduction in driving distance and addition of spin and actually knowing what that would look like from people who play persimmon clubs regularly or by looking at play from 1945 to ~1990?

 

If everyone drove it 50 more yards would that be a good thing or a bad thing for the "average golfer".

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

If everyone drives 50 yards more? I’d guess that some will swing more relaxed and controlled, and some not.

Could have an equally bad impact on pace of play, but my experience with longer hitters is they are also generally better players.

Cause and effect? I doubt hitting farther alone will improve the average golfer and make them magically better, but they COULD start focusing on other skills than simply attempting to gain distance at the driving range? They could focus on accuracy, putting and short game? Those could in turn make them better players?

If everyone were reduced by 50 yards, they’d likely be focused on getting that distance back somehow?

Interesting hypothesis.

[smashdn]

I didn't intend for that scenario to be a "caught you" moment but think hard on the items you have brought up in the context of the current situation with distance.

[cougarthesecond]

"Ladies fields play quicker than mens because they don't have to wait on shots. "

Sounds good but not true. The LPGA Tour is notorious for agonizingly slow play.

[Mudguard]

 

460cc drivers, graphite shafts and perimeter weighted irons haven't dropped the average handicap so any distance gains would be moot. As I mentioned in the other thread, there is probably anecdotal evidence that increased distance just means players hit it further into the crap. You are allowed long shafts in drivers, but no one uses them. Why? Because they are more difficult to hit the centre of the face so any swing speed gains are lost due to the mishit.

I

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I find this part fascinating. Do you think it would be a good idea to set up courses like that every week? I've heard more than once that a problem with the PGA Tour is it feels like the same boring TPC setup every week (or something to that effect). If the Tour sets everything up like the last two weeks, wouldn't it simply be week-to-week monotony in a different form? Same as if every week was firm/fast/minimal rough/minimal trees/ground game, as some have said they want to see (which are simply demands that attempt to make a roll back the only option).

Just my opinion, but I think it would be cool if more weeks were like these last two, but some remained like the John Deere, some were more links style, some were like Harbour Town, etc. It would be interesting to see who comes out on top over the whole season on all these different (types of) setups. The PGA Tour could still sell the long ball, etc.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

There’s a lot of factors to average handicap. One factor could simply be that less skilled people are playing golf because of the more forgiving equipment? Too many factors in averages?

What could also be significant is the percentage of single digit players there are now versus in the days of persimmons. I think there are more?

[farmer]

Those clubs are marketable to you and me. Same with the balls. You can, if you want to spend the money, get the tour van experience at places like Club Champion or the TM facility in Carlsbad.

[Mudguard]

Well that would improve the average then? If there were more single digit players. It's a long bow to draw to say that people are less skilled can only play the game because of the gear. Take out the driver, and most clubs haven't really changed in thirty years. A three wood is still quite a small club with a long shaft. A five iron off the deck is very similar in size to a Ping Eye 2.

Golf is hard. It always has been. And probably always will be. I just do not want to see the governing bodies decide based on tour courses stretching to 8000y or whatever they are, that they're going to mess with amateur equipment.

 

Edit. I just looked up my home club, we have 324 male members (excluding juniors). The 162 ranked handicap is 16.4 which is a course handicap of... 18! Now this is the median rather than the average, but it will be close.

[smashdn]

You didn't say anything that I didn't in what you quoted?

 

Exactly. Marketable. The pros get them for free, the companies sell them to you and me. The pros get clubs made to their specs or tweaked to their specs, they market them as the clubs that you and I can buy off the shelf. And we pay for them. If you really, really want to pay more you can pay to have a guy do some tweaking and grinding on the clubs you bought or were fitted for. But you pay.

No matter what, you and I pay. The tour guy (most of them) gets clubs and balls. The company gets marketing fodder to use on you and me. And we pay.